4.5 Article

Home-based training of rhythmic skills with a serious game in Parkinson's disease: Usability and acceptability

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.08.002

关键词

Serious games; Training; Rehabilitation; Parkinson disease; Beat perception; Synchronization; Rhythmic skills

资金

  1. CIFRE grant
  2. Institut Universitaire de France
  3. SOFMER (French Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation)
  4. NaturalPad

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the adherence, usability and acceptance of a rehabilitation protocol with a music-based serious game (SG) and its effect on rhythmic skills in Parkinson disease (PD). Methods: Sixteen PD patients with mild cognitive and motor impairments were included (mean [ SD] age 65 [7.28] years and Hoehn & Yahr score 2-3). Rehabilitation consisted of a 6-week at-home training program targeting rhythmic skills with a dedicated SG, Rhythm Workers, implemented on a tablet device. Patients were asked to play the game at least 30 min, 3 times a week. Two half-day evaluations were conducted before and after rehabilitation. Time played and average game scores were recorded. Suitability was evaluated by a questionnaire inspired by the Suitability Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) and rhythmic skills by the Beat Alignment Test from the Battery for the Assessment of Auditory Sensorimotor and Timing Abilities (BAASTA). Results: Patients played a mean (SD) of 313 (243) min, namely 57.9% of the expected time; the mean game score was 48.8/100 (19.5). The mean SEQ score for 12 patients was 29.2/45 (8.2); suitability was good to excellent for 10 patients. Beat perception reflecting rhythmic skills improved significantly in all but 5 patients. Conclusion: This study showed good to excellent suitability of an SG used on a tablet interface for rhythmic training in PD and the feasibility of this type of training in this population. (C) 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据