ArticleThe European journal of neuroscience2026
Integrating Eye Tracking and Inertial Sensing for Enhanced Freezing of Gait Detection in Parkinson's Disease.
Article in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating Eye Tracking and Inertial Sensing for Enhanced Freezing of Gait Detection in Parkinson's Disease.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Freezing of gait (FOG), a disabling symptom in Parkinson's disease, presents a major challenge for wearable classification algorithms that struggle to distinguish freezes from voluntary stops. To address this ambiguity, we evaluated whether incorporating eye-gaze kinematics could improve classification accuracy compared to using ankle-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs) alone. We analyzed data from 10 participants performing standardized walking tasks and compared two deep learning classifiers differing only in their inputs: an IMU-only model (bilateral ankle accelerometer and gyroscope) and an IMU + Gaze model that improved macro-averaged F1 from 0.657 (95% bootstrap CI: 0.461-0.756) to 0.757 (0.591-0.832; Δ = 0.099, bootstrap p = 0.016). Class level improvements were largest for standing (F1: 0.600 vs. 0.356; Δ = 0.244, p = 0.019, Holm-corrected p = 0.056), driven by recall increasing from 36.4% to 81.8%, and standing windows misclassified as freezing reduced from 59.1% (13/22) to 13.6% (3/22). These findings show that gaze kinematics complement ankle kinematics for disambiguating voluntary stopping from FOG and potentially strengthen automated monitoring, clinician-facing assessment, and patient-facing assistive technologies.
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.