Biofeedback Systems for Gait Rehabilitation of Individuals with Lower-Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with lower-limb amputation often have gait deficits and diminished mobility function. Biofeedback systems have the potential to improve gait rehabilitation outcomes. Research on biofeedback has steadily increased in recent decades, representing the growing interest toward this topic. This systematic review highlights the methodological designs, main technical and clinical challenges, and evidence relating to the effectiveness of biofeedback systems for gait rehabilitation. This review provides insights for developing an effective, robust, and user-friendly wearable biofeedback system. The literature search was conducted on six databases and 31 full-text articles were included in this review. Most studies found biofeedback to be effective in improving gait. Biofeedback was most commonly concurrently provided and related to limb loading and symmetry ratios for stance or step time. Visual feedback was the most used modality, followed by auditory and haptic. Biofeedback must not be obtrusive and ideally provide a level of enjoyment to the user. Biofeedback appears to be most effective during the early stages of rehabilitation but presents some usability challenges when applied to the elderly. More research is needed on younger populations and higher amputation levels, understanding retention as well as the relationship between training intensity and performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".