Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
In recent years there has been a renewed interest in the use of peripheral vibration to ameliorate some of the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD). The possibility that peripheral vibration can improve patients’ motor symptoms is exciting as the intervention is non-invasive and of low cost. However, there remains little published scientific research to support some of the claims. Previously we demonstrated that vibration at 80 Hz at the wrist for 30 s prior to movement onset improved motor performance in a variety of manual tasks both in healthy controls and in patients with PD.1 Here we report the results of testing whether a wearable haptic device (the ‘Emma Watch’) developed by Microsoft Research,2 which delivers constant vibratory stimuli at the wrist, significantly improves motor function of the stimulated upper limb in patients with PD.
The Emma Watch delivers constant vibration at 200 Hz through six small electromagnetic mechanical stimulators, three on each side of the wrist. The vibration frequency is modulated by a lower frequency, either 20 bpm (beats per minute) or 60 bpm. These modulation parameters were based on the parameter that improved motor function in the first tested patient with PD (60 bpm) and on a parameter that did not (20 bpm). Here we tested whether the Emma Watch could improve motor function in 16 patients with PD (11 women, mean age=63 years, range 52–72 years, Unified Parkinson’s …
Contributors AM, CH, HZ, JK designed the experiment. AM, JK performed data acquisition. AM, CH, JK analysed the data. DC, JV, JM, GS, NV, HZ built the Emma Watch. AM, NP, TF, PK, PL, HZ, JK wrote the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/M006603/1).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the local institutional ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.