MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081907779 · doi:10.2196/18455

Effect of Spatial Disorientation in a Virtual Environment on Gait and Vital Features in Patients with Dementia: Pilot Single-Blind Randomized Control Trial

2020· article· en· W3081907779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chimezie O. Amaefule, Stefan Lüdtke, Thomas Kirste, Stefan Teipel

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSpatial disorientationGaitVirtual realityDementiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationUsabilityTask (project management)PopulationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionSimulationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Orientation deficits are among the most devastating consequences of early dementia. Digital navigation devices could overcome these deficits if adaptable to the user's needs (ie, provide situation-aware, proactive navigation assistance). To fulfill this task, systems need to automatically detect spatial disorientation from sensors in real time. Ideally, this would require field studies consisting of real-world navigation. However, such field studies can be challenging and are not guaranteed to cover sufficient instances of disorientation due to the large variability of real-world settings and a lack of control over the environment. OBJECTIVE: Extending a foregoing field study, we aim to evaluate the feasibility of using a sophisticated virtual reality (VR) setup, which allows a more controlled observation of disorientation states and accompanying behavioral and physiological parameters in cognitively healthy older people and people with dementia. METHODS: In this feasibility study, we described the experimental design and pilot outcomes of an ongoing study aimed at investigating the effect of disorientation on gait and selected physiological features in a virtual laboratory. We transferred a real-world navigation task to a treadmill-based virtual system for gait analysis. Disorientation was induced by deliberately manipulating landmarks in the VR projection. Associated responses in motion behavior and physiological parameters were recorded by sensors. Primary outcomes were variations in motion and physiological parameters, frequency of disorientation, and questionnaire-derived usability estimates (immersion and perceived control of the gait system) for our population of interest. At this time, the included participants were 9 cognitively healthy older participants [5/9 women, 4/9 men; mean age 70 years, SD 4.40; Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) mean 29, SD 0.70) and 4 participants with dementia (2/4 women, 2/4 men; mean age 78 years, SD 2.30 years; MMSE mean 20.50, SD 7.54). Recruitment is ongoing, with the aim of including 30 cognitively healthy older participants and 20 participants with dementia. RESULTS: All 13 participants completed the experiment. Patients' route was adapted by shortening it relative to the original route. Average instances of disorientation were 21.40, 36.50, and 37.50 for the cognitively healthy older control, cognitively healthy older experimental participants, and participants with dementia, respectively. Questionnaire outcomes indicated that participants experienced adequate usability and immersion; 4.30 for presence, 3.73 for involvement, and 3.85 for realism of 7 possible points, indicating a good overall ability to cope with the experiment. Variations were also observed in motion and physiological parameters during instances of disorientation. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first feasibility outcomes of a study investigating the viability of using a sophisticated VR setup, based on an earlier real-world navigation study, to study spatial disorientation among cognitively healthy older people and people with dementia. Preliminary outcomes give confidence to the notion that our setup can be used to assess motion and physiological markers of disorientation, even in people with cognitive decline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04134806.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicSpatial Cognition and NavigationFrench-language works237,207