Wearable technology comprises miniaturized sensors (eg, accelerometers) worn on the body and/or paired with mobile devices (eg, smart phones) allowing continuous patient monitoring in unsupervised, habitual environments (termed free‐living). Wearable technologies are revolutionizing approaches to health care as a result of their utility, accessibility, and affordability. They are positioned to transform Parkinson's disease (PD) management through the provision of individualized, comprehensive, and representative data. This is particularly relevant in PD where symptoms are often triggered by task and free‐living environmental challenges that cannot be replicated with sufficient veracity elsewhere. This review concerns use of wearable technology in free‐living environments for people with PD. It outlines the potential advantages of wearable technologies and evidence for these to accurately detect and measure clinically relevant features including motor symptoms, falls risk, freezing of gait, gait, functional mobility, and physical activity. Technological limitations and challenges are highlighted, and advances concerning broader aspects are discussed. Recommendations to overcome key challenges are made. To date there is no fully validated system to monitor clinical features or activities in free‐living environments. Robust accuracy and validity metrics for some features have been reported, and wearable technology may be used in these cases with a degree of confidence. Utility and acceptability appears reasonable, although testing has largely been informal. Key recommendations include adopting a multidisciplinary approach for standardizing definitions, protocols, and outcomes. Robust validation of developed algorithms and sensor‐based metrics is required along with testing of utility. These advances are required before widespread clinical adoption of wearable technology can be realized. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Quantifying gait and postural control adds valuable information that aids in understanding neurological conditions where motor symptoms predominate and cause considerable functional impairment. Disease-specific clinical scales exist; however, they are often susceptible to subjectivity, and can lack sensitivity when identifying subtle gait and postural impairments in prodromal cohorts and longitudinally to document disease progression. Numerous devices are available to objectively quantify a range of measurement outcomes pertaining to gait and postural control; however, efforts are required to standardise and harmonise approaches that are specific to the neurological condition and clinical assessment. Tools are urgently needed that address a number of unmet needs in neurological practice. Namely, these include timely and accurate diagnosis; disease stratification; risk prediction; tracking disease progression; and decision making for intervention optimisation and maximising therapeutic response (such as medication selection, disease staging, and targeted support). Using some recent examples of research across a range of relevant neurological conditions—including Parkinson’s disease, ataxia, and dementia—we will illustrate evidence that supports progress against these unmet clinical needs. We summarise the novel ‘big data’ approaches that utilise data mining and machine learning techniques to improve disease classification and risk prediction, and conclude with recommendations for future direction.

Cerebellar Ataxias are a group of gait disorders resulting from dysfunction of the cerebellum, commonly characterised by slowly progressing incoordination that manifests as problems with balance and walking leading to considerable disability. There is increasing acceptance of gait analysis techniques to quantify subtle gait characteristics that are unmeasurable by current clinical methods This systematic review aims to identify the gait characteristics able to differentiate between Cerebellar Ataxia and healthy controls. Following systematic search and critical appraisal of the literature, gait data relating to preferred paced walking in Cerebellar Ataxia was extracted from 21 studies. A random-effect model meta-analysis was performed for 14 spatiotemporal parameters. Quality assessment was completed to detect risk of bias. There is strong evidence that compared with healthy controls, Cerebellar Ataxia patients walk with a reduced walking speed and cadence, reduced step length, stride length, and swing phase, increased walking base width, stride time, step time, stance phase and double limb support phase with increased variability of step length, stride length, and stride time. The consensus description provided here, clarifies the gait pattern associated with ataxic gait disturbance in a large cohort of participants. High quality research and reporting is needed to explore specific genetic diagnoses and identify biomarkers for disease progression in order to develop well-evidenced clinical guidelines and interventions for Cerebellar Ataxia.

Wearable sensors technology based on inertial measurement units (IMUs) is leading the transition from laboratory-based gait analysis, to daily life gait monitoring. However, the validity of IMU-based methods for the detection of gait events has only been tested in laboratory settings, which may not reproduce real life walking patterns. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two algorithms for the detection of gait events and temporal parameters during free-living walking, one based on two shank-worn inertial sensors, and the other based on one waist-worn sensor. The algorithms were applied to gait data of ten healthy subjects walking both indoor and outdoor, and completing protocols that entailed both straight supervised and free walking in an urban environment. The values obtained from the inertial sensors were compared to pressure insoles data. The shank-based method showed very accurate initial contact, stride time and step time estimation (<14ms error). Accuracy of final contact timings and stance time was lower (28-51ms error range). The error of temporal parameter variability estimates was in the range 0.09-0.89%. The waist method failed to detect about 1% of the total steps and performed worse than the shank method, but the temporal parameter estimation was still satisfactory. Both methods showed negligible differences in their accuracy when the different experimental conditions were compared, which suggests their applicability in the analysis of free-living gait.

The aim of this study was to compare the seven following commercially available activity monitors in terms of step count detection accuracy: Movemonitor (Mc Roberts), Up (Jawbone), One (Fitbit), ActivPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd.), Nike+ Fuelband (Nike Inc.), Tractivity (Kineteks Corp.) and Sensewear Armband Mini (Bodymedia). Sixteen healthy adults consented to take part in the study. The experimental protocol included walking along an indoor straight walkway, descending and ascending 24 steps, free outdoor walking and free indoor walking. These tasks were repeated at three self-selected walking speeds. Angular velocity signals collected at both shanks using two wireless inertial measurement units (OPAL, ADPM Inc) were used as a reference for the step count, computed using previously validated algorithms. Step detection accuracy was assessed using the mean absolute percentage error computed for each sensor. The Movemonitor and the ActivPAL were also tested within a nine-minute activity recognition protocol, during which the participants performed a set of complex tasks. Posture classifications were obtained from the two monitors and expressed as a percentage of the total task duration. The Movemonitor, One, ActivPAL, Nike+ Fuelband and Sensewear Armband Mini underestimated the number of steps in all the observed walking speeds, whereas the Tractivity significantly overestimated step count. The Movemonitor was the best performing sensor, with an error lower than 2% at all speeds and the smallest error obtained in the outdoor walking. The activity recognition protocol showed that the Movemonitor performed best in the walking recognition, but had difficulty in discriminating between standing and sitting. Results of this study can be used to inform choice of a monitor for specific applications.