↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Assessing balance through the use of a low-cost head-mounted display in older adults: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
Title
Assessing balance through the use of a low-cost head-mounted display in older adults: a pilot study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s141251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Santiago J Saldana, Anthony P Marsh, W Jack Rejeski, Jack K Haberl, Peggy Wu, Scott Rosenthal, Edward H Ip

Abstract

As the population ages, the prevention of falls is an increasingly important public health problem. Balance assessment forms an important component of fall-prevention programs for older adults. The recent development of cost-effective and highly responsive virtual reality (VR) systems means new methods of balance assessment are feasible in a clinical setting. This proof-of-concept study made use of the submillimeter tracking built into modern VR head-mounted displays (VRHMDs) to assess balance through the use of visual-vestibular conflict. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity, acceptability, and reliability of using a VRHMD to assess balance in older adults. Validity was assessed by comparing measurements from the VRHMD to measurements of postural sway from a force plate. Acceptability was assessed through the use of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire pre- and postexposure to assess possible side effects of the visual-vestibular conflict. Reliability was assessed by measuring correlations between repeated measurements 1 week apart. Variables of possible importance that were found to be reliable (r≥0.9) between tests separated by a week were then tested for differences compared to a control group. Assessment was performed as a cross-sectional single-site community center-based study in 13 older adults (≥65 years old, 80.2±7.3 years old, 77% female, five at risk of falls, eight controls). The VR balance assessment consisted of four modules: a baseline module, a reaction module, a balance module, and a seated assessment. There was a significant difference in the rate at which participants with a risk of falls changed their tilt in the anteroposterior direction compared to the control group. Participants with a risk of falls changed their tilt in the anteroposterior direction at 0.7°/second vs 0.4°/second for those without a history of falls. No significant differences were found between pre/postassessment for oculomotor score or total Simulator Sickness Questionnaire score. Both the force plate and the head-mounted display balance-assessment system were able to detect differences between conditions meant to mask visual and proprioceptive information. This VRHMD is both affordable and portable, causes minimal simulator sickness, and produces repeatable results that can be used to assess balance in older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 11%
Engineering 14 9%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Sports and Recreations 9 6%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 56 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#910
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,809
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.