Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41510277›Full record

ArticleResearch square2025

An innovative gamified gait biofeedback interface targeting propulsion: feasibility and preliminary effects.

Bennett L Alterman, Alexandra Slusarenko, Minuk Kim, Zahin Alam, Deborah Fowler, Shilpa Krishnan, Maribeth Gandy Coleman, Steven L Wolf, Trisha M Kesar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04013971 (Innovative Biofeedback Interface for Enhancing Stroke Gait Rehabilitation), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT04013971 nacompletednot on this map

Innovative Biofeedback Interface for Enhancing Stroke Gait Rehabilitation

TypeinterventionalSponsorEmory UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled19ConditionsGait, Hemiplegic, StrokeArmsAGRF Biofeedback Game, Traditional Biofeedback Interface, Control Condition
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Bennett L AltermanEmory University School of Medicine.
Alexandra SlusarenkoEmory University School of Medicine.
Minuk KimEmory University School of Medicine.
Zahin AlamEmory University School of Medicine.
Deborah FowlerSavannah College of Arts and Design (SCAD).
Shilpa KrishnanEmory University School of Medicine.
Maribeth Gandy ColemanGeorgia Institute of Technology.
Steven L WolfEmory University School of Medicine.
Trisha M KesarEmory University School of Medicine.

Funding

Cortical and spinal correlates of stroke gait rehabilitationK01HD079584 · NICHD · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI KESAR, TRISHA · 2014 to 2018
$632k
NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD079584
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Enhancing the efficacy of gait rehabilitation is an important area of need as most persons with a history of stroke continue to experience gait deficits following discharge from rehabilitation. Incorporating gamification and real-time biofeedback into gait retraining may provide benefits by increasing engagement and salience of stepping practice to target specific gait parameters, maximizing therapeutic impact on walking function. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a novel, customized, gamified gait biofeedback interface specifically designed to enhance propulsion during gait training. Methods: A repeated-measures design was used to compare 3 speed-matched treadmill walking bouts: (1) walking without biofeedback (noBF); (2) walking while receiving simple, real-time audiovisual conventional biofeedback (cBF); and (3) walking while receiving gamified, real-time audiovisual biofeedback (gBF). Gait biomechanics, physiological intensity, and self-reports of task workload, user experience, and engagement were obtained from 15 participants (9 able-bodied, 6 post-stroke). Results: Compared to noBF, both gBF and cBF showed significantly greater increases in peak anterior ground reaction force, trailing limb angle, and ankle moment of the targeted leg during biofeedback exposure (Min. 3) and during the post-test without biofeedback exposure (Post), with moderate to large effect sizes. Compared to walking without biofeedback, both biofeedback conditions induced significantly greater physiological intensity (heart rate and rating of perceived exertion). NASA-Task Load Index results showed that gBF induced a higher workload than cBF for mental demand, temporal demand, performance, frustration, and effort. Also, gBF was rated higher in the novelty component of the User Experience Questionnaire. Conclusions: This preliminary study confirmed the feasibility of real-time gamified gait biofeedback, suggesting that gBF can induce similar enhancements in gait biomechanics and physiological intensity as cBF, while promoting greater task load and mental demand during walking practice. This work lays foundations for future studies that further refine and customize the game design, as well as evaluate the effects of gBF in larger samples and greater training dosage. Trial registration: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04013971) and all study procedures were approved by the human subjects review board (IRB00106866). The study started 04/04/2022 and ended 03/31/2023.

Indexed as

biofeedbackbiomechanicsgaitgamificationstroketreadmill walking

Identifiers

PMID41510277
PMCPMC12776519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.