ArticlePloS one2020
A Quality of Experience assessment of haptic and augmented reality feedback modalities in a gait analysis system.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating haptic experience using EEG and deep learning across multiple modalities: linking stimulus and self-reports.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Emerging Innovations in Preoperative Planning and Motion Analysis in Orthopedic Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Exploring the Role of 6G Technology in Enhancing Quality of Experience for m-Health Multimedia Applications: A Comprehensive Survey.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinical Application to Improve the "Depth Perception Problem" by Combining Augmented Reality and a 3D Printing Model.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Integration of Square Fiducial Markers in Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Their Applicability in Knee Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Perceived factors informing the pre-acceptability of digital health innovation by aging respiratory patients: a case study from the Republic of Ireland.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Innovations and technology disruptions in the food sector within the COVID-19 pandemic and post-lockdown era.Trends in food science & technology · 2021Review
- Unlocking challenges and opportunities presented by COVID-19 pandemic for cross-cutting disruption in agri-food and green deal innovations: Quo Vadis?The Science of the total environment · 2020Review
- Gait Analysis in a Box: A System Based on Magnetometer-Free IMUs or Clusters of Optical Markers with Automatic Event Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gait analysis is a technique that is used to understand movement patterns and, in some cases, to inform the development of rehabilitation protocols. Traditional rehabilitation approaches have relied on expert guided feedback in clinical settings. Such efforts require the presence of an expert to inform the re-training (to evaluate any improvement) and the patient to travel to the clinic. Nowadays, potential opportunities exist to employ the use of digitized "feedback" modalities to help a user to "understand" improved gait technique. This is important as clear and concise feedback can enhance the quality of rehabilitation and recovery. A critical requirement emerges to consider the quality of feedback from the user perspective i.e. how they process, understand and react to the feedback. In this context, this paper reports the results of a Quality of Experience (QoE) evaluation of two feedback modalities: Augmented Reality (AR) and Haptic, employed as part of an overall gait analysis system. The aim of the feedback is to reduce varus/valgus misalignments, which can cause serious orthopedics problems. The QoE analysis considers objective (improvement in knee alignment) and subjective (questionnaire responses) user metrics in 26 participants, as part of a within subject design. Participants answered 12 questions on QoE aspects such as utility, usability, interaction and immersion of the feedback modalities via post-test reporting. In addition, objective metrics of participant performance (angles and alignment) were also considered as indicators of the utility of each feedback modality. The findings show statistically significant higher QoE ratings for AR feedback. Also, the number of knee misalignments was reduced after users experienced AR feedback (35% improvement with AR feedback relative to baseline when compared to haptic). Gender analysis showed significant differences in performance for number of misalignments and time to correct valgus misalignment (for males when they experienced AR feedback). The female group self-reported higher utility and QoE ratings for AR when compared to male group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.