↓ Skip to main content

Effects of long-term balance training with vibrotactile sensory augmentation among community-dwelling healthy older adults: a randomized preliminary study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of long-term balance training with vibrotactile sensory augmentation among community-dwelling healthy older adults: a randomized preliminary study
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0339-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tian Bao, Wendy J. Carender, Catherine Kinnaird, Vincent J. Barone, Geeta Peethambaran, Susan L. Whitney, Mohammed Kabeto, Rachael D. Seidler, Kathleen H. Sienko

Abstract

Sensory augmentation has been shown to improve postural stability during real-time balance applications. Limited long-term controlled studies have examined retention of balance improvements in healthy older adults after training with sensory augmentation has ceased. This pilot study aimed to assess the efficacy of long-term balance training with and without sensory augmentation among community-dwelling healthy older adults. Twelve participants (four males, eight females; 75.6 ± 4.9 yrs) were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n = 6) or control group (n = 6). Participants trained in their homes for eight weeks, completing three 45-min exercise sessions per week using smart phone balance trainers that provided written, graphic, and video guidance, and monitored trunk sway. During each session, participants performed six repetitions of six exercises selected from five categories (static standing, compliant surface standing, weight shifting, modified center of gravity, and gait). The experimental group received vibrotactile sensory augmentation for four of the six repetitions per exercise via the smart phone balance trainers, while the control group performed exercises without sensory augmentation. The smart phone balance trainers sent exercise performance data to a physical therapist, who recommended exercises on a weekly basis. Balance performance was assessed using a battery of clinical balance tests (Activity Balance Confidence Scale, Sensory Organization Test, Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Five Times Sit to Stand Test, Four Square Step Test, Functional Reach Test, Gait Speed Test, Timed Up and Go, and Timed Up and Go with Cognitive Task) before training, after four weeks of training, and after eight weeks of training. Participants in the experimental group were able to use vibrotactile sensory augmentation independently in their homes. After training, the experimental group had significantly greater improvements in Sensory Organization Test and Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test scores than the control group. Significant improvement was also observed for Five Times Sit to Stand Test duration within the experimental group, but not in the control group. No significant improvements between the two groups were observed in the remaining clinical outcome measures. The findings of this study support the use of sensory augmentation devices by community-dwelling healthy older adults as balance rehabilitation tools, and indicate feasibility of telerehabilitation therapy with reduced input from clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 338 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 14%
Student > Bachelor 40 12%
Researcher 21 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 37 11%
Unknown 126 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 14%
Engineering 37 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 9%
Sports and Recreations 21 6%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 51 15%
Unknown 137 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,929,042
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#949
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,632
of 441,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#17
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.