Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37033414›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2023

Adaptive cueing strategy for gait modification: A case study using auditory cues.

Tina L Y Wu, Anna Murphy, Chao Chen, Dana Kulić

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Tina L Y WuDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Anna MurphyClinical Research Centre for Movement Disorders and Gait, Monash Health, Cheltenham, VIC, Australia.
Chao ChenDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
Dana KulićDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with Parkinson's (PwP) experience gait impairments that can be improved through cue training, where visual, auditory, or haptic cues are provided to guide the walker's cadence or step length. There are two types of cueing strategies: open and closed-loop. Closed-loop cueing may be more effective in addressing habituation and cue dependency, but has to date been rarely validated with PwP. In this study, we adapt a human-in-the-loop framework to conduct preliminary analysis with four PwP. The closed-loop framework learns an individualized model of the walker's responsiveness to cues and generates an optimized cue based on the model. In this feasibility study, we determine whether participants in early stages of Parkinson's can respond to the novel cueing framework, and compare the performance of the framework to two alternative cueing strategies (fixed/proportional approaches) in changing the participant's cadence to two target cadences (speed up/slow down). The preliminary results show that the selection of the target cadence has an impact on the participant's gait performance. With the appropriate target, the framework and the fixed approaches perform similarly in slowing the participants' cadence. However, the proposed framework demonstrates better efficiency, explainability, and robustness across participants. Participants also have the highest retention rate in the absence of cues with the proposed framework. Finally, there is no clear benefit of using the proportional approach.

Indexed as

continuum carehuman-in-the-loopParkinson's diseaserehabilitation roboticswearable robotics

Identifiers

PMID37033414
PMCPMC10076772

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.