MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417043165 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf318.202

Augmented and mixed reality for rehabilitation of people living with Parkinson’s disease: a scoping review

2025· article· en· W4417043165 on OpenAlexaffabout
Morgan Senter, Martin Cunneen, Meg E. Morris, Paul Tennent, Sami S. Brandt, Matthew Flinders, Daniele Volpe, Susan Coote, Nienke de Vries, Amanda M. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixed realityAugmented realityRehabilitationVirtual realityQualitative researchGrey literaturePsychological interventionInclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Extended reality technology, including virtual, augmented, and/or mixed reality, has the potential to create an engaging rehabilitation experience for people living with Parkinson’s disease (PwPD). Systematic reviews have explored the use of immersive virtual reality in rehabilitation for PwPD, however, studies employing mixed and augmented reality have yet to be systematically identified and mapped. As opposed to fully immersive virtual reality, mixed or augmented reality users can see their physical environments alongside digital elements, which may be beneficial in rehabilitation contexts for PwPD to reduce fall risk. Methods: Studies examining mixed or augmented reality in rehabilitation for PwPD were identified via a scoping review. Systematic searches were conducted of Scopus, Embase, PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL, followed by grey literature searches of Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses/Conference Proceedings, Canada’s Drg Agency Grey Matters Tool, and the Overton Index. Results were screened independently by two reviewers, with two additional reviewers available for cross-checking and discussion. Results 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. 19 studies used head-mounted displays, while seven used treadmills with sensory feedback. Interventions focused most often on addressing motor symptoms via gait, balance, and task-specific training, and took place in settings including laboratories, clinical environments, and the home. Notably, long-term engagement with mixed or augmented reality technology was under-explored, with 12 out of 26 studies examining only a single session. Only one study included qualitative methods, and none of the included studies examined early-onset PD. Conclusion This scoping review identified a need for qualitative work on mixed and augmented reality in rehabilitation for PwPD, in order to better understand user experience. Additionally, longer studies are needed to examine potential long-term benefits and issues surrounding engagement with this technology over time. Future research could also explore applications of this technology for addressing non-motor symptoms, and use for people with early-onset PD.

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)0.001
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207