Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31800637›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Walking with head-mounted virtual and augmented reality devices: Effects on position control and gait biomechanics.

Zoe Y S Chan, Aislinn J C MacPhail, Ivan P H Au, Janet H Zhang, Ben M F Lam, Reed Ferber, Roy T H Cheung

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. An Interactive Vision-Based 3D Augmented Reality System for In-Home Physical Rehabilitation: A Qualitative Inquiry to Inform System Development.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zoe Y S ChanGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.ORCID 0000-0002-8883-1858
Aislinn J C MacPhailGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.
Ivan P H AuGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.
Janet H ZhangGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.
Ben M F LamGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.
Reed FerberRunning Injury Clinic, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Roy T H CheungGait & Motion Analysis Lab, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom Bay, Hong Kong S.A.R.
Hong Kong Polytechnic University · HKUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What was once a science fiction fantasy, virtual reality (VR) technology has evolved and come a long way. Together with augmented reality (AR) technology, these simulations of an alternative environment have been incorporated into rehabilitation treatments. The introduction of head-mounted displays has made VR/AR devices more intuitive and compact, and no longer limited to upper-limb rehabilitation. However, there is still limited evidence supporting the use of VR and AR technology during locomotion, especially regarding the safety and efficacy relating to walking biomechanics. Therefore, the objective of this study is to explore the limitations of such technology through gait analysis. In this study, thirteen participants walked on a treadmill in normal, virtual and augmented versions of the laboratory environment. A series of spatiotemporal parameters and lower-limb joint angles were compared between conditions. The center of pressure (CoP) ellipse area (95% confidence ellipse) was significantly different between conditions (p = 0.002). Pairwise comparisons indicated a significantly greater CoP ellipse area for both the AR (p = 0.002) and VR (p = 0.005) conditions when compared to the normal laboratory condition. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in stride length (p<0.001) and cadence (p<0.001) between conditions. No statistically significant difference was found in the hip, knee and ankle joint kinematics between the three conditions (p>0.082), except for maximum ankle plantarflexion (p = 0.001). These differences in CoP ellipse area indicate that users of head-mounted VR/AR devices had difficulty maintaining a stable position on the treadmill. Also, differences in the gait parameters suggest that users walked with an unusual gait pattern which could potentially affect the effectiveness of gait rehabilitation treatments. Based on these results, position guidance in the form of feedback and the use of specialized treadmills should be considered when using head-mounted VR/AR devices.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityVirtual RealityWalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaExercise TestFemaleGaitGait AnalysisHumansLower ExtremityMalePostureYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31800637
PMCPMC6892508
OpenAlexW2994300477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.