MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782758532 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1419292

Augmented visual feedback-aided interventions for motor rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2782758532 on OpenAlexafffund
Elaine Kearney, Sanjana Shellikeri, Rosemary Martino, Yana Yunusova

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationSunnybrook HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersToronto Rehabilitation InstituteCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychological interventionParkinson's diseaseRandomized controlled trialVisual impairmentQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyDiseasePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A systematic review was performed to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of augmented visual feedback-based treatments for motor rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease, and (2) examine treatment design factors associated with enhanced outcomes following these treatments. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from their start-date up to January 2017 using the key terms Parkinson's Disease and augmented visual feedback. Two independent raters screened the abstracts and full articles for inclusion. Relevant data were extracted and summarized, and methodological quality of accepted articles was assessed. RESULTS: Eight single-group studies and 10 randomized control trials were included in the review. Augmented visual feedback-based treatments resulted in improved outcomes with small to large effect sizes post-treatment for the majority of impairment, activity, participation, and global motor function measures, and these improvements were often superior to traditional rehabilitation/education programs. Enhanced treatment outcomes were observed in studies that provided large amounts and high intensities of treatment; gamified feedback; and provided knowledge of performance feedback in real-time on 100% of practice trials. CONCLUSION: Augmented visual feedback appears to be a useful motor rehabilitation tool in Parkinson's disease; however, high-quality, rigorous studies remain limited. Future studies should consider factors that enhance rehabilitation outcomes when designing augmented visual feedback-based interventions. Implications for rehabilitation Augmented visual feedback is a useful tool for motor rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease; augmented visual feedback-based treatments are often superior to traditional programs. These treatments are associated with improved outcomes in impairment, activity, participation, and global motor function domains. Rehabilitation professionals can optimize their use of augmented visual feedback-based treatments by providing large amounts and a high intensity of treatment, gamifying feedback, and providing knowledge of performance feedback in real-time and at a high frequency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207