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.

Compared to in-clinic balance training, in-home training is not as effective. This is, in part, due to the lack of feedback from physical therapists (PTs). Here, we analyze the feasibility of using trunk sway data and machine learning (ML) techniques to automatically evaluate balance, providing accurate assessments outside of the clinic. We recruited sixteen participants to perform standing balance exercises. For each exercise, we recorded trunk sway data and had a PT rate balance performance on a scale of 1 to 5. The rating scale was adapted from the Functional Independence Measure. From the trunk sway data, we extracted a 61-dimensional feature vector representing performance of each exercise. Given these labeled data, we trained a multi-class support vector machine (SVM) to map trunk sway features to PT ratings. Evaluated in a leave-one-participant-out scheme, the model achieved a classification accuracy of 82%. Compared to participant self-assessment ratings, the SVM outputs were significantly closer to PT ratings. The results of this pilot study suggest that in the absence of PTs, ML techniques can provide accurate assessments during standing balance exercises. Such automated assessments could reduce PT consultation time and increase user compliance outside of the clinic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to investigate the effects of incorporating vibrotactile sensory augmentation (SA) on balance performance among people with unilateral vestibular disorders (UVD). METHODS: Eight participants with UVD were recruited. Participants completed 18 balance training sessions across six weeks in a clinical setting. Four participants (68.1±7.5 yrs) were randomized to the experimental group (EG) and received trunk-based vibrotactile SA while performing the balance exercises, and four participants (63.1±11.3 yrs) were assigned to the control group (CG); CG participants completed the balance training without SA. Clinical and kinematic balance performance measures were collected before training; midway through training; and one week, one month, and six months after training. RESULTS: All participants, regardless of group, demonstrated improvements in a subset of the clinical or balance metrics immediately following completion of the balance training protocol. The EG showed significantly greater improvements than the CG for the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale and postural stability during the two standing balance exercises with head movements. The EG also had larger improvements than the CG for the Sensory Organization Test (SOT), Mini Balance Evaluations Systems Test, Gait Speed Test, Dynamic Gait Index, Functional Gait Assessment, and vestibular reliance metric calculated based on the SOT. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating vibrotactile SA into vestibular rehabilitation programs may lead to additional benefits that may be retained up to six months after training compared to training without vibrotactile SA. A larger study is warranted to demonstrate statistical significance between the groups.

Vibrotactile sensory augmentation (SA) decreases postural sway during real-time use; however, limited studies have investigated the long-term effects of training with SA. This study assessed the retention effects of long-term balance training with and without vibrotactile SA among community-dwelling healthy older adults, and explored brain-related changes due to training with SA. Sixteen participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group (EG) or control group (CG), and trained in their homes for eight weeks using smart-phone balance trainers. The EG received vibrotactile SA. Balance performance was assessed before, and one week, one month, and six months after training. Functional MRI (fMRI) was recorded before and one week after training for four participants who received vestibular stimulation. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement of SOT composite and MiniBESTest scores, and increased vestibular reliance. Only the EG maintained a minimal detectable change of 8 points in SOT scores six months post-training and greater improvements than the CG in MiniBESTest scores one month post-training. The fMRI results revealed a shift from activation in the vestibular cortex pre-training to increased activity in the brainstem and cerebellum post-training. These findings showed that additional balance improvements were maintained for up to six months post-training with vibrotactile SA for community-dwelling healthy older adults.

Intensive balance and coordination training is the mainstay of treatment for symptoms of impaired balance and mobility in individuals with hereditary cerebellar ataxia. In this study, we compared the effects of home-based balance and coordination training with and without vibrotactile SA for individuals with hereditary cerebellar ataxia. Ten participants (five males, five females; 47 ± 12 years) with inherited forms of cerebellar ataxia were recruited to participate in a 12-week crossover study during which they completed two six-week blocks of balance and coordination training with and without vibrotactile SA. Participants were instructed to perform balance and coordination exercises five times per week using smartphone balance trainers that provided written, graphic, and video guidance and measured trunk sway. The pre-, per-, and post-training performance were assessed using the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), SARA_posture&gait sub-scores, Dynamic Gait Index, modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance, Timed Up and Go performed with and without a cup of water, and multiple kinematic measures of postural sway measured with a single inertial measurement unit placed on the participants’ trunks. To explore the effects of training with and without vibrotactile SA, we compared the changes in performance achieved after participants completed each six-week block of training. Among the seven participants who completed both blocks of training, the change in the SARA scores and SARA_posture&gait sub-scores following training with vibrotactile SA was not significantly different from the change achieved following training without SA ($p>0.05)$. However, a trend toward improved SARA scores and SARA_posture&gait sub-scores was observed following training with vibrotactile SA; compared to their pre-vibrotacile SA training scores, participants significantly improved their SARA scores ($mean=-1.21, p=0.02)$ and SARA_posture&gait sub-scores ($mean=-1.00, p=0.01)$. In contrast, no significant changes in SARA scores and SARA_posture&gait sub-scores were observed following the six weeks of training without SA compared to their pre-training scores immediately preceding the training block without vibrotactile SA ($p>0.05)$. No significant changes in trunk kinematic sway parameters were observed as a result of training ($p>0.05)$. Based on the findings from this preliminary study, balance and coordination training improved the participants’ motor performance, as captured through the SARA. Vibrotactile SA may be a beneficial addition to training regimens for individuals with hereditary cerebellar ataxia, but additional research with larger sample sizes is needed to assess the significance and generalizability of these findings.

Numerous factors affect reaction times to vibrotactile cues. Therefore, it is important to consider the relative magnitudes of these time delays when designing vibrotactile displays for real-time applications. The objectives of this study were to quantify reaction times to typical vibrotactile stimuli parameters through direct comparison within a single experimental setting, and to determine the relative importance of these factors on reaction times. Young (n = 10, 21.9 ± 1.3 yrs) and older adults (n = 13, 69.4 ± 5.0 yrs) performed simple reaction time tasks by responding to vibrotactile stimuli using a thumb trigger while frequency, location, auditory cues, number of tactors in the same location, and tactor type were varied. Participants also performed a secondary task in a subset of the trials. The factors investigated in this study affected reaction times by 20–300 ms (reaction time findings are noted in parentheses) depending on the specific stimuli condition. In general, auditory cues generated by the tactors (<20 ms), vibration frequency (<20 ms), number of tactors in the same location (<30 ms) and tactor type (130 ms) had relatively large effects. Factors affected young and older adults’ reaction times in a similar manner, but with different magnitudes. These findings can inform the development of vibrotactile displays by enabling designers to directly compare the relative effects of key factors on reaction times.