Mauro Murgia, Roberta Pili, Federica Corona, Fabrizio Sors, Tiziano A. Agostini, Paolo Bernardis, Carlo Casula, Giovanni Cossu, Marco Guicciardi, Massimiliano Pau
Abstract
The use of rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) has been proven useful in the management of gait disturbances associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Typically, the RAS consists of metronome or music-based sounds (artificial RAS), while ecological footstep sounds (ecological RAS) have never been used for rehabilitation programs.
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a rehabilitation program integrated either with ecological or with artificial RAS.
An observer-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effects of 5 weeks of supervised rehabilitation integrated with RAS. Thirty-eight individuals affected by PD were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (ecological vs. artificial RAS); thirty-two of them (age 68.2 ± 10.5, Hoehn and Yahr 1.5-3) concluded all phases of the study. Spatio-temporal parameters of gait and clinical variables were assessed before the rehabilitation period, at its end, and after a 3-month follow-up.
Thirty-two participants were analyzed. The results revealed that both groups improved in the majority of biomechanical and clinical measures, independently of the type of sound. Moreover, exploratory analyses for separate groups were conducted, revealing improvements on spatio-temporal parameters only in the ecological RAS group.
Overall, our results suggest that ecological RAS is equally effective compared to artificial RAS. Future studies should further investigate the role of ecological RAS, on the basis of information revealed by our exploratory analyses. Theoretical, methodological, and practical issues concerning the implementation of ecological sounds in the rehabilitation of PD patients are discussed.
www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03228888.
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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#12,961,827
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,863
of 11,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,287
of 330,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#112
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 330,307 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
