1. |
- Chiari, Lorenzo, et al.
(author)
-
Audio-biofeedback for balance improvement: an accelerometry-based system.
- 2005
-
In: IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. - 0018-9294 .- 1558-2531. ; 52:12, s. 2108-11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper introduces a prototype audio-biofeedback system for balance improvement through the sonification using trunk kinematic information. In tests of this system, normal healthy subjects performed several trials in which they stood quietly in three sensory conditions while wearing an accelerometric sensory unit and headphones. The audio-biofeedback system converted in real-time the two-dimensional horizontal trunk accelerations into a stereo sound by modulating its frequency, level, and left/right balance. Preliminary results showed that subjects improved balance using this audio-biofeedback system and that this improvement was greater the more that balance was challenged by absent or unreliable sensory cues. In addition, high correlations were found between the center of pressure displacement and trunk acceleration, suggesting accelerometers may be useful for quantifying standing balance.
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
- Dozza, Marco, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Auditory biofeedback substitutes for loss of sensory information in maintaining stance.
- 2007
-
In: Experimental Brain Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0014-4819 .- 1432-1106. ; 178:1, s. 37-48
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The importance of sensory feedback for postural control in stance is evident from the balance improvements occurring when sensory information from the vestibular, somatosensory, and visual systems is available. However, the extent to which also audio-biofeedback (ABF) information can improve balance has not been determined. It is also unknown why additional artificial sensory feedback is more effective for some subjects than others and in some environmental contexts than others. The aim of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of an ABF system to reduce postural sway in stance in healthy control subjects and in subjects with bilateral vestibular loss, under conditions of reduced vestibular, visual, and somatosensory inputs. This ABF system used a threshold region and non-linear scaling parameters customized for each individual, to provide subjects with pitch and volume coding of their body sway. ABF had the largest effect on reducing the body sway of the subjects with bilateral vestibular loss when the environment provided limited visual and somatosensory information; it had the smallest effect on reducing the sway of subjects with bilateral vestibular loss, when the environment provided full somatosensory information. The extent that all subjects substituted ABF information for their loss of sensory information was related to the extent that each subject was visually dependent or somatosensory-dependent for their postural control. Comparison of postural sway under a variety of sensory conditions suggests that patients with profound bilateral loss of vestibular function show larger than normal information redundancy among the remaining senses and ABF of trunk sway. The results support the hypothesis that the nervous system uses augmented sensory information differently depending both on the environment and on individual proclivities to rely on vestibular, somatosensory or visual information to control sway.
|
|
4. |
- Dozza, Marco, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of linear versus sigmoid coding of visual or audio biofeedback for the control of upright stance.
- 2006
-
In: IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. - 1558-0210 .- 1534-4320. ; 14:4, s. 505-12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Although both visual and audio biofeedback (BF) systems for postural control can reduce sway during stance, a direct comparison between the two systems has never been done. Further, comparing different coding designs of audio and visual BF may help in elucidating how BF information is integrated in the control of posture, and may improve knowledge for the design of innovative BF systems for postural control. The purpose of this paper is to compare the effects of linear versus sigmoid coding of trunk acceleration for audio and visual BF on postural sway in a group of eight, healthy subjects while standing on a foam surface. Results showed that sigmoid-coded audio BF reduced sway acceleration more than did a linear-coded audio BF, whereas a linear-coded visual BF reduced sway acceleration more than a sigmoid-coded visual BF. In addition, audio BF had larger effects on reducing center of pressure (COP) displacement whereas visual BF had larger effects on reducing trunk sway. These results suggest that audio and visual BF for postural control benefit from different types of sensory coding and each type of BF may encourage a different type of postural sway strategy.
|
|
5. |
- Dozza, Marco, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of practicing tandem gait with and without vibrotactile biofeedback in subjects with unilateral vestibular loss.
- 2007
-
In: Journal of Vestibular Research: Equilibrium and Orientation. - 0957-4271. ; 17:4, s. 195-204
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Subjects with unilateral vestibular loss exhibit motor control impairments as shown by body and limb deviation during gait. Biofeedback devices have been shown to improve stance postural control, especially when sensory information is limited by environmental conditions or pathologies such as unilateral vestibular loss. However, the extent to which biofeedback could improve motor performance or learning while practicing a dynamic task such as narrow gait is still unknown. In this cross-over design study, 9 unilateral vestibular loss subjects practiced narrow gait with and without wearing a trunk-tilt, biofeedback device in 2 practice sessions. The biofeedback device informed the subjects of their medial-lateral angular tilt and tilt velocity during gait via vibration of the trunk. From motion analysis and tilt data, the performance of the subjects practicing tandem gait were compared over time with and without biofeedback. By practicing tandem gait, subjects reduced their trunk-tilt, center of mass displacement, medial-lateral feet distance, and frequency of stepping error. In both groups, use of tactile biofeedback consistently increased postural stability during tandem gait, beyond the effects of practice alone. However, one single session of practice with biofeedback did not result in conclusive short-term after-effects consistent with short-term retention of motor performance without this additional biofeedback. Results from this study support the hypothesis that tactile biofeedback acts similar to natural sensory feedback to improve dynamic motor performance but does not facilitate a recalibration of motor performance to improve function after short-term use.
|
|
6. |
- Dozza, Marco, 1978, et al.
(author)
-
Influence of a portable audio-biofeedback device on structural properties of postural sway.
- 2005
-
In: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1743-0003. ; 2, s. 13-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Good balance depends on accurate and adequate information from the senses. One way to substitute missing sensory information for balance is with biofeedback technology. We previously reported that audio-biofeedback (ABF) has beneficial effects in subjects with profound vestibular loss, since it significantly reduces body sway in quiet standing tasks.
|
|
7. |
- Horak, Fay B, et al.
(author)
-
Vibrotactile biofeedback improves tandem gait in patients with unilateral vestibular loss.
- 2009
-
In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. - : Wiley. - 1749-6632 .- 0077-8923. ; 1164, s. 279-81
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In a crossover design, subjects with unilateral vestibular loss (UVL) practiced tandem gait with eyes closed on two days, two weeks apart, with and without vibrotactile biofeedback (BF) applied to the lateral trunk. Results showed an immediate improvement in postural stability (reduction of lateral center-of-mass displacement, trunk tilt, and medial-lateral step width) that was significantly larger than effects of practice alone. However, BF did not increase the rate of improvement or retention of improved stability during gait.
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
|
|