Increased mean distance of sway during normal stance and greater maximal

Increased mean distance of sway during normal stance and greater maximal distance of sway compared with the IDP patients during the Romberg test with eyes closed off medication. Functional Reach Compared with controls, PD had increased mean acceleration in the AP and ML directions, but the groups did not differ WP1066 site significantly with respect to AP or ML Jerk scores. Harmonic ratio (HR) Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) GrazoprevirMedChemExpress Grazoprevir vertical (VT) Stride regularity Stride timing variability Gait For usual walking, PIGD patients had reduced stride regularity and reduced vertical HRs compared with the TD group while off medication. Accelerometer-derived measures from a 3-day period of in-home activity monitoring revealed that the PIGD group had reduced stride regularity and lower harmonic ratios in both the AP and VT directions compared with the TD group. (Continued) UPDRS III PD = 26.8?1.0 HRPD = 3.0?.0 Control = 0.2?.6 PD 4.5 ?.8 3D Accelerometer Freq: Not reported Lower back Mean acceleration Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Jerk Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) UPDRS III–OFF PIGD = 38.7?0.5 TD = 39.5?2.5 UPDRS III–ON PIGD = 33.3?0.0 TD = 33.4?1.6 PIGD 5.7 ?.7 TD 5.4?.2 3D Accelerometer Freq: 100 Hz Lower back Wearable Sensors for Assessing Balance and Gait in Parkinson’s Disease[32]IPD = 10 (73 [61?79]) VPD = 5 (77 [63?4])Hasmann 2014 [37]PD = 13 (65.0?.4) HRPD = 31 (62.6 ?.0) Control = 13 (63.9?.3)Herman 2014 [17]PD PIGD = 31 (65.0?.7) PD TD = 32 (64.6 ?1.6)6 /Table 1. (Continued) Disease Severity Sensor Type (Placement) Gait Postural Stability Measures Modality Findings Disease Duration (Years) PD NF 7.0 ?.0 PD F 9.0?.0 3D Accelerometer Freq: 200 Hz Head Sacrum Harmonic ratio (HR) Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Vertical (VT) RMS acceleration Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Vertical (VT) Step timing variability Compared with controls and PD non-fallers, fallers had increased step timing variability. With the exception of AP head accelerations, PD fallers had significantly reduced head and pelvis accelerations compared with non-fallers and controls. Controls had higher AP head accelerations compared with PD fallers, and PD nonfallers had lower ML accelerations for the pelvis than controls. PD fallers had lower AP and VT HRs for the head and lower AP, ML and VT HRs for the pelvis compared with non-fallers and controls. PD non-fallers had lower VT HRs for the head and pelvis and lower AP HRs for the head compared with controls. Non-fallers also had greater ML HRs for the head compared with fallers. Cognitive cueing (thinking “big step” during the swing phase) and verbal cueing (assessor saying “big step” during the swing phase) both improved AP HR compared with preferred gait (without cues). Gait Gait PD and controls did not differ significantly with respect to stride length variability, stride timing variability or AP, ML and VT HRs. After normalising these data to walking speed, PD patients had lower AP and ML HRs compared with controls. Quiet Stance The PD and control groups did not differ significantly for AP or ML RMS accelerations or Jerk scores, even when vision was occluded and/or somatosensory feedback was reduced. However, the high risk of PD (HRPD) group had greater AP and ML RMS accelerations than PD patients and controls while standing on a foam surface with eyes closed and greater scores than PD when standing on a firm surface with eyes closed. The HRPD group also had greater AP and ML Jerk scores than the.Increased mean distance of sway during normal stance and greater maximal distance of sway compared with the IDP patients during the Romberg test with eyes closed off medication. Functional Reach Compared with controls, PD had increased mean acceleration in the AP and ML directions, but the groups did not differ significantly with respect to AP or ML Jerk scores. Harmonic ratio (HR) Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Vertical (VT) Stride regularity Stride timing variability Gait For usual walking, PIGD patients had reduced stride regularity and reduced vertical HRs compared with the TD group while off medication. Accelerometer-derived measures from a 3-day period of in-home activity monitoring revealed that the PIGD group had reduced stride regularity and lower harmonic ratios in both the AP and VT directions compared with the TD group. (Continued) UPDRS III PD = 26.8?1.0 HRPD = 3.0?.0 Control = 0.2?.6 PD 4.5 ?.8 3D Accelerometer Freq: Not reported Lower back Mean acceleration Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Jerk Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) UPDRS III–OFF PIGD = 38.7?0.5 TD = 39.5?2.5 UPDRS III–ON PIGD = 33.3?0.0 TD = 33.4?1.6 PIGD 5.7 ?.7 TD 5.4?.2 3D Accelerometer Freq: 100 Hz Lower back Wearable Sensors for Assessing Balance and Gait in Parkinson’s Disease[32]IPD = 10 (73 [61?79]) VPD = 5 (77 [63?4])Hasmann 2014 [37]PD = 13 (65.0?.4) HRPD = 31 (62.6 ?.0) Control = 13 (63.9?.3)Herman 2014 [17]PD PIGD = 31 (65.0?.7) PD TD = 32 (64.6 ?1.6)6 /Table 1. (Continued) Disease Severity Sensor Type (Placement) Gait Postural Stability Measures Modality Findings Disease Duration (Years) PD NF 7.0 ?.0 PD F 9.0?.0 3D Accelerometer Freq: 200 Hz Head Sacrum Harmonic ratio (HR) Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Vertical (VT) RMS acceleration Anteroposterior (AP) Mediolateral (ML) Vertical (VT) Step timing variability Compared with controls and PD non-fallers, fallers had increased step timing variability. With the exception of AP head accelerations, PD fallers had significantly reduced head and pelvis accelerations compared with non-fallers and controls. Controls had higher AP head accelerations compared with PD fallers, and PD nonfallers had lower ML accelerations for the pelvis than controls. PD fallers had lower AP and VT HRs for the head and lower AP, ML and VT HRs for the pelvis compared with non-fallers and controls. PD non-fallers had lower VT HRs for the head and pelvis and lower AP HRs for the head compared with controls. Non-fallers also had greater ML HRs for the head compared with fallers. Cognitive cueing (thinking “big step” during the swing phase) and verbal cueing (assessor saying “big step” during the swing phase) both improved AP HR compared with preferred gait (without cues). Gait Gait PD and controls did not differ significantly with respect to stride length variability, stride timing variability or AP, ML and VT HRs. After normalising these data to walking speed, PD patients had lower AP and ML HRs compared with controls. Quiet Stance The PD and control groups did not differ significantly for AP or ML RMS accelerations or Jerk scores, even when vision was occluded and/or somatosensory feedback was reduced. However, the high risk of PD (HRPD) group had greater AP and ML RMS accelerations than PD patients and controls while standing on a foam surface with eyes closed and greater scores than PD when standing on a firm surface with eyes closed. The HRPD group also had greater AP and ML Jerk scores than the.

Leave a Reply