MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200826874 · doi:10.2196/28315

A Video Self-Modeling Intervention Using Virtual Reality Plus Physical Practice for Freezing of Gait in Parkinson Disease: Feasibility and Acceptability Study

2021· article· en· W3200826874 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lina Goh, Natalie E. Allen, Naseem Ahmadpour, Kaylena A. Ehgoetz Martens, Jooeun Song, Lindy Clemson, Simon J.G. Lewis, Hamish G. MacDougall, Colleen G. Canning

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyGaitIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationAnxietyPsychologyGait analysisMedicineParkinson's diseaseDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite optimal medical and surgical intervention, freezing of gait commonly occurs in people with Parkinson disease. Action observation via video self-modeling, combined with physical practice, has potential as a noninvasive intervention to reduce freezing of gait. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a home-based, personalized video self-modeling intervention delivered via a virtual reality head-mounted display (HMD) to reduce freezing of gait in people with Parkinson disease. The secondary aim is to investigate the potential effect of this intervention on freezing of gait, mobility, and anxiety. METHODS: The study was a single-group pre-post mixed methods pilot trial for which 10 participants with Parkinson disease and freezing of gait were recruited. A physiotherapist assessed the participants in their homes to identify person-specific triggers of freezing and developed individualized movement strategies to overcome freezing of gait. 180° videos of the participants successfully performing their movement strategies were created. Participants watched their videos using a virtual reality HMD, followed by physical practice of their strategies in their own homes over a 6-week intervention period. The primary outcome measures included the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Secondary outcome measures included freezing of gait physical tests and questionnaires, including the Timed Up and Go Test, 10-meter walk test, Goal Attainment Scale, and Parkinson Anxiety Scale. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 24% (10/42), and the retention rate was 90% (9/10). Adherence to the intervention was high, with participants completing a mean of 84% (SD 49%) for the prescribed video viewing and a mean of 100% (SD 56%) for the prescribed physical practice. One participant used the virtual reality HMD for 1 week and completed the rest of the intervention using a flat-screen device because of a gradual worsening of his motion sickness. No other adverse events occurred during the intervention or assessment. Most of the participants found using the HMD to view their videos interesting and enjoyable and would choose to use this intervention to manage their freezing of gait in the future. Five themes were constructed from the interview data: reflections when seeing myself, my experience of using the virtual reality system, the role of the virtual reality system in supporting my learning, developing a deeper understanding of how to manage my freezing of gait, and the impact of the intervention on my daily activities. Overall, there were minimal changes to the freezing of gait, mobility, or anxiety measures from baseline to postintervention, although there was substantial variability between participants. The intervention showed potential in reducing anxiety in participants with high levels of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Video self-modeling using an immersive virtual reality HMD plus physical practice of personalized movement strategies is a feasible and acceptable method of addressing freezing of gait in people with Parkinson disease.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207