MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383849550 · doi:10.2196/40433

A Wearable Vibratory Device (The Emma Watch) to Address Action Tremor in Parkinson Disease: Pilot Feasibility Study

2023· article· en· W4383849550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alissa Pacheco, Tempest A van Schaik, Nadzeya Paleyes, Miguel Blacutt, Julio Vega, Abigail R. Schreier, Haiyan Zhang, Chelsea E. Macpherson, Radhika Desai, Gavin Jancke, Lori Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Biomedical Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential tremorPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHandwritingParkinson's diseaseAccelerometerMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyArtificial intelligenceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease that has a wide range of motor symptoms, such as tremor. Tremors are involuntary movements that occur in rhythmic oscillations and are typically categorized into rest tremor or action tremor. Action tremor occurs during voluntary movements and is a debilitating symptom of PD. As noninvasive interventions are limited, there is an ever-increasing need for an effective intervention for individuals experiencing action tremors. The Microsoft Emma Watch, a wristband with 5 vibrating motors, is a noninvasive, nonpharmaceutical intervention for tremor attenuation. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study investigated the use of the Emma Watch device to attenuate action tremor in people with PD. METHODS: The sample included 9 people with PD who were assessed on handwriting and hand function tasks performed on a digitized tablet. Tasks included drawing horizontal or vertical lines, tracing a star, spiral, writing "elelelel" in cursive, and printing a standardized sentence. Each task was completed 3 times with the Emma Watch programmed at different vibration intensities, which were counterbalanced: high intensity, low intensity (sham), and no vibration. Digital analysis from the tablet captured kinematic, dynamic, and spatial attributes of drawing and writing samples to calculate mathematical indices that quantify upper limb motor function. APDM Opal sensors (APDM Wearable Technologies) placed on both wrists were used to calculate metrics of acceleration and jerk. A questionnaire was provided to each participant after using the Emma Watch to gain a better understanding of their perspectives of using the device. In addition, drawings were compared to determine whether there were any visual differences between intensities. RESULTS: In total, 9 people with PD were tested: 4 males and 5 females with a mean age of 67 (SD 9.4) years. There were no differences between conditions in the outcomes of interest measured with the tablet (duration, mean velocity, number of peaks, pause time, and number of pauses). Visual differences were observed within a small subset of participants, some of whom reported perceived improvement. The majority of participants (8/9) reported the Emma Watch was comfortable, and no problems with the device were reported. CONCLUSIONS: There were visually depicted and subjectively reported improvements in handwriting for a small subset of individuals. This pilot study was limited by a small sample size, and this should be taken into consideration with the interpretation of the quantitative results. Combining vibratory devices, such as the Emma Watch, with task specific training, or personalizing the frequency to one's individual tremor may be important steps to consider when evaluating the effect of vibratory devices on hand function or writing ability in future studies. While the Emma Watch may help attenuate action tremor, its efficacy in improving fine motor or handwriting skills as a stand-alone tool remains to be demonstrated.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207