sensors Review Fifteen Years of Wireless Sensors for Balance Assessment in Neurological Disorders Alessandro Zampogna 1,† , Ilaria Mileti 2,† , Eduardo Palermo 2 , Claudia Celletti 3 , Marco Paoloni 3 , Alessandro Manoni 4 , Ivan Mazzetta 4 , Gloria Dalla Costa 5 , Carlos Pérez-López 6,7 , Filippo Camerota 3 , Letizia Leocani 5 , Joan Cabestany 6,7 , Fernanda Irrera 4 and Antonio Suppa 1,8, * 1 Department of Human Neurosciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; alessandro.zampogna@uniroma1.it 2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, 00184 Rome, Italy; ilaria.mileti@uniroma1.it (I.M.); eduardo.palermo@uniroma1.it (E.P.) 3 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy; clacelletti@gmail.com (C.C.); marco.paoloni@uniroma1.it (M.P.); filippo.camerota@uniroma1.it (F.C.) 4 Department of Information Engineering, Electronics and Telecommunications, Sapienza University of Rome, 00184 Rome, Italy; alessandro.manoni@uniroma1.it (A.M.); ivan.mazzetta@uniroma1.it (I.M.); fernanda.irrera@uniroma1.it (F.I.) 5 Department of Neurorehabilitation and Experimental Neurophysiology Unit, INSPE-Institute of Experimental Neurology, University Vita-Salute and Hospital San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; dallacosta.gloria@hsr.it (G.D.C.); leocani.letizia@hsr.it (L.L.) 6 Technical Research Centre for Dependency Care and Autonomous Living (CETpD), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Vilanova I la Geltrú, 08800 Barcelona, Spain; carlos.perez-lopez@upc.edu (C.P.-L.); joan.cabestany@upc.edu (J.C.) 7 Sense4Care, 08940 Cornellà de Llobregat, Spain 8 IRCCS Neuromed, 86077 Pozzilli (IS), Italy * Correspondence: antonio.suppa@uniroma1.it; Tel.: +39-06-4991-4544 † The authors equally contributed to this work.  Received: 3 April 2020; Accepted: 3 June 2020; Published: 7 June 2020  Abstract: Balance impairment is a major mechanism behind falling along with environmental hazards. Under physiological conditions, ageing leads to a progressive decline in balance control per se. Moreover, various neurological disorders further increase the risk of falls by deteriorating specific nervous system functions contributing to balance. Over the last 15 years, significant advancements in technology have provided wearable solutions for balance evaluation and the management of postural instability in patients with neurological disorders. This narrative review aims to address the topic of balance and wireless sensors in several neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and other neurodegenerative and acute clinical syndromes. The review discusses the physiological and pathophysiological bases of balance in neurological disorders as well as the traditional and innovative instruments currently available for balance assessment. The technical and clinical perspectives of wearable technologies, as well as current challenges in the field of teleneurology, are also examined. Keywords: wireless sensors; wearables; balance; posturography; Alzheimer’s disease; Parkinson’s disease; multiple sclerosis; cerebellar ataxia; stroke; vestibular syndrome 1. Introduction Countries are globally experiencing a demographic shift in the distribution of the population towards older ages [1] and every year up to 35% of people aged 65 and over fall, often requiring hospital admission after mild to severe injuries [2]. Falls account for 40% of all injury-related deaths [2], Sensors 2020, 20, 3247; doi:10.3390/s20113247 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 2 of 32 and even when non-fatal, commonly cause a “post-fall syndrome”, a psychomotor regression condition responsible for psychological, postural and gait dysfunction in elderly [3]. In terms of the economic burden of falls, in 2015 the estimated medical costs attributable to fatal and non-fatal falls increased to 50 billion dollars in the United States [4]. Falls represent a major public health concern and have an enormous economic impact on society, thus requiring the development of effective strategies to prevent underlying causes. Among these, balance impairment is one of the leading determinants of falls along with ecological factors, such as environmental hazards [5]. Ageing significantly impacts on postural ability due to age-related changes in the sensorimotor and cognitive function [6]. Moreover, balance impairment frequently affects patients with neurological disorders who are twice as likely to fall compared to an age-matched healthy population [7]. To date, a history of falls is the strongest predictor of future falls [8,9], thus underscoring the need for predictive measures to determine early preventive interventions. However, clinical assessment is subjective and is not sensitive enough to identify early balance control dysfunction [10]. Conversely, traditional laboratory evaluation, including posturography through force platforms and optoelectronic systems, is objective and sensitive enough to identify subtle abnormalities but does not always reflect real-life situations. Over the last 15 years, advancements in healthcare technology have allowed analysing physiological measures of motor and non-motor behaviour objectively and unobtrusively [11]. Indeed, the availability of wearable devices has opened to the instrumental evaluation of clinical phenomena in free-living conditions. Accordingly, several authors have made a great effort to use wireless sensors in the study of balance impairment in patients with neurological disorders, thus offering new solutions for diagnosis and rehabilitation [12]. Despite several previous reviews discussing specific technical or clinical aspects of balance assessment through wearables, this narrative review aims to discuss the whole topic of balance evaluation, through wireless sensors, in patients with neurological disorders. Accordingly, in this review, we first introduce the physiology and pathophysiology of balance, including the main mechanisms underlying postural dysfunction in several neurological disorders, and report clinical tools commonly used for balance assessment. We then summarise the instrumental assessment of balance, including static and dynamic posturography. Moreover, we analyse wearable technologies available for balance assessment in neurological disorders. Finally, we speculate about prospects and challenges of wireless sensors for balance assessment in teleneurology and telerehabilitation. 2. Physiology and Pathophysiology of Balance Balance is the ability to maintain body orientation in space under static and dynamic conditions [13], respectively intended as postural stability at rest and in response to active movement or external perturbations. Over the course of evolution, the complexity of this function greatly increased with the acquisition of vertical posture and bipedalism in humans, representing the main transformation in primates [14]. A composite sensorimotor-control system based on a closed-loop circuit dynamically coordinates body segments according to environmental hazards through feedback and feed-forward strategies [15]. The central nervous system oversees balance maintenance by integrating sensory inputs from the peripheral nervous system (e.g., receptors and nerves) and motor outputs to the musculoskeletal system [15,16] (Figure 1). Brainstem nuclei, along with basal ganglia, the cerebellum, and other subcortical structures (e.g., thalamus) play crucial roles in the integration of sensory cues from the somatosensory, vestibular, and visual systems, which continuously provide an overall representation of body movement, acceleration, and position in space [15,17] (Figure 1A). By encoding an internal postural model based on reciprocal connections with the parietal cortex, the cerebellum contributes to dynamic balance control through postural responses that serve as an error-correction mechanism [16] (Figure 1B). Finally, the cerebral cortex oversees attentional and visuospatial balance requirements and manages anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs) before and during voluntary movements [18]. Cognitive-motor processes are responsible for postural optimisation based on prior experience, current context, and learning through long-latency components of postural responses [19]. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 3 of 32 Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 35 Figure Figure1.1.Physiology Physiologyofofbalance. balance.(A) (A)The Thevisual visualsystem systemprovides providesinformation informationon onthe thesurrounding surrounding environment; environment; thethe vestibular system, consisting vestibular system, consisting of of the the two two inner-ear inner-ear balancebalance organsorgans and several nervous and several structures nervous (nerves structures and and (nerves central nuclei), central encodes nuclei), angular encodes angularandand linear accelerations linear accelerationsofofthe thehead headtotosupport supportthe the clear clear vision and balance vision and balance controlcontrol via rapid via eye rapidmovements (vestibulo-ocular eye movements reflexes) (vestibulo-ocular and postural reflexes) reflexes and postural (vestibulo-spinal reflexes reflexes); (vestibulo-spinal the somatosensory reflexes); the somatosensory system sensessenses system self-movement self-movementand body and position through body specialised position through sensory specialisedreceptors sensorylocated in the receptors muscles located in the(muscle muscles spindles), joints (Ruffini (muscle spindles), jointsendings, (Ruffini Pacinian endings, corpuscles, and Golgi-like Pacinian corpuscles, receptors), and Golgi-like tendons receptors), (Golgi tendons tendon organs), and skin (Golgi tendon (Merkel organs), and cells, skinRuffini (Merkel endings, Meissner cells, Ruffini corpuscles, endings, Meissnerandcorpuscles, Pacinian corpuscles) and Pacinian [20,21]. (B) Multisensory corpuscles) [20,21]. (B)signals from visual, Multisensory signalsvestibular and from visual, somatosensory vestibularreceptors are integrated and somatosensory in the receptors arecentral nervous integrated in thesystem centraltonervous provide an internal system postural to provide modelpostural an internal and in model turn, descending and in turn,motor commands descending motor to muscles. commands (C) Reactive postural to muscles. (C)strategies and anticipatory Reactive postural strategiespostural adjustments and anticipatory allow adjustments postural balance control under allow environmental balance circumstances control under environmental (e.g.,circumstances external postural (e.g.,perturbations) and external postural motor perturbations) initiative (e.g., and voluntary motor movement), respectively. initiative (e.g., voluntary movement), respectively. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 4 of 32 The main goal of physiological mechanisms underlying balance control is the maintenance of postural stability by managing the spatio-temporal relationship between the body’s centre of mass (COM) and base of support (BOS) [22]. While reactive postural responses compensate for unexpected external perturbations, proactive postural responses allow balance control under expected external perturbations or self-produced balance disturbances through a motor prediction strategy [22]. When an external balance perturbation occurs, different postural strategies are adopted to maintain the COM projection within the BOS. Indeed, minor postural perturbations are usually counteracted by corrective strategies involving body rotations around the ankle (ankle strategy) or hip (hip strategy) that move the COM projection. Conversely, major postural disturbances require a broadening or displacement of the BOS in order to maintain the COM projection within the BOS (protective strategy) [22] (Figure 1C). Three main pathophysiological mechanisms are responsible for balance dysfunction: (i) abnormal acquisition, transmission, or perception of sensory signals (Figure 1A); (ii) abnormal sensorimotor integration and motor planning (Figure 1B); (iii) impaired transmission of motor output or musculoskeletal system damage [23] (Figure 1B,C). In patients with impaired afferent sensory information (e.g., somatosensory, vestibular or visual inputs), balance control requires compensatory strategies including attentional resources [24] and sensory reweighting [25]. Ageing is commonly associated with a progressive loss of sensorimotor function, including structural and functional changes in the somatosensory, visual, and vestibular systems, along with a decline in central neural processing and muscle strength [6]. Accordingly, ageing leads to slower reaction times and reduced limits of stability, thus worsening balance control mainly under cognitive loads and unexpected postural perturbations [6,26]. Patients with neurological disorders may manifest balance dysfunction as a result of impairment of at least one physiological component responsible for balance control significantly increasing the risk of falls compared to age-matched healthy subjects [7]. Pathophysiological mechanisms leading to balance impairment in various neurological disorders are summarized in Table 1 along with the main nervous system structures underpinning postural dysfunction. Understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying balance control in humans is the necessary background to measure balance objectively, through conventional as well as wearable technologies, in patients with neurological disorders. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 5 of 32 Table 1. Balance impairment in neurological disorders. Disease Definition Nervous Structures Involved Pathophysiological Mechanisms Main Clinical Consequence Cerebral cortex and subcortical Cognitive impairment, abnormal Neurodegenerative dementia Alzheimer’s structures, prominently sensorimotor function and vision, Hallucinations, inattention, associated with progressive cognitive disease involving nucleus accumbens peripheral sensory loss, muscle abnormal sensory reweighting and functional dysfunction [27] and putamen [28] weakness [29–32] Impaired scaling of postural responses [35], abnormal central Neurodegenerative movement Basal ganglia, locus coeruleus Postural instability, disrupted Parkinson’s proprioceptive-motor integration [36], disorder associated with progressive and pedunculopontine trunk-legs coordination, disease reduced kinaesthesia [37], axial motor and cognitive dysfunction [33] nucleus [34] freezing of gait rigidity [38], cognitive dysfunction [39] Cortico-spinal tract, cerebellum, Abnormal sensorimotor, visual, Abnormal coordination and proprioceptive pathways, Acquired demyelinating disease of cerebellar, vestibular and cognitive sensory reweighting, reduced Multiple sclerosis vestibular system, brainstem the central nervous system [40] functions [41], muscle weakness and attentional resources, strength structures for eye movement spasticity [42] impairment control [41] Neurodegenerative disease with Involuntary movements, trunk autosomal dominant pattern of Basal ganglia, prominently muscles weakness, hip flexor Chorea, abnormal sensory Huntington’s inheritance [43], associated with interesting caudate and tightness, impairment in visual and reweighting, increased stride disease cognitive and motor impairment, putamen [45] vestibular integration, ocular pursuit variability psychiatric disorders and involuntary movements and proprioception [46] movements (chorea) [44] Acquired or hereditary, as well as Cerebellum (primarily vermis acute or progressive, disorder and anterior lobe) and/or its Axial motor impairment and Cerebellar ataxia Impaired coordination of movements associated with dysfunction of connections, including asynergic movement cerebellum and/or its connections [47] spinocerebellar tracts [47] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 6 of 32 Table 1. Cont. Disease Definition Nervous Structures Involved Pathophysiological Mechanisms Main Clinical Consequence Somatosensory and motor Acute neurologic syndrome due to Cortico-spinal tract, cerebellum, dysfunction [50,51], spasticity [52], Hemispatial neglect, strength the interruption of blood supply to a proprioceptive pathways, visual and perceptual disorders impairment, abnormal Stroke part of the central nervous system by vestibular system and [53,54], including impaired coordination, sensory an ischemic or haemorrhagic vascular brainstem structures [49] perception of upright body position, reweighting injury [48] cognitive impairment [55] Vestibular nuclei, cerebellar Traumatic brain Acute blunt head traumas or peduncles, medial lemniscus, Impairment in cognitive and motor Dizziness, visual-spatial deficits injury acceleration forces to the head [56] dentato-rubro-thalamic and functionality [58] and inattention cortico-reticular pathways [57] Acute or progressive disorders of the Sensory and/or motor impairment peripheral nervous system, associate Peripheral nervous system [59], retinopathy, vestibular and Proprioception and strength Neuropathies with the disruption of nerve action (nerves) muscle impairment [60], sensory impairment potentials transmission [59] ataxia Acute or chronic disorders of the inner-ear balance organs and/or their nervous structures [61] (e.g., Vestibular system (i.e., inner-ear Abnormal spatial orientation and Vestibular Meniere’s disease, benign positional balance organs, vestibular nerve motion perception [62], ataxia, eye Dizziness and vertigo syndromes vertigo, bilateral vestibular loss, and central nuclei) movement abnormalities [61] vestibular neuritis, posterior circulation strokes) Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 7 of 32 3. Clinical Assessment of Balance The clinical assessment aims at recognizing balance impairment and identifying possible underlying causes [63]. Neurological examination routinely involves several clinical manoeuvres, including the Romberg’s test [64], the pull test [65], and the tandem gait test [66], designed to examine individual balance performance qualitatively (Table 2). In addition to these clinical manoeuvres, several standardized scales and tests provide a semiquantitative evaluation of balance (Table 2). A secondary task during motor performance (i.e., dual task) is commonly used to assess the involvement of cognitive function in balance control. Table 2. Standardised clinical tests and scales for balance assessment. Aim of the Clinical Test or Scale Procedures Outcome Measures Test/Scale The subject stands with feet close together, arms by Postural ability and the side, and with eyes open, and then closes eyes Romberg test [64] pathophysiological while maintaining the same position (removal of Unbalance and fall mechanisms vision possibly compensatory proprioceptive deficits) The subject undergoes a sudden body displacement Number of backward Pull test [65] Postural ability by a quick and forceful pull on the shoulders during steps or falling upright stance (qualitative) The subject walks a straight line while touching the Unbalance, falls or need Tandem gait test [66] Postural ability heel of one foot to the toe of the other (narrowed base to enlarge the base of of support) support The subject stands unassisted on one leg with Time of performance in One-leg stance test [67] Postural ability opened eyes and arms on the hips as long as possible seconds Gait and postural The subject sits on a chair, stands up, walks 3 m, Time of performance in Timed up and go test [68] ability turns around, walks back and sits down seconds The subject performs postural and walking motor Tinetti balance and Total score (sum of gait tasks reflecting common daily activities, such as mobility scale - Gait and postural and balance scores) by rising from a chair, maintaining upright stance after a Performance-oriented ability using a 2/3-point ordinal nudge, walking and turning (total 24 items mobility assessment [69] scale for each item consisting of 14 balance items and 10 gait items) Maximum distance (cm) The subject reaches as far forward as he can with that the subject can reach Functional reach test [70] Postural ability arms at 90◦ flexion, keeping feet on the floor forward beyond arm’s length The subject performs functional activities reflecting Total score by using a different components of postural control, such as Berg balance scale [71] Postural ability 5-point ordinal scale for reaching, bending, transferring and standing (total each item 14 items) The subject performs a self-report questionnaire on Average score in Activities of balance subjective impact of balance dysfunction on 16 daily percentage (each item Postural ability confidence scale [72] activities, such as walking in different environmental rated from 0% to 100% of and postural conditions (total 16 items) balance confidence) The subject performs different sensorimotor tasks to assess vision (e.g., dual contrast visual acuity chart), Falls risk assessment Physiological profile Pathophysiological lower limb sensation (e.g., tests of proprioception), based on the scores of assessment [73] mechanisms legs strength, step reaction times, vestibular function sensorimotor tasks (e.g., visual field dependence) and postural sway The subject performs several motor tasks reflecting different systems underlying balance control (e.g., stance on a firm or foam surface, stepping over Total score in percentage obstacles, alternate stair touching); (total 36 items referring to the partial Balance evaluation Pathophysiological categorised into 6 underlying systems: score of systems that systems test [74] mechanisms "Biomechanical Constraints," "Stability involve a 4-point ordinal Limits/Verticality," "Anticipatory Postural scale for each item Adjustments," “Postural Responses,” “Sensory Orientation” and “Stability in Gait”) When considering the clinical assessment of balance, several issues should be taken into account. First, the clinical assessment unlikely detects early postural abnormalities since it identifies balance impairment when significant pathological changes in the nervous system have already occurred. Second, the clinical assessment provides qualitative rather than quantitative evaluations of postural Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 8 of 32 ability, thus representing a subjective tool. Third, standardised clinical scales or indices, such as the Berg balance scale [75] or the dynamic gait index [76], are semiquantitative evaluations of balance, but are time-consuming and suffer from floor and ceiling effects. Lastly, the clinical setting usually involves rather predictable environments with poor ecological value. As a result, evaluation through instrumental tools, such as wearable sensors, would contribute to providing more sensitive, objective, multidimensional, long-term and ecological measures. 4. Static and Dynamic Posturography Posturography refers to the instrumental assessment of balance [77–79] under static or dynamic conditions [80,81]. Static posturography examines body postural sway while subjects maintain a static stance on a non-movable surface [79,81]. During the upright stance, the human body can be considered an unstable system in which force gravity and body inertia generate torques to be balanced [82]. Indeed, the vertical projection of the whole body mass constantly varies over time, deviating from the ankle joint centre of rotation [83]. Human standing balance can be represented by a reduced number of joints resembling an unstable single-link inverted pendulum [84]. Unlike static evaluation, dynamic posturography includes several postural tests and ad-hoc instruments designed to assess balance under experimentally-induced external perturbations [85]. External disturbances are often designed to simulate environmental hazards occurring in daily activities including a set of visual and motor challenges [85,86]. Postural responses to external perturbations can be assessed by a non-motorised movable platform, such as the Biomechanical Ankle Platform System [87], or more complex commercial robotic systems, such as the Equitest system (Neurocom International, Clackmas, OR, USA) [85], the Balance Master (Micromedical Technologies, Chatham, IL, USA) [88], or Caren (Motek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) [89]. Several non-commercial robotic platforms have been recently designed to provide various patterns of mechanical perturbation [90–94]. Common approaches include unidirectional [95] or multidirectional [85,96,97] disturbances, such as rotational [93,98–101] and translational perturbations [96,102–104], or forces applied to specific body segments [105,106]. Abrupt perturbations allow the examination of reactive postural responses, whereas continuous and oscillatory perturbations are used for the assessment of anticipatory postural strategies [101,102,104,107,108]. Postural perturbations can be also defined as predictable or unpredictable according to the subject’s awareness. The predictability/unpredictability of a specific perturbation allows the experimental investigation of reactive or anticipatory postural strategies [105,106,109]. Mechanical perturbations are often merged with visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive disturbances such as visual scene movements, imposed head accelerations, galvanic vestibular stimulation, and tendon vibration [81,85,89,110,111]. The most common tests used are the Sensory Organization Test (SOT) [112], the Motor Control Test (MCT) [113], and the Adaptation Test (AT) [81]. In the SOT, subjects are elicited through visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive modifications of the support surface and visual surroundings to create sensory conflict conditions. The MCT consists of antero-posterior perturbations at different intensity levels, while in the AT subjects experience toes-up and toes-down rotations. Several biomechanical parameters quantify balance dysfunction [114,115] by referring to two main variables: the centre of pressure (COP) and COM [116]. The COP is the application point of the total ground reaction force vector, whereas the COM refers to the average position in 3D space of all body segment positions according to their specific masses [116]. COM can be considered representative of the movements of the entire human body [116]. Several indices considering acceleration, velocity, displacement of single or multiple body segments, joint angles, and muscle activity can be measured using both traditional and wearable instrumentation (Table 3). Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 9 of 32 Table 3. Main biomechanical parameters for balance assessment through traditional and wearable instrumentation. Name Meaning Static Dynamic Range of acceleration/displacement in the AP, ML, and V direction. Impaired motor RANGE [114,117,118] [111,119] strategies report high values of Range Index Standard deviation of reference body landmarks. It is an index of average amplitude of STD [102,104,120,121] body displacements. Mean distance from the centre of acceleration/displacement trajectory. It is an index of DIST [114,117,122,123] desertion. In static evaluation, high values indicate poor motor control. Root mean square of the acceleration/displacement in AP, ML, and V direction. High RMS [114,117,122–127] [128] values represent larger dispersion and poor motor control. Average acceleration/velocity/displacement in the AP, ML, V direction. High values MEAN [118,122,127] represent unstable postural adjustments and poor motor control. Total length of the acceleration/displacement in static condition larger values represent PATH [114,117] [26,102,128] poor motor control. Mean velocity. It is the first derivative of the acceleration signal in the AP, ML and V MV [114,117] direction. Impaired motor strategies report High values of Mean Velocity Index. Total area that encapsulates the total sway path in AP and ML directions. In a static AREA [114,117,118,123,127] condition, higher values represent poor motor control. 95% ellipse sway area. It is the ellipse area that encapsulates the 95% of the sway path EA95 [114,117,126,127] in the AP and ML direction. High values represent poor motor control. Time derivative of the acceleration signal. It represents the range of changes in the JERK acceleration signal. High values represent accelerating and decelerating pattern [114,117,118,122,125] attesting more unstable condition and poor motor control. Cross-correlation between displacements of two body points. It is an index of coupling Cross-correlation between the motion behaviour of two body segments or between the movable platform [102,104,120,129] and the human body PWR Total power of the power spectrum of the acceleration signal. [114,123] [102] Frequency below which is present the 95% or 50% of the total power. High values F95 or F50 [114,118] indicate a larger amount of postural adjustments and poor motor control. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 10 of 32 Table 3. Cont. Name Meaning Static Dynamic Centroidal frequency of the signal in the AP, ML and V direction. It is the frequency at CF which the power is balanced, i.e., the total power above this frequency is equal to the [114,117,122] one below. Poor motor control is identified by low values of CF. Frequency dispersion. It is a measure of the variability of the frequencies of the power FD spectral density. Values close to zero indicate pure sinusoidal patterns of the signal and [114,117,118,122] a more stable motor control. It is the power spectrum entropy of the signal. It is an index of movement smoothness Entropy [127,130] and the inability to regulate postural fluctuations. It the area below the EMG curve over a specific range of time, starting from the onset of the perturbation. Mostly this index of muscular intensity is computed during the early Magnitude [111,119] response (0–200 ms), the intermediate response (201–400 ms) and the late response (401–600 ms). Impaired postural strategies report lower values of muscle activation. Time delay between onset of perturbation and muscle activation. It represents how fast Onset latency a muscle reacts after a perturbation. Impaired balancing strategies report high values of [86,90,111,119] onset latency. Time between the onset of perturbation and the maximum activation of the muscle or the maximum peak of joint angle. It indicates how quickly a muscle/joint reaches its [86,90,111,119,129, Time to peak maximal value. In dynamic evaluation, lower values indicate high capability in 131] counteracting perturbation. It is the ratio between the magnitude of the agonist and antagonist muscles activity. Coactivation Impaired postural strategies present an increased coactivation of [86,90] agonist-antagonist muscles. Peak angle Peak of the angular displacement of two adjacent body segment. [86,129,131] Anticipatory and compensatory postural adjustments. EMG activity and principal component analysis are estimated over four-time windows in relation to perturbation APAs–CPAs onset, i.e., APA1 (from −250 ms to −100 ms); APA2 (from −100 ms to +50 ms); CPA1 [95,105,106,109] (from +50 ms to +200 ms); CPA2 (from 200 ms to +350 ms). Impaired motor control reports smaller and delayed APAs during unexpected perturbation. AP: antero-posterior; APA: anticipatory postural adjustment; CPA: compensatory postural adjustment; EMG: electromyography; ML: medio-lateral; V: vertical. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 11 of 32 Overall, classical laboratory posturography through force plates and optoelectronic systems provides reliable, accurate, and comprehensive measurements for balance assessment. However, these techniques are generally expensive, encumbering, and also require supervised settings as well as technical expertise, thus precluding their use for long-term monitoring in daily life situations. Accordingly, current research on posturography has recently moved on wearable technologies [132–137] possibly providing objective, long-term and free-living monitoring of postural ability at a negligible cost. 5. Wearable Technologies Recent advances in microelectronics have led to the production of small flexible sensors, even integrated into clothing (“e-textile”) [138], thus making wearable devices suitable for free-living applications [139]. To date, the main wearable technologies available for balance assessment include mechanical devices, such as inertial and pressure sensors, and physiological devices, such as surface electromyography sensors (sEMG) (Figure 2). Wireless inertial sensors are the most used solution in wearable systems and have been widely adopted for balance and gait assessment [115,140–142]. Half of the previous studies used commercial inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors including triaxial accelerometers and gyroscopes, and half adopted stand-alone accelerometers [143] or gyroscopes [144]. The combination of triaxial accelerometers, triaxial gyroscopes and magnetometers compose magnetic and inertial measurement units. Sensor placement depends on the specific postural task under investigation [115]. For instance, wearable sensors can be placed over the waist or trunk in order to measure postural sway and trunk acceleration. Other possible body locations include the lower limbs, sternum, upper limbs and forehead. Triaxial sensors can capture spatio-temporal and 3D kinematic data including joint and segment angles [145–147]. Overall, the combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers provides accurate information on body spatial orientation and motion (Figure 2A). Besides inertial devices, wearable sEMG sensors evaluate specific patterns of muscle activation during static and dynamic postural perturbations. sEMG, therefore, allows a better understanding of physiological mechanisms responsible for balance control [148,149] (Figure 2B). Lastly, wearable pressure sensors are instrumented insoles placed or integrated into the shoe to measure pressure changes between the foot and ground [150]. The accuracy of this discrete sensor system is comparable to non-wearable technologies such as the laboratory force platform (Figure 2C). In addition to mechanical and physiological devices, there are wearable sensors able to continuously monitor the concentration of specific biochemical markers in biofluids, through miniaturized and flexible devices [151]. These innovative sensors would open to interesting prospects also referring to the assessment of balance. For instance, monitoring L-Dopa or dopamine concentration by microneedle patches would be a helpful tool to correlate postural ability with dopaminergic treatments in patients with Parkinson’s disease [152,153]. Currently, several wearable sensors, mostly including inertial devices, are available on the market for approved clinical use in balance assessment [154], also including self-adhesive biosensors (for further details see www.clinicaltrials.gov). Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 35 Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 12 of 32 Figure 2. Wearable technologies. Three main types of wireless sensors are available for motion analysis and balance assessment, including mechanical (inertial and Figure pressure 2. Wearable sensors) (A,C) andtechnologies. Three physiological main (surface types of wireless sensors) electromyography sensors are available for (B) wearable motion devices. AP:analysis and balance antero-posterior; assessment, ML: including mechanical (inertial and medio-lateral. pressure sensors) (A) and (C) and physiological (surface electromyography sensors) (B) wearable devices. AP: antero-posterior; ML: medio-lateral. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 13 of 32 The large volume of data produced by wearable sensors requires the development of specialised algorithms and machine learning algorithms to select clinically-valuable measures [138]. Owing to the considerable processing capacity of wearable devices, embedded algorithmic sets can be used for the online and remote execution, but at the expense of the battery charge duration. To optimise the performance of these algorithms in recognising clinical phenomena, a common approach leverages the so-called “sensor fusion”, which consists of the combination of sensory data and signals derived from distinct sources so that the resulting information is more accurate (e.g., integration of inertial and electromyography signals) [155]. Accordingly, the emerging trends in wearables are moving towards the design of integrated sensors, including devices composed of IMUs and sEMG [148], to be user-friendly, waterproof and unobtrusive. Table 4 summarises the strengths, limitations and challenges of each type of wireless sensors currently used for balance assessment. Moreover, Table S1 reports all the previously published reviews on balance assessment through wearable devices in healthy subjects and patients affected by various medical conditions. Table 4. Strengths, limitations and challenges of wireless sensors currently available for balance assessment. Wireless Sensor Strengths Limitations Challenges Possible magnetic interferences, New algorithms for Low cost and high errors of misalignment, IMU position and orientation accuracy orthogonality and offset and energy correction consumption New implantable EMG Crosstalk due to adjacent muscles, Noninvasive analysis sensors and dry sEMG skin-electrode interface noise and and unobtrusiveness electrodes composed of electrode positioning conductive fabric Outdoor measurements Low comfortability during gait, New capacitive sensors Pressure and easy integrability limited sensitive area and high cost composed of fabric IMU: Inertial Measurement Unit; sEMG: surface electromyography 6. Literature Research Strategy and Criteria Literature research of studies investigating balance impairment through the use of wireless sensors in neurological disorders was performed using the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Literature criteria included the following terms: “wireless sensors” OR “wearables” OR “inertial measurement unit” OR “surface electromyography” OR “pressure sensors” AND “neurological disorders” OR “Alzheimer’s disease” OR “stroke” OR “Parkinson’s disease” OR “multiple sclerosis” OR “vestibular disorders” OR “cerebellar ataxia” OR “traumatic brain injury” OR “Huntington’s disease” OR “neuropathy” AND “balance” OR “posturography” OR “postural control.” Eligible studies were experimental studies published from January 2005 to March 2020, examining balance through wireless sensors in patients suffering from the above reported neurological disorders. The reference lists of retrieved articles were also manually searched for additional studies. Reviews, reports, conference proceedings, and articles in languages other than English were not considered in the evaluation of eligible studies. 7. Wearable Technologies in Neurological Disorders Previous studies using wearable sensors have investigated balance impairment in Parkinson’s disease [114,122,124,125,156–168], multiple sclerosis [118,146,169–177], stroke [52,178–184], traumatic brain injuries [123,126,185–189], cerebellar ataxia [130,190–195], vestibular syndromes [196–199], neuropathies [199–201], Alzheimer’s disease [32,202,203], and Huntington’s disease [46,204]. Most of these studies have compared patients affected by neurological disorders with healthy subjects. However, a minority of authors [52,167,176,178,180,187] have analysed postural ability only in a group of patients with neurological disorders without including a control group. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 14 of 32 Concerning the type of sensors used for balance assessment, most of the existing studies have applied inertial devices, primarily accelerometers and gyroscopes. Several authors [46,162,163,183,184] have even used inertial sensors installed in common tablet computers and smartphones. Conversely, no authors have used pressure sensors, while only a few have adopted wireless sEMG sensors [166–168] to analyse balance impairment in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Strengths and limitations of each type of sensor are shown in Table 4. Each type of sensor technology would be implemented by addressing some challenges, including the elaboration of new algorithms, the development of implantable EMG tools and, finally, the use of unobtrusive “e-textile” devices (see Table 4). Also, future studies would benefit from the integration of various sensor technologies (i.e., sensor fusion) to optimize the measure of balance dysfunction in patients with neurological disorders. Regarding the number and body location of sensors, authors have used 1 to 8 inertial devices and multiple body segments, including the upper (10 studies) and lower limbs (21 studies), head (1 study), trunk (18 studies), and waist (48 studies), depending on the static or dynamic postural task chosen for balance assessment. Indeed, some authors who investigated postural evaluation during gait (e.g., [122,146,161,169,172,175]) and instrumented versions of clinical tests, such as the push and release test [171] and the Fukuda Stepping Test [182], have usually applied more sensors than those evaluating static balance during upright stance (e.g., [52,114,125,157,158,163,177,183–185,188,191–194,199,203,204]. However, despite one study [204], all authors have included the lumbo-sacral region as the main location of inertial sensors for the analysis of postural sway, according to the COM position. Conversely, multiple sEMG sensors have been placed mainly on lower limbs to monitor muscle activity during postural perturbations [166–168]. The number of sensors and their placement on the body is a relevant issue for balance assessment, also requiring to consider a proper cost and energy-benefit analysis, as well as the efforts for patients and caregivers. The number of sensors to be used depends on the specific clinical phenomenon under investigation (e.g., postural sway for balance control) and the need for maintaining high-quality measurements, through appropriate sampling rate and estimated energy consumption. Indeed, though more informative, a high number of devices would be computationally demanding and expensive, as well as uncomfortable to be applied in a domestic environment. Considering the accuracy of sensors in balance assessment, some authors [52,114,156,157,159, 162,164,171,173,174,186,191,193,194,200] have compared wearable device measurements with those of standardised laboratory measurement systems, such as force plates and 3D motion-capture systems. These authors have agreed on the moderate or strong correlation between specific inertial indices (e.g., root mean square of acceleration time series [114], acceleration peaks of anticipatory postural adjustments [156,159], time to reach stability [171]) and COP or optical measures, thus suggesting an accurate performance of inertial wearable devices compared to standardised instrumentations in the laboratory. However, validation studies in unsupervised settings are warranted to further support the reliability of wireless sensors for balance assessment in domestic environments. Most authors [32,52,114,118,123–126,130,146,157,158,163,165,169,170,173,174,176–178,183,185–195, 197–204] have performed a static balance evaluation by analysing maintenance of the upright stance with different amplitudes of the BOS (e.g., side-by-side, tandem, single-leg stance). These protocols have also included the assessment of sensory and cognitive contribution to balance control by removing visual and/or proprioceptive cues (e.g., closed eyes, foam surface) and by increasing cognitive load (e.g., dual-task). Moreover, a large number of authors [46,118,122,146,156,159–162,164,166–169,171– 173,175,179–182,190,196] have investigated dynamic postural control, mostly through the use of walking tasks, instrumented versions of clinical tests (e.g., Timed-Up and Go, stand and walk, and push and release tests), and external or self-triggered postural perturbations. Although several authors [46,123,125,157,161,166–168,171–173,178–181,190,196,202] have assessed balance during tasks possibly reflecting daily postural challenges, all research protocols have been conducted in a laboratory setting. However, since supervised laboratory settings only partially reflect challenging “real-life” situations, these studies do not provide firm conclusions about the application of wireless sensors in a domestic environment. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 15 of 32 Concerning biomechanical measures, previous studies have used filtered acceleration signals by inertial sensors to measure body sway in all the neurological disorders here considered, but have evaluated APAs during gait initiation only in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Overall, these measures have shown increased postural sway in patients with neurological disorders and decreased APAs during gait initiation in patients with Parkinson’s disease, as compared to age-matched healthy subjects. These parameters have also identified subclinical postural abnormalities (e.g., in vestibular syndromes) correlating with the amount of clinical disability [114,118,124,146,163,165,170,171,175,176,184,190,195]. A few authors [166–168] have measured muscle postural synergies with sEMG sensors in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Given that no studies have directly compared biomechanical indices in patients with different neurological disorders, it is unclear whether any of the measures may discriminate the various conditions. These findings overall have shown that wireless sensors can accurately quantify several kinematic measures, including the time and frequency COM dynamics [114,174,200], the 3-D trajectory of body sway angles [191], the joint range of motion [205], the stepping latency [171], and the APAs [159]. Conversely, the evaluation of kinetic measures, including the analysis of internal forces and moments acting on human joints, by wearable systems remains quite challenging [206]. Although the novel approach by wearables would help to partially overcome this issue with inertial and pressure sensors, inverse dynamics techniques, through motion capture systems and force platforms, are currently more suitable to achieve these measures. Moreover, to date, other dynamic variables, including the joint power and the energy cost of a movement, have not yet been evaluated by wearable sensors. Specifically concerning APAs, in addition to inertial measurements, wearable technologies would also allow long-term APAs recordings, through wearable sEMG, in more ecological environments. However, APAs recordings through wearable sEMG would require advanced algorithms for pattern recognition to achieve consistent observation. A further consideration concerns the generalizability to more ecological environments of behavioural measures observed in the laboratory setting. Unlike motor performance under “real-world” postural perturbations, experimental measures under a supervised laboratory setting would improve per se patients’ motor behaviour owing to unspecific and disease-unrelated factors, such as attentional and emotional aspects. The appropriate selection of a standardised measure for balance assessment would promote more consistent evaluation among the various neurological disorders. Table 5 provides an overall overview of the methodological approaches and findings from studies here examined. Also, a more detailed description of these studies is shown in Table S2. Finally, Figure 3 shows the positive trend of published studies on wireless sensors for balance assessment in the various neurological disorders. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 16 of 32 Table 5. Sensor-based balance evaluation in neurological disorders. Disease and Studies with a Type and Main Other Main Experimental Main Postural Clinical-Behavioural Number of Main Findings Control Group Locations of Sensors Measurements Setups Measures Correlations Studies Upright stance with open or closed eyes, Pitch and roll angles; Alzheimer’s different BOS Lower minimal roll angle, COM displacement; disease N=3 1 to 5 IMUs on trunk, amplitudes and larger COM displacement, Not significant or Not performed sway velocity, area N=3 [32,202,203] waist, legs and thighs surfaces (e.g., firm and higher sway area and RMS not performed and path; RMS [32,202,203] foam), as well as acceleration in AD than HS acceleration during virtual perturbations Gait initiation; upright IMUs: APAs; mean Correlation between inertial, Acceleration stance with open or velocity; RMS COP and optical measures; 1 to 8 IMUs on trunk, changes correlated closed eyes, different acceleration; jerkiness; hypometric APAs, higher waist, wrists, thighs, with PIGD and Parkinson’s BOS amplitudes and peak-to-peak sway; mean velocity, acceleration shanks and feet; 10 to Force plate (COP UPDRS-III scores, disease N = 16 surfaces (e.g., firm and 95% ellipse area; size and jerkiness, larger 22 sEMG on lower measures) and strategy index with N = 17 [114,122,124,125, foam), under and not strategy index. peak-to peak sway and 95% limb muscles, lumbar infrared optical ABC scores, muscle [114,122,124,125, 156–166,168] under cognitive load; sEMG: amount of ellipse area, predominant erector spinae, system modulation with 156–168] SOT; ISAW; variance accounted ankle strategy; lower VAF thoracic erector spinae postural ability and self-triggered and for; synergy index; and synergy index, reduced and rectus abdominis disease severity in external postural ASAs; modulation ASAs and muscle PD perturbations; OLS index modulation in PD than HS Upright stance with Correlation between inertial open or closed eyes and COP measures; larger Sway acceleration and different surfaces sway acceleration RMS acceleration; correlated with ABC (e.g., firm and foam); amplitude, angular trunk mean velocity; sway and MSWS12 scores; Force plate (COP walking tasks (e.g., range of motion in roll and Multiple sclerosis N = 10 1 to 6 IMUs on trunk, jerk, path length, area; RMS acceleration, measures) and TUG, timed 25-foot yaw axes, sway path length N = 11 [118,146,169–175, waist, wrists, thighs, F95%; time to reach displacement, mean infrared optical walk, 6-minute walk and area, reduced ML sway [118,146,169–177] 177] shanks and feet stability; coherence of frequency and time system test); external jerk, higher F95%, longer acceleration between to reach stability perturbations (e.g., time to reach stability and trunk and legs correlated with push and release test, lower acceleration EDSS scores backward coherence between trunk perturbation) and legs in MS than HS Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 17 of 32 Table 5. Cont. Disease and Studies with a Type and Main Other Main Experimental Main Postural Clinical-Behavioural Number of Main Findings Control Group Locations of Sensors Measurements Setups Measures Correlations Studies Upright stance with Huntington’s open or closed eyes RMS acceleration; Higher RMS acceleration; disease N=2 1 to 2 IMUs on trunk Not significant or Not performed and different BOS total, peak and mean larger peak and total N=2 [46,204] and waist not performed amplitudes; sitting, angular excursion excursions in HD than HS [46,204] standing and walking Correlation between inertial Trunk angular Inertial measures Upright stance with and COP measures; larger displacement and (e.g., trunk angular open or closed eyes trunk angular displacement velocity, sway path displacement and Cerebellar ataxia 1 to 6 IMUs on trunk, and different surfaces and velocity, sway path N=7 Force plate (COP length, area of the velocity) correlated N=7 waist, wrists, ankles (e.g., firm and foam); length, area of the convex [130,190–195] measures) convex hull, convex with ICARS scores, [130,190–195] and feet walking tasks and hull, convex polyhedron polyhedron volume, Tinetti’s Mobility external perturbations volume, entropy and 95% of entropy, 95% of the Index and (e.g., retropulsion test) the ellipse sway area in CA ellipse sway area SARA scores than HS Upright stance with open or closed eyes Body displacement Higher maximum and Gyroscope data Stroke and different BOS N=5 1 to 5 IMUs on head, Force plate (COP (time, velocity, minimum acceleration, LL negatively N=8 amplitudes; walking [179,181–184] trunk, waist and shins measures) acceleration); RMS trunk acceleration, angular correlated with Berg [52,178–184] tasks; functional reach acceleration velocity in ST than HS balance scale scores test; Fukuda stepping test; OLS Upright stance with RMS acceleration; open or closed eyes, Higher RMS, total power, Self-reported sway amplitude, Traumatic brain different BOS mean distance, acceleration symptoms (e.g., N=6 velocity, variability injury Force plate (COP amplitudes and range, path length, ellipse dizziness, headache) [123,126,185,186, 1 IMU on waist and frequency; ellipse N=7 measures) surfaces (e.g., firm and and total sway area, 95% correlated with sway 188,189] and total sway area; [123,126,185–189] foam); standard and ellipsoid sway volume and path length and 95% ellipsoid sway modified balance error area in TBI than HS postural sway area volume scoring system Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 18 of 32 Table 5. Cont. Disease and Studies with a Type and Main Other Main Experimental Main Postural Clinical-Behavioural Number of Main Findings Control Group Locations of Sensors Measurements Setups Measures Correlations Studies Upright stance with Correlation between inertial open or closed eyes, RMS acceleration; and COP measures; higher Vibration perception Neuropathies N=3 1 to 2 IMUs on waist Force plate (COP different BOS range of acceleration; RMS acceleration, threshold negatively N=3 [199–201] and shin measures) amplitudes and peak velocity; body acceleration range, and correlated with [199–201] surfaces (e.g., firm and sway area peak velocity; larger body postural control foam) sway area in NP than HS Upright stance with Higher range of open or closed eyes, Range of acceleration; acceleration, peak velocity, Vestibular different BOS peak velocity; RMS RMS acceleration and syndromes N=4 1 to 4 IMUs on head, amplitudes and acceleration; mean Not significant or Not performed quotient of Romberg for N=4 [196–199] trunk, waist and legs surfaces (e.g., firm and power frequency; not performed some inertial measures; [196–199] foam); walking tasks; quotient of Romberg smaller mean power shortened functional for inertial measures frequency in VS than HS mobility test ABC: Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale; AD: patients with Alzheimer’s disease; ASA: Anticipatory Synergy Adjustment; APA: anticipatory postural adjustment; BOS: base of support; CA: patients with cerebellar ataxia; COM: centre of mass; COP: centre of pressure; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; F95%: frequency comprising 95% of the signal; HD: patients with Huntington’s disease; HS: healthy subjects; ICARS: International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale; IMU: Inertial Measurement Unit; ISAW: Instrumented Stand and Walk Test; LL: latero-lateral; ML: medio-lateral; MS: patients with multiple sclerosis; MSWS12: 12-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale; N: number; NP: patients with neuropathies; OLS: one-leg stance; PIGD: Postural Instability/Gait Difficulty score; PD: patients with Parkinson’s disease; RMS: root mean square; SARA: Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia; sEMG: surface electromyographic sensors; SOT: Sensory Organisation Test; ST: patients with previous stroke; TBI: patients with previous traumatic brain injury; TUG: Timed-Up and Go test; UPDRS-III: Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale—part III; VAF: variance accounted for; VS: patients with vestibular syndrome. Sensors2020, Sensors 20,3247 2020,20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 35 19 of 32 Figure 3. Trend of published studies on wireless sensors for balance assessment in neurological disorders. The figure includes studies reported in Table 5 and Table S2, Figure 3. Trend of published studies on wireless sensors for balance assessment in neurological disorders. The figure includes studies reported in Table 5 and based on the literature research through MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library (accessed on 31 March 2020). Note that the Table S2, based on the literature research through MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library (accessed on March 31, 2020). Note that the figure does not include a study published in 2005 [190] for graphical reasons. figure does not include a study published in 2005 [190] for graphical reasons. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 20 of 32 8. Teleneurology and Telerehabilitation for Balance: Prospects and Challenges Along with the ageing of the population, the prevalence of neurological disorders will also significantly increase in the next decades [207]. Accordingly, public health challenges will burden society and healthcare systems, which will face a heavy demand for the neurologic care of acute and chronic conditions. By allowing long-term monitoring for preventive and recovery strategies, wireless sensors will promote teleneurology and telerehabilitation and take some of the burden off of healthcare facilities. Concerning the role of teleneurology for balance assessment through wireless sensors, so far, a few studies have addressed this topic in patients with neurological disorders. Nevertheless, several advantageous clinical prospects related to this issue should be considered. First, access to care for patients with balance impairment is quite challenging due to transportation difficulties and dependence on caregivers. Wireless sensors would be a sensitive and objective tool for the domestic measurement of balance control during the performance of validated instrumented tasks, such as maintenance of an upright stance. Moreover, other symptoms commonly associated with postural dysfunction, such as gait disorders [208], would also be measured, thus providing more detailed clinical information. Current evidence suggests that teleneurology promotes a reduction of patient and caregiver burden [209]. Second, medical visits in a hospital setting do not always reflect real-life situations, which commonly present insidious postural challenges. Therefore, the long-term monitoring of postural ability during common daily activities could provide ecological data on patient balance control in free-living conditions. This approach would help to identify early subclinical changes of balance, allow the objective assessment of fall risk and design individualised strategies for fall prevention (e.g., use of mobility aids and changes of environmental hazards). Third, the real-time identification of situations at high risk of falling would also allow patients to benefit from temporary preventive or rescue interventions. For instance, the detection of near-falls could be used for the automatic activation of protective tools, such as inflatable hip pads aimed to prevent fall-related injuries [210]. A further strategy would include the improvement of balance control by wearable-based sensory biofeedback, able to enhance patients’ awareness and in turn, prevent falls [211,212]. Along with fall prevention strategies, rehabilitation is the main therapeutic approach for improving balance in patients with neurological disorders. The main goal of rehabilitation is to enhance individual postural skills, supporting patient independence in ecological settings. To this aim, by using information and communication technologies, telerehabilitation would provide rehabilitative services directly at home [213] with similar effectiveness to conventional therapy [214]. Wireless sensors would allow monitoring of individual postural ability in a domestic environment, increasing adherence to the rehabilitative programme, and thus promoting tailored therapeutic approaches [215]. Moreover, wireless sensors would also support home-based interactive rehabilitation programmes by providing real-time feedback during unsupervised training. Nowadays, the increasing use of mobile phones and other technological tools in multiple aspects of daily life is promoting a widespread technological education in the general population, including the elderly. Accordingly, in the next decades, user-friendly wearables will be increasingly used to increase adherence to telerehabilitation strategies. Owing to remote and continuous evaluation by physicians and physical therapists, telerehabilitation would reduce the number of periodic hospital admissions. However, some initial education to patients and caregivers concerning wearables applications for therapeutic purposes is likely required. So far, several clinical trials have already adopted sensor-based measurements to objectively evaluate balance and its response to pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological interventions [216] (for further details see www.clinicaltrials.gov). However, only a few authors [216–220] have examined the effectiveness of sensor-based balance training in patients with neurological disorders. Furthermore, most of these studies involved a laboratory or clinical setting supervised by experienced staff [216]. Hence, to reach some firm conclusion, new randomised controlled trials should assess large samples of patients in ecological settings, including the domestic environment [216]. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 21 of 32 The main current challenge is the technological migration of wireless sensors from the laboratory setting to a domestic and unsupervised environment. The technological feasibility of sensor systems primarily depends on the variables to be measured as well as on the computing-capacity integrated into the wearables. Unlike conventional laboratory systems, the domestic use of wearable sensors would imply some limitations such as autonomy and interface capabilities (e.g., interaction with the user, communication with external devices and servers for information sharing). Concerning IMUs, challenges include the calculation capacity, which mainly depends on the running algorithms thus influencing the selection of a specific device, processing characteristics, memory capacity and communication protocol. Overall, the technological migration of wireless sensors from the laboratory setting to a domestic environment would benefit from the identification of standardized and accurate measures. To this aim, understanding the physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying balance is the background for selecting, measuring and interpreting the specific postural variables to be assessed. Also, the improvement of communication between wearable sensors and external devices, as well as the implementation of standardized and low energy-consuming algorithms are additional limitations to overcome. To support this migration process, current commercialization efforts are reducing sensor dimensions to ensure the unobtrusiveness of the devices, though maintaining safety and accuracy standards. “Real-world” evidence aimed at monitoring balance disorders through wireless sensors in ecological settings (e.g., patients’ home or nursing home) will further clarify strengths and limitations in the telemedicine and telerehabilitation approaches. Several open questions remain when considering teleneurology and telerehabilitation approaches. To date, only a few randomised controlled trials have addressed this topic in patients with neurological disorders, thus pointing to the weak internal validity of the current clinical evidence. Future studies should propose easier solutions to be applied in unsupervised settings without requiring technical expertise (e.g., issues related to data storage, access platforms and software/app usage). As a possible solution, machine-learning algorithms, including those using artificial neural networks (deep learning algorithms) [221], would be suitable tools for the automatic storage, interpretation and management of healthcare data [222–224]. Indeed, by learning from massive amounts of longitudinal data, machine-learning systems could lighten the burden of technical expertise and improve clinical decision making through a tailored approach. Another relevant point concerns some ethical issues, such as the security of the overwhelming amount of healthcare sensitive data derived from the use of wireless sensors, possibly leading to the generation of discriminatory profiles, manipulative marketing or data breaches [225]. Accordingly, limiting the wireless transmission to a small number of selected data (e.g., fall episodes) would help to preserve the confidentiality of a large amount of recorded information in case of privacy violation. Using proper encryption technology and increasing the users’ awareness of privacy rights would help to address ethical issues. Nonetheless, strict regulations for data management should also be adopted to guarantee users’ confidentiality and integrity [226]. The use of inertial sensors included in smartphones would address the issue of the cost and availability of wearable sensors [227]. 9. Conclusions Over the last 15 years, wearable devices have been largely used for the assessment of balance in patients affected by neurological disorders, providing valuable data compared with standard laboratory instrumentation. Indeed, a great experience in the use of wireless sensors for balance evaluation has been achieved in the laboratory setting. Conversely, much still needs to be done for the technological migration of wearable devices from the laboratory to the domestic unsupervised environment. This migration would open several valuable prospects, including teleneurology and telerehabilitation approaches. Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 22 of 32 Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/11/3247/s1, Table S1: previous reviews on balance and fall risk assessment through wireless sensors and Table S2: sensor-based balance evaluation in neurological disorders. References [32,46,52,114,115,118,122–126,130,146,147,156–204,211, 216] are cited in the supplementary materials. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S., A.Z. and I.M. (Ilaria Mileti); Methodology, A.S., F.I., J.C., A.Z. and I.M. (Ilaria Mileti); Electronic Database Search, A.Z., I.M. (Ilaria Mileti), E.P., C.C., M.P., A.M., I.M. (Ivan Mazzetta), G.D.C., L.L., C.P.-L. and J.C.; Quality Assessment, A.S., F.I., J.C., E.P., F.C. and L.L.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, A.Z., I.M. (Ilaria Mileti), C.C., M.P., A.M., I.M. (Ivan Mazzetta), G.D.C., L.L., J.C. and C.P.-L.; Writing – Review & Editing, A.S., F.I., J.C., A.Z., I.M. (Ilaria Mileti) and A.M.; Supervision, A.S., F.I., J.C., E.P., F.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Abbreviations APA Anticipatory postural adjustment AT Adaptation Test BOS Base of support IMU Inertial measurements unit COM Centre of mass COP Centre of pressure MCT Motor Control Test sEMG Surface electromyography SOT Sensory Organisation Test References 1. Ageing and Health. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (accessed on 16 March 2020). 2. World Health Organization (Ed.) WHO Global Report on Falls Prevention in Older Age; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; ISBN 978-92-4-156353-6. 3. Matheron, E.; Dubost, V.; Mourey, F.; Pfitzenmeyer, P.; Manckoundia, P. Analysis of postural control in elderly subjects suffering from Psychomotor Disadaptation Syndrome (PDS). Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2010, 51, e19–e23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Florence, C.S.; Bergen, G.; Atherly, A.; Burns, E.; Stevens, J.; Drake, C. Medical Costs of Fatal and Nonfatal Falls in Older Adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2018, 66, 693–698. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Cuevas-Trisan, R. Balance Problems and Fall Risks in the Elderly. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2019, 35, 173–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Sturnieks, D.L.; St George, R.; Lord, S.R. Balance disorders in the elderly. Neurophysiol. Clin. 2008, 38, 467–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Stolze, H.; Klebe, S.; Zechlin, C.; Baecker, C.; Friege, L.; Deuschl, G. Falls in frequent neurological diseases-prevalence, risk factors and aetiology. J. Neurol. 2004, 251, 79–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Sai, A.J.; Gallagher, J.C.; Smith, L.M.; Logsdon, S. Fall predictors in the community dwelling elderly: A cross sectional and prospective cohort study. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2010, 10, 142–150. [PubMed] 9. Pickering, R.M.; Grimbergen, Y.A.M.; Rigney, U.; Ashburn, A.; Mazibrada, G.; Wood, B.; Gray, P.; Kerr, G.; Bloem, B.R. A meta-analysis of six prospective studies of falling in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 1892–1900. [CrossRef] 10. Bloem, B.R.; Steijns, J.A.G.; Smits-Engelsman, B.C. An update on falls. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2003, 16, 15–26. [CrossRef] 11. Dorsey, E.R.; Glidden, A.M.; Holloway, M.R.; Birbeck, G.L.; Schwamm, L.H. Teleneurology and mobile technologies: The future of neurological care. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2018, 14, 285–297. [CrossRef] 12. Bernhard, F.P.; Sartor, J.; Bettecken, K.; Hobert, M.A.; Arnold, C.; Weber, Y.G.; Poli, S.; Margraf, N.G.; Schlenstedt, C.; Hansen, C.; et al. Wearables for gait and balance assessment in the neurological ward-study design and first results of a prospective cross-sectional feasibility study with 384 inpatients. BMC Neurol. 2018, 18, 114. [CrossRef] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 23 of 32 13. Pollock, A.S.; Durward, B.R.; Rowe, P.J.; Paul, J.P. What is balance? Clin. Rehabil. 2000, 14, 402–406. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Le Huec, J.C.; Saddiki, R.; Franke, J.; Rigal, J.; Aunoble, S. Equilibrium of the human body and the gravity line: The basics. Eur. Spine J. 2011, 20, 558–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Vassar, R.L.; Rose, J. Motor systems and postural instability. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2014, 125, 237–251. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Takakusaki, K. Functional Neuroanatomy for Posture and Gait Control. J. Mov. Disord. 2017, 10, 1–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. MacKinnon, C.D. Chapter 1—Sensorimotor anatomy of gait, balance, and falls. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Balance, G., Day, B.L., Lord, S.R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 159, pp. 3–26. 18. Varghese, J.P.; Merino, D.M.; Beyer, K.B.; McIlroy, W.E. Cortical control of anticipatory postural adjustments prior to stepping. Neuroscience 2016, 313, 99–109. [CrossRef] 19. Jacobs, J.V.; Horak, F.B. Cortical control of postural responses. J. Neural. Transm. 2007, 114, 1339–1348. [CrossRef] 20. Forbes, P.A.; Chen, A.; Blouin, J.-S. Sensorimotor control of standing balance. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 61–83. [CrossRef] 21. Proske, U.; Gandevia, S.C. The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiol. Rev. 2012, 92, 1651–1697. [CrossRef] 22. Rogers, M.W.; Mille, M.-L. Balance perturbations. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 85–105. [CrossRef] 23. Bronte-Stewart, H.M.; Minn, A.Y.; Rodrigues, K.; Buckley, E.L.; Nashner, L.M. Postural instability in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: The role of medication and unilateral pallidotomy. Brain 2002, 125, 2100–2114. [CrossRef] 24. Woollacott, M.; Shumway-Cook, A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: A review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002, 16, 1–14. [CrossRef] 25. Peterka, R.J. Sensory integration for human balance control. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 27–42. [CrossRef] 26. Mileti, I.; Taborri, J.; Rossi, S.; Del Prete, Z.; Paoloni, M.; Suppa, A.; Palermo, E. Reactive Postural Responses to Continuous Yaw Perturbations in Healthy Humans: The Effect of Aging. Sensors 2019, 20, 63. [CrossRef] 27. Apostolova, L.G. Alzheimer Disease. Continuum 2016, 22, 419–434. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Lee, Y.W.; Lee, H.; Chung, I.S.; Yi, H.A. Relationship between postural instability and subcortical volume loss in Alzheimer’s disease. Medicine 2017, 96, e7286. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Gordon, B.; Carson, K. The basis for choice reaction time slowing in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Cognit. 1990, 13, 148–166. [CrossRef] 30. Uhlmann, R.F.; Larson, E.B.; Koepsell, T.D.; Rees, T.S.; Duckert, L.G. Visual impairment and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1991, 6, 126–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Moreland, J.D.; Richardson, J.A.; Goldsmith, C.H.; Clase, C.M. Muscle weakness and falls in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2004, 52, 1121–1129. [CrossRef] 32. Gago, M.F.; Fernandes, V.; Ferreira, J.; Silva, H.; Rocha, L.; Bicho, E.; Sousa, N. Postural Stability Analysis with Inertial Measurement Units in Alzheimer’s Disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cognit. Dis. Extra 2014, 4, 22–30. [CrossRef] 33. Kim, S.D.; Allen, N.E.; Canning, C.G.; Fung, V.S.C. Parkinson disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 173–193. [CrossRef] 34. Crouse, J.J.; Phillips, J.R.; Jahanshahi, M.; Moustafa, A.A. Postural instability and falls in Parkinson’s disease. Rev. Neurosci. 2016, 27, 549–555. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Di Giulio, I.; St George, R.J.; Kalliolia, E.; Peters, A.L.; Limousin, P.; Day, B.L. Maintaining balance against force perturbations: Impaired mechanisms unresponsive to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurophysiol. 2016, 116, 493–502. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Jacobs, J.V.; Horak, F.B. Abnormal proprioceptive-motor integration contributes to hypometric postural responses of subjects with Parkinson’s disease. Neuroscience 2006, 141, 999–1009. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Maschke, M.; Gomez, C.M.; Tuite, P.J.; Konczak, J. Dysfunction of the basal ganglia, but not the cerebellum, impairs kinaesthesia. Brain 2003, 126, 2312–2322. [CrossRef] 38. Wright, W.G.; Gurfinkel, V.S.; Nutt, J.; Horak, F.B.; Cordo, P.J. Axial hypertonicity in Parkinson’s disease: Direct measurements of trunk and hip torque. Exp. Neurol. 2007, 208, 38–46. [CrossRef] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 24 of 32 39. Allcock, L.M.; Rowan, E.N.; Steen, I.N.; Wesnes, K.; Kenny, R.A.; Burn, D.J. Impaired attention predicts falling in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2009, 15, 110–115. [CrossRef] 40. What Is MS? Available online: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/What-is-MS (accessed on 15 March 2020). 41. Fjeldstad, C.; Pardo, G.; Bemben, D.; Bemben, M. Decreased postural balance in multiple sclerosis patients with low disability. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2011, 34, 53–58. [CrossRef] 42. Gunn, H.J.; Newell, P.; Haas, B.; Marsden, J.F.; Freeman, J.A. Identification of risk factors for falls in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys. Ther. 2013, 93, 504–513. [CrossRef] 43. Vuong, K.; Canning, C.G.; Menant, J.C.; Loy, C.T. Gait, balance, and falls in Huntington disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 251–260. [CrossRef] 44. Ross, C.A.; Aylward, E.H.; Wild, E.J.; Langbehn, D.R.; Long, J.D.; Warner, J.H.; Scahill, R.I.; Leavitt, B.R.; Stout, J.C.; Paulsen, J.S.; et al. Huntington disease: Natural history, biomarkers and prospects for therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2014, 10, 204–216. [CrossRef] 45. Medina, L.D.; Pirogovsky, E.; Salomonczyk, D.; Goldstein, J.; Panzera, R.; Gluhm, S.; Simmons, R.; Corey-Bloom, J.; Gilbert, P.E. Postural limits of stability in premanifest and manifest Huntington’s disease. J. Huntingt. Dis. 2013, 2, 177–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Kegelmeyer, D.A.; Kostyk, S.K.; Fritz, N.E.; Fiumedora, M.M.; Chaudhari, A.; Palettas, M.; Young, G.; Kloos, A.D. Quantitative biomechanical assessment of trunk control in Huntington’s disease reveals more impairment in static than dynamic tasks. J. Neurol. Sci. 2017, 376, 29–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. Ashizawa, T.; Xia, G. Ataxia. Continuum 2016, 22, 1208–1226. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Rodgers, H. Stroke. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2013, 110, 427–433. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. Handelzalts, S.; Melzer, I.; Soroker, N. Analysis of Brain Lesion Impact on Balance and Gait Following Stroke. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 50. Sullivan, J.E.; Hedman, L.D. Sensory dysfunction following stroke: Incidence, significance, examination, and intervention. Top. Stroke Rehabil. 2008, 15, 200–217. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Tasseel-Ponche, S.; Yelnik, A.P.; Bonan, I.V. Motor strategies of postural control after hemispheric stroke. Neurophysiol. Clin. 2015, 45, 327–333. [CrossRef] 52. Rahimzadeh Khiabani, R.; Mochizuki, G.; Ismail, F.; Boulias, C.; Phadke, C.P.; Gage, W.H. Impact of Spasticity on Balance Control during Quiet Standing in Persons after Stroke. Stroke Res. Treat. 2017, 2017, 6153714. [CrossRef] 53. Jehkonen, M.; Ahonen, J.P.; Dastidar, P.; Koivisto, A.M.; Laippala, P.; Vilkki, J. How to detect visual neglect in acute stroke. Lancet 1998, 351, 727–728. [CrossRef] 54. Sand, K.M.; Midelfart, A.; Thomassen, L.; Melms, A.; Wilhelm, H.; Hoff, J.M. Visual impairment in stroke patients—A review. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2013, 127, 52–56. [CrossRef] 55. Delavaran, H.; Jönsson, A.-C.; Lövkvist, H.; Iwarsson, S.; Elmståhl, S.; Norrving, B.; Lindgren, A. Cognitive function in stroke survivors: A 10-year follow-up study. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2017, 136, 187–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 56. Hyder, A.A.; Wunderlich, C.A.; Puvanachandra, P.; Gururaj, G.; Kobusingye, O.C. The impact of traumatic brain injuries: A global perspective. NeuroRehabilitation 2007, 22, 341–353. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Jang, S.H.; Yi, J.H.; Kwon, H.G. Injury of the inferior cerebellar peduncle in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: A diffusion tensor tractography study. Brain Inj. 2016, 30, 1271–1275. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 58. Lin, L.F.; Liou, T.H.; Hu, C.J.; Ma, H.P.; Ou, J.C.; Chiang, Y.H.; Chiu, W.T.; Tsai, S.H.; Chu, W.C. Balance function and sensory integration after mild traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2015, 29, 41–46. [CrossRef] 59. Ramdharry, G. Peripheral nerve disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 403–415. [CrossRef] 60. Nicholson, M.; King, J.; Smith, P.F.; Darlington, C.L. Vestibulo-ocular, optokinetic and postural function in diabetes mellitus. Neuroreport 2002, 13, 153–157. [CrossRef] 61. Young, A.S.; Rosengren, S.M.; Welgampola, M.S. Disorders of the inner-ear balance organs and their pathways. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018, 159, 385–401. [CrossRef] 62. Fernández, L.; Breinbauer, H.A.; Delano, P.H. Vertigo and Dizziness in the Elderly. Front. Neurol. 2015, 6, 144. [CrossRef] 63. Mancini, M.; Horak, F.B. The relevance of clinical balance assessment tools to differentiate balance deficits. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2010, 46, 239–248. 64. Khasnis, A.; Gokula, R.M. Romberg’s test. J. Postgrad. Med. 2003, 49, 169. 65. Hunt, A.L.; Sethi, K.D. The pull test: A history. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 894–899. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 25 of 32 66. Margolesky, J.; Singer, C. How tandem gait stumbled into the neurological exam: A review. Neurol. Sci. 2018, 39, 23–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Fregly, A.R.; Graybiel, A. An ataxia test battery not requiring rails. Aerosp. Med. 1968, 39, 277–282. [PubMed] 68. Mathias, S.; Nayak, U.S.; Isaacs, B. Balance in elderly patients: The “get-up and go” test. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1986, 67, 387–389. [PubMed] 69. Tinetti, M.E. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1986, 34, 119–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Duncan, P.W.; Weiner, D.K.; Chandler, J.; Studenski, S. Functional reach: A new clinical measure of balance. J. Gerontol. 1990, 45, M192–M197. [CrossRef] 71. Berg, K.O.; Wood-Dauphinee, S.L.; Williams, J.I.; Maki, B. Measuring balance in the elderly: Validation of an instrument. Can. J. Public Health 1992, 83, S7–S11. 72. Powell, L.E.; Myers, A.M. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 1995, 50A, M28–M34. [CrossRef] 73. Lord, S.R.; Menz, H.B.; Tiedemann, A. A physiological profile approach to falls risk assessment and prevention. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 237–252. [CrossRef] 74. Horak, F.B.; Wrisley, D.M.; Frank, J. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys. Ther. 2009, 89, 484–498. [CrossRef] 75. Blum, L.; Korner-Bitensky, N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. Phys. Ther. 2008, 88, 559–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 76. Dye, D.C.; Eakman, A.M.; Bolton, K.M. Assessing the validity of the dynamic gait index in a balance disorders clinic: An application of Rasch analysis. Phys. Ther. 2013, 93, 809–818. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 77. Horak, F.B.; Shupert, C.L.; Mirka, A. Components of postural dyscontrol in the elderly: A review. Neurobiol. Aging 1989, 10, 727–738. [CrossRef] 78. Piirtola, M.; Era, P. Force platform measurements as predictors of falls among older people-a review. Gerontology 2006, 52, 1–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Bronstein, A.M.; Pavlou, M. Chapter 16—Balance. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Neurological Rehabilitation; Barnes, M.P., Good, D.C., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 110, pp. 189–208. 80. Visser, J.E.; Carpenter, M.G.; van der Kooij, H.; Bloem, B.R. The clinical utility of posturography. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2008, 119, 2424–2436. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Gandolfi, M.; Geroin, C.; Picelli, A.; Smania, N.; Bartolo, M. Assessment of Balance Disorders. In Advanced Technologies for the Rehabilitation of Gait and Balance Disorders; Sandrini, G., Homberg, V., Saltuari, L., Smania, N., Pedrocchi, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 19, pp. 47–67. 82. Peterka, R.J. Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J. Neurophysiol. 2002, 88, 1097–1118. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 83. Cenciarini, M.; Loughlin, P.J.; Sparto, P.J.; Redfern, M.S. Stiffness and damping in postural control increase with age. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2010, 57, 267–275. [CrossRef] 84. Winter, D.A.; Patla, A.E.; Prince, F.; Ishac, M.; Gielo-Perczak, K. Stiffness control of balance in quiet standing. J. Neurophysiol. 1998, 80, 1211–1221. [CrossRef] 85. Chaudhry, H.; Bukiet, B.; Ji, Z.; Findley, T. Measurement of balance in computer posturography: Comparison of methods—A brief review. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2011, 15, 82–91. [CrossRef] 86. Parijat, P.; Lockhart, T.E. Effects of moveable platform training in preventing slip-induced falls in older adults. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 40, 1111–1121. [CrossRef] 87. Lee, A.J.Y.; Lin, W.-H. Twelve-week biomechanical ankle platform system training on postural stability and ankle proprioception in subjects with unilateral functional ankle instability. Clin. Biomech. 2008, 23, 1065–1072. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 88. Newstead, A.H.; Hinman, M.R.; Tomberlin, J.A. Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale and balance master limits of stability tests for individuals with brain injury. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2005, 29, 18–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 89. Kalron, A.; Fonkatz, I.; Frid, L.; Baransi, H.; Achiron, A. The effect of balance training on postural control in people with multiple sclerosis using the CAREN virtual reality system: A pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 26 of 32 90. De Freitas, P.B.; Knight, C.A.; Barela, J.A. Postural reactions following forward platform perturbation in young, middle-age, and old adults. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2010, 20, 693–700. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. Halická, Z.; Lobotková, J.; Bzdúšková, D.; Hlavačka, F. Age-related changes in postural responses to backward platform translation. Physiol. Res. 2012, 61, 331–335. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 92. Kharboutly, H.; Ma, J.; Benali, A.; Thoumie, P.; Pasqui, V.; Bouzit, M. Design of multiple axis robotic platform for postural stability analysis. IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2015, 23, 93–103. [CrossRef] 93. Taborri, J.; Mileti, I.; Del Prete, Z.; Rossi, S.; Palermo, E. Yaw Postural Perturbation Through Robotic Platform: Aging Effects on Muscle Synergies. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob), Enschede, The Netherlands, 26–29 August 2018; pp. 916–921. 94. Dimitrova, D.; Horak, F.B.; Nutt, J.G. Postural muscle responses to multidirectional translations in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurophysiol. 2004, 91, 489–501. [CrossRef] 95. Kanekar, N.; Aruin, A.S. Aging and balance control in response to external perturbations: Role of anticipatory and compensatory postural mechanisms. Age 2014, 36, 9621. [CrossRef] 96. Horak, F.B.; Nashner, L.M. Central programming of postural movements: Adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J. Neurophysiol. 1986, 55, 1369–1381. [CrossRef] 97. Grin, L.; Frank, J.; Allum, J.H.J. The effect of voluntary arm abduction on balance recovery following multidirectional stance perturbations. Exp. Brain Res. 2007, 178, 62–78. [CrossRef] 98. Chen, C.L.; Lee, J.Y.; Horng, R.F.; Lou, S.Z.; Su, F.C. Development of a three-degrees-of-freedom moveable platform for providing postural perturbations. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2009, 223, 87–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 99. Cappa, P.; Patanè, F.; Rossi, S.; Petrarca, M.; Castelli, E.; Berthoz, A. Effect of changing visual condition and frequency of horizontal oscillations on postural balance of standing healthy subjects. Gait Posture 2008, 28, 615–626. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 100. Rossi, S.; Gazzellini, S.; Petrarca, M.; Patanè, F.; Salfa, I.; Castelli, E.; Cappa, P. Compensation to whole body active rotation perturbation. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 621–624. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 101. Amori, V.; Petrarca, M.; Patané, F.; Castelli, E.; Cappa, P. Upper body balance control strategy during continuous 3D postural perturbation in young adults. Gait Posture 2015, 41, 19–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 102. Corna, S.; Tarantola, J.; Nardone, A.; Giordano, A.; Schieppati, M. Standing on a continuously moving platform: Is body inertia counteracted or exploited? Exp. Brain Res. 1999, 124, 331–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 103. Brown, L.A.; Jensen, J.L.; Korff, T.; Woollacott, M.H. The translating platform paradigm: Perturbation displacement waveform alters the postural response. Gait Posture 2001, 14, 256–263. [CrossRef] 104. De Nunzio, A.M.; Nardone, A.; Schieppati, M. Head stabilization on a continuously oscillating platform: The effect of a proprioceptive disturbance on the balancing strategy. Exp. Brain Res. 2005, 165, 261–272. [CrossRef] 105. Santos, M.J.; Kanekar, N.; Aruin, A.S. The role of anticipatory postural adjustments in compensatory control of posture: 1. Electromyographic analysis. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2010, 20, 388–397. [CrossRef] 106. Santos, M.J.; Kanekar, N.; Aruin, A.S. The role of anticipatory postural adjustments in compensatory control of posture: 2. Biomechanical analysis. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2010, 20, 398–405. [CrossRef] 107. Schmid, M.; Bottaro, A.; Sozzi, S.; Schieppati, M. Adaptation to continuous perturbation of balance: Progressive reduction of postural muscle activity with invariant or increasing oscillations of the center of mass depending on perturbation frequency and vision conditions. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2011, 30, 262–278. [CrossRef] 108. Mileti, I.; Taborri, J.; Rossi, S.; Prete, Z.D.; Paoloni, M.; Suppa, A.; Palermo, E. Measuring age-related differences in kinematic postural strategies under yaw perturbation. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications, MeMeA, Rome, Italy, 11–13 June 2018; p. 8438804. 109. Claudino, R.; dos Santos, E.C.C.; Santos, M.J. Compensatory but not anticipatory adjustments are altered in older adults during lateral postural perturbations. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2013, 124, 1628–1637. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 110. Inglis, J.T.; Shupert, C.L.; Hlavacka, F.; Horak, F.B. Effect of galvanic vestibular stimulation on human postural responses during support surface translations. J. Neurophysiol. 1995, 73, 896–901. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 27 of 32 111. Paquette, C.; Fung, J. Temporal facilitation of gaze in the presence of postural reactions triggered by sudden surface perturbations. Neuroscience 2007, 145, 505–519. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 112. Ford-Smith, C.D.; Wyman, J.F.; Elswick, R.K.; Fernandez, T.; Newton, R.A. Test-retest reliability of the sensory organization test in noninstitutionalized older adults. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1995, 76, 77–81. [CrossRef] 113. Hale, L.; Miller, R.; Barach, A.; Skinner, M.; Gray, A. Motor Control Test responses to balance perturbations in adults with an intellectual disability. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2009, 34, 81–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 114. Mancini, M.; Salarian, A.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; Zampieri, C.; King, L.; Chiari, L.; Horak, F.B. ISway: A sensitive, valid and reliable measure of postural control. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2012, 9, 59. [CrossRef] 115. Ghislieri, M.; Gastaldi, L.; Pastorelli, S.; Tadano, S.; Agostini, V. Wearable Inertial Sensors to Assess Standing Balance: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2019, 19, 4075. [CrossRef] 116. Winter, D.A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-470-39818-0. 117. Park, J.-H.; Mancini, M.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; Nutt, J.G.; Horak, F.B. Quantifying effects of age on balance and gait with inertial sensors in community-dwelling healthy adults. Exp. Gerontol. 2016, 85, 48–58. [CrossRef] 118. Craig, J.J.; Bruetsch, A.P.; Lynch, S.G.; Horak, F.B.; Huisinga, J.M. Instrumented balance and walking assessments in persons with multiple sclerosis show strong test-retest reliability. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2017, 14, 43. [CrossRef] 119. Chen, C.L.; Lou, S.Z.; Wu, H.W.; Wu, S.K.; Yeung, K.T.; Su, F.C. Postural responses to yaw rotation of support surface. Gait Posture 2013, 37, 296–299. [CrossRef] 120. Nardone, A.; Grasso, M.; Tarantola, J.; Corna, S.; Schieppati, M. Postural coordination in elderly subjects standing on a periodically moving platform. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000, 81, 1217–1223. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 121. De Nunzio, A.M.; Nardone, A.; Schieppati, M. The control of equilibrium in Parkinson’s disease patients: Delayed adaptation of balancing strategy to shifts in sensory set during a dynamic task. Brain Res. Bull. 2007, 74, 258–270. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 122. Curtze, C.; Nutt, J.G.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; Mancini, M.; Horak, F.B. Objective Gait and Balance Impairments Relate to Balance Confidence and Perceived Mobility in People with Parkinson Disease. Phys. Ther. 2016, 96, 1734–1743. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 123. King, L.A.; Mancini, M.; Fino, P.C.; Chesnutt, J.; Swanson, C.W.; Markwardt, S.; Chapman, J.C. Sensor-Based Balance Measures Outperform Modified Balance Error Scoring System in Identifying Acute Concussion. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2018, 45, 2135–2145. [CrossRef] 124. Baston, C.; Mancini, M.; Rocchi, L.; Horak, F. Effects of Levodopa on Postural Strategies in Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture 2016, 46, 26–29. [CrossRef] 125. Chen, T.; Fan, Y.; Zhuang, X.; Feng, D.; Chen, Y.; Chan, P.; Du, Y. Postural sway in patients with early Parkinson’s disease performing cognitive tasks while standing. Neurol. Res. 2018, 40, 491–498. [CrossRef] 126. Baracks, J.; Casa, D.J.; Covassin, T.; Sacko, R.; Scarneo, S.E.; Schnyer, D.; Yeargin, S.W.; Neville, C. Acute Sport-Related Concussion Screening for Collegiate Athletes Using an Instrumented Balance Assessment. J. Athl. Train. 2018, 53, 597–605. [CrossRef] 127. Greene, B.R.; McGrath, D.; Walsh, L.; Doheny, E.P.; McKeown, D.; Garattini, C.; Cunningham, C.; Crosby, L.; Caulfield, B.; Kenny, R.A. Quantitative falls risk estimation through multi-sensor assessment of standing balance. Physiol. Meas. 2012, 33, 2049–2063. [CrossRef] 128. Whitney, S.L.; Roche, J.L.; Marchetti, G.F.; Steed, D.P.; Furman, G.R.; Redfern, M.S.; Consulting, C. A comparison of accelerometry and center of pressure measures during computerized dynamic posturography: A measure of balance. Gait Posture 2016, 33, 594–599. [CrossRef] 129. Sozzi, S.; Nardone, A.; Schieppati, M. Vision does not necessarily stabilize the head in space during continuous postural perturbations. Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 1–13. [CrossRef] 130. Nguyen, N.; Phan, D.; Pathirana, P.N.; Horne, M.; Power, L.; Szmulewicz, D. Quantification of Axial Abnormality Due to Cerebellar Ataxia with Inertial Measurements. Sensors 2018, 18, 2791. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 131. Szturm, T.; Fallang, B. Effects of Varying Acceleration of Platform Translation and Toes-Up Rotations on the Pattern and Magnitude of Balance Reactions in Humans. J. Vestib. Res. 1998, 8, 381–397. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 28 of 32 132. Kim, J.H.; Sienko, K.H. The Design of a Cell-Phone Based Balance-Training Device. J. Med. Devices 2009, 3. [CrossRef] 133. Weiss, A.; Herman, T.; Plotnik, M.; Brozgol, M.; Maidan, I.; Giladi, N.; Gurevich, T.; Hausdorff, J.M. Can an accelerometer enhance the utility of the Timed Up & Go Test when evaluating patients with Parkinson’s disease? Med. Eng. Phys. 2010, 32, 119–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 134. Giggins, O.M.; Sweeney, K.T.; Caulfield, B. Rehabilitation exercise assessment using inertial sensors: A cross-sectional analytical study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 158. [CrossRef] 135. Leardini, A.; Lullini, G.; Giannini, S.; Berti, L.; Ortolani, M.; Caravaggi, P. Validation of the angular measurements of a new inertial-measurement-unit based rehabilitation system: Comparison with state-of-the-art gait analysis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014, 11, 136. [CrossRef] 136. Grimm, B.; Bolink, S. Evaluating physical function and activity in the elderly patient using wearable motion sensors. EFORT Open Rev. 2016, 1, 112–120. [CrossRef] 137. Horak, F.; King, L.; Mancini, M. Role of body-worn movement monitor technology for balance and gait rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 2015, 95, 461–470. [CrossRef] 138. Tokuçoğlu, F. Monitoring Physical Activity with Wearable Technologies. Noro Psikiyatr. Ars. 2018, 55, S63–S65. [CrossRef] 139. Dobkin, B.H.; Martinez, C. Wearable Sensors to Monitor, Enable Feedback, and Measure Outcomes of Activity and Practice. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2018, 18, 87. [CrossRef] 140. Tien, I.; Glaser, S.D.; Aminoff, M.J. Characterization of gait abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease using a wireless inertial sensor system. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2010, 2010, 3353–3356. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 141. Buganè, F.; Benedetti, M.G.; D’Angeli, V.; Leardini, A. Estimation of pelvis kinematics in level walking based on a single inertial sensor positioned close to the sacrum: Validation on healthy subjects with stereophotogrammetric system. Biomed. Eng. Online 2014, 13, 146. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 142. Mason, B.S.; Rhodes, J.M.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L. Validity and reliability of an inertial sensor for wheelchair court sports performance. J. Appl. Biomech. 2014, 30, 326–331. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 143. Shahzad, A.; Ko, S.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.A.; Kim, K. Quantitative Assessment of Balance Impairment for Fall-Risk Estimation Using Wearable Triaxial Accelerometer. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 6743–6751. [CrossRef] 144. Gouwanda, D.; Gopalai, A.A.; Khoo, B.H. A Low Cost Alternative to Monitor Human Gait Temporal Parameters–Wearable Wireless Gyroscope. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 9029–9035. [CrossRef] 145. Adkin, A.L.; Bloem, B.R.; Allum, J.H.J. Trunk sway measurements during stance and gait tasks in Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture 2005, 22, 240–249. [CrossRef] 146. Spain, R.I.; St George, R.J.; Salarian, A.; Mancini, M.; Wagner, J.M.; Horak, F.B.; Bourdette, D. Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed. Gait Posture 2012, 35, 573–578. [CrossRef] 147. Hubble, R.P.; Naughton, G.A.; Silburn, P.A.; Cole, M.H. Wearable sensor use for assessing standing balance and walking stability in people with Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0123705. [CrossRef] 148. Mazzetta, I.; Gentile, P.; Pessione, M.; Suppa, A.; Zampogna, A.; Bianchini, E.; Irrera, F. Stand-Alone Wearable System for Ubiquitous Real-Time Monitoring of Muscle Activation Potentials. Sensors 2018, 18, 1748. [CrossRef] 149. Mileti, I.; Zampogna, A.; Taborri, J.; Martelli, F.; Rossi, S.; Del Prete, Z.; Paoloni, M.; Suppa, A.; Palermo, E. Parkinson’s disease and Levodopa effects on muscle synergies in postural perturbation. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA), Istanbul, Turkey, 26–28 June 2019; pp. 1–6. 150. Jiang, S.; Pang, Y.; Wang, D.; Yang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Ren, T.L. Gait Recognition Based on Graphene Porous Network Structure Pressure Sensors for Rehabilitation Therapy. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Electron Devices and Solid State Circuits (EDSSC), Shenzhen, China, 6–8 June 2018; pp. 1–2. 151. Kim, J.; Campbell, A.S.; de Ávila, B.E.-F.; Wang, J. Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 389–406. [CrossRef] 152. Li, G.; Wen, D. Wearable biochemical sensors for human health monitoring: Sensing materials and manufacturing technologies. J. Mater. Chem. B 2020, 8, 3423–3436. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 29 of 32 153. Goud, K.Y.; Moonla, C.; Mishra, R.K.; Yu, C.; Narayan, R.; Litvan, I.; Wang, J. Wearable Electrochemical Microneedle Sensor for Continuous Monitoring of Levodopa: Toward Parkinson Management. ACS Sens. 2019, 4, 2196–2204. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 154. Mancini, M.; King, L.; Salarian, A.; Holmstrom, L.; McNames, J.; Horak, F.B. Mobility Lab to Assess Balance and Gait with Synchronized Body-worn Sensors. J. Bioeng. Biomed. Sci. 2011, 12, 007. [CrossRef] 155. Mazzetta, I.; Zampogna, A.; Suppa, A.; Gumiero, A.; Pessione, M.; Irrera, F. Wearable Sensors System for an Improved Analysis of Freezing of Gait in Parkinson’s Disease Using Electromyography and Inertial Signals. Sensors 2019, 19, 948. [CrossRef] 156. Mancini, M.; Zampieri, C.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; Chiari, L.; Horak, F.B. Anticipatory postural adjustments prior to step initiation are hypometric in untreated Parkinson’s disease: An accelerometer-based approach. Eur. J. Neurol. 2009, 16, 1028–1034. [CrossRef] 157. Mancini, M.; Horak, F.B.; Zampieri, C.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; Nutt, J.G.; Chiari, L. Trunk accelerometry reveals postural instability in untreated Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2011, 17, 557–562. [CrossRef] 158. Maetzler, W.; Mancini, M.; Liepelt-Scarfone, I.; Müller, K.; Becker, C.; van Lummel, R.C.; Ainsworth, E.; Hobert, M.; Streffer, J.; Berg, D.; et al. Impaired trunk stability in individuals at high risk for Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32240. [CrossRef] 159. Mancini, M.; Chiari, L.; Holmstrom, L.; Salarian, A.; Horak, F.B. Validity and reliability of an IMU-based method to detect APAs prior to gait initiation. Gait Posture 2016, 43, 125–131. [CrossRef] 160. Baston, C.; Mancini, M.; Schoneburg, B.; Horak, F.; Rocchi, L. Postural strategies assessed with inertial sensors in healthy and parkinsonian subjects. Gait Posture 2014, 40, 70–75. [CrossRef] 161. De Souza Fortaleza, A.C.; Mancini, M.; Carlson-Kuhta, P.; King, L.A.; Nutt, J.G.; Chagas, E.F.; Freitas, I.F.; Horak, F.B. Dual task interference on postural sway, postural transitions and gait in people with Parkinson’s disease and freezing of gait. Gait Posture 2017, 56, 76–81. [CrossRef] 162. Ozinga, S.J.; Linder, S.M.; Alberts, J.L. Use of Mobile Device Accelerometry to Enhance Evaluation of Postural Instability in Parkinson Disease. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 98, 649–658. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 163. Ozinga, S.J.; Koop, M.M.; Linder, S.M.; Machado, A.G.; Dey, T.; Alberts, J.L. Three-dimensional evaluation of postural stability in Parkinson’s disease with mobile technology. NeuroRehabilitation 2017, 41, 211–218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 164. Bonora, G.; Mancini, M.; Carpinella, I.; Chiari, L.; Horak, F.B.; Ferrarin, M. Gait initiation is impaired in subjects with Parkinson’s disease in the OFF state: Evidence from the analysis of the anticipatory postural adjustments through wearable inertial sensors. Gait Posture 2017, 51, 218–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 165. Bonora, G.; Mancini, M.; Carpinella, I.; Chiari, L.; Ferrarin, M.; Nutt, J.G.; Horak, F.B. Investigation of Anticipatory Postural Adjustments during One-Leg Stance Using Inertial Sensors: Evidence from Subjects with Parkinsonism. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 361. [CrossRef] 166. Falaki, A.; Huang, X.; Lewis, M.M.; Latash, M.L. Impaired Synergic Control of Posture in Parkinson’s Patients without Postural Instability. Gait Posture 2016, 44, 209–215. [CrossRef] 167. Falaki, A.; Huang, X.; Lewis, M.M.; Latash, M.L. Dopaminergic modulation of multi-muscle synergies in postural tasks performed by patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2017, 33, 20–26. [CrossRef] 168. Lang, K.C.; Hackney, M.E.; Ting, L.H.; McKay, J.L. Antagonist muscle activity during reactive balance responses is elevated in Parkinson’s disease and in balance impairment. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211137. [CrossRef] 169. Spain, R.I.; Mancini, M.; Horak, F.B.; Bourdette, D. Body-worn sensors capture variability, but not decline, of gait and balance measures in multiple sclerosis over 18 months. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 958–964. [CrossRef] 170. Solomon, A.J.; Jacobs, J.V.; Lomond, K.V.; Henry, S.M. Detection of postural sway abnormalities by wireless inertial sensors in minimally disabled patients with multiple sclerosis: A case-control study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2015, 12, 74. [CrossRef] 171. El-Gohary, M.; Peterson, D.; Gera, G.; Horak, F.B.; Huisinga, J.M. Validity of the Instrumented Push and Release Test to Quantify Postural Responses in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 98, 1325–1331. [CrossRef] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 30 of 32 172. Witchel, H.J.; Oberndorfer, C.; Needham, R.; Healy, A.; Westling, C.E.I.; Guppy, J.H.; Bush, J.; Barth, J.; Herberz, C.; Roggen, D.; et al. Thigh-Derived Inertial Sensor Metrics to Assess the Sit-to-Stand and Stand-to-Sit Transitions in the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Task for Quantifying Mobility Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 684. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 173. Huisinga, J.; Mancini, M.; Veys, C.; Spain, R.; Horak, F. Coherence analysis of trunk and leg acceleration reveals altered postural sway strategy during standing in persons with multiple sclerosis. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 58, 330–336. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 174. Sun, R.; Moon, Y.; McGinnis, R.S.; Seagers, K.; Motl, R.W.; Sheth, N.; Wright, J.A.; Ghaffari, R.; Patel, S.; Sosnoff, J.J. Assessment of Postural Sway in Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis Using a Novel Wearable Inertial Sensor. Digit. Biomark. 2018, 2, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 175. Arpan, I.; Fino, P.C.; Fling, B.W.; Horak, F. Local dynamic stability during long-fatiguing walks in people with multiple sclerosis. Gait Posture 2020, 76, 122–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 176. Chitnis, T.; Glanz, B.I.; Gonzalez, C.; Healy, B.C.; Saraceno, T.J.; Sattarnezhad, N.; Diaz-Cruz, C.; Polgar-Turcsanyi, M.; Tummala, S.; Bakshi, R.; et al. Quantifying neurologic disease using biosensor measurements in-clinic and in free-living settings in multiple sclerosis. NPJ Digit. Med. 2019, 2, 123. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 177. Gera, G.; Fling, B.W.; Horak, F.B. Cerebellar White Matter Damage Is Associated with Postural Sway Deficits in People with Multiple Sclerosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2020, 101, 258–264. [CrossRef] 178. Perez-Cruzado, D.; González-Sánchez, M.; Cuesta-Vargas, A.I. Parameterization and reliability of single-leg balance test assessed with inertial sensors in stroke survivors: A cross-sectional study. Biomed. Eng. Online 2014, 13, 127. [CrossRef] 179. Merchán-Baeza, J.A.; González-Sánchez, M.; Cuesta-Vargas, A.I. Comparison of kinematic variables obtained by inertial sensors among stroke survivors and healthy older adults in the Functional Reach Test: Cross-sectional study. Biomed. Eng. Online 2015, 14, 49. [CrossRef] 180. Merchán-Baeza, J.A.; González-Sánchez, M.; Cuesta-Vargas, A.I. Reliability in the parameterization of the functional reach test in elderly stroke patients: A pilot study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 637671. [CrossRef] 181. Iosa, M.; Bini, F.; Marinozzi, F.; Fusco, A.; Morone, G.; Koch, G.; Martino Cinnera, A.; Bonnì, S.; Paolucci, S. Stability and Harmony of Gait in Patients with Subacute Stroke. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 2016, 36, 635–643. [CrossRef] 182. Belluscio, V.; Bergamini, E.; Iosa, M.; Tramontano, M.; Morone, G.; Vannozzi, G. The iFST: An instrumented version of the Fukuda Stepping Test for balance assessment. Gait Posture 2018, 60, 203–208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 183. Hou, Y.R.; Chiu, Y.L.; Chiang, S.L.; Chen, H.Y.; Sung, W.H. Feasibility of a smartphone-based balance assessment system for subjects with chronic stroke. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2018, 161, 191–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 184. Hou, Y.R.; Chiu, Y.L.; Chiang, S.-L.; Chen, H.Y.; Sung, W.H. Development of a Smartphone-Based Balance Assessment System for Subjects with Stroke. Sensors 2019, 20, 88. [CrossRef] 185. Furman, G.R.; Lin, C.C.; Bellanca, J.L.; Marchetti, G.F.; Collins, M.W.; Whitney, S.L. Comparison of the balance accelerometer measure and balance error scoring system in adolescent concussions in sports. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 1404–1410. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 186. Doherty, C.; Zhao, L.; Ryan, J.; Komaba, Y.; Inomata, A.; Caulfield, B. Quantification of postural control deficits in patients with recent concussion: An inertial-sensor based approach. Clin. Biomech. 2017, 42, 79–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 187. Alkathiry, A.A.; Sparto, P.J.; Freund, B.; Whitney, S.L.; Mucha, A.; Furman, J.M.; Collins, M.W.; Kontos, A.P. Using Accelerometers to Record Postural Sway in Adolescents With Concussion: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Athl. Train. 2018, 53, 1166–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 188. Gera, G.; Chesnutt, J.; Mancini, M.; Horak, F.B.; King, L.A. Inertial Sensor-Based Assessment of Central Sensory Integration for Balance After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Mil. Med. 2018, 183, 327–332. [CrossRef] 189. King, L.A.; Horak, F.B.; Mancini, M.; Pierce, D.; Priest, K.C.; Chesnutt, J.; Sullivan, P.; Chapman, J.C. Instrumenting the Balance Error Scoring System for use with patients reporting persistent balance problems after mild traumatic brain injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2014, 95, 353–359. [CrossRef] 190. Van de Warrenburg, B.P.C.; Bakker, M.; Kremer, B.P.H.; Bloem, B.R.; Allum, J.H.J. Trunk sway in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia. Mov. Disord. 2005, 20, 1006–1013. [CrossRef] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 31 of 32 191. Hejda, J.; Cakrt, O.; Socha, V.; Schlenker, J.; Kutilek, P. 3-D trajectory of body sway angles: A technique for quantifying postural stability. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 2015, 35, 185–191. [CrossRef] 192. Kutílek, P.; Socha, V.; Čakrt, O.; Svoboda, Z. Assessment of postural stability in patients with cerebellar disease using gyroscope data. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2015, 19, 421–428. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 193. Melecky, R.; Socha, V.; Kutilek, P.; Hanakova, L.; Takac, P.; Schlenker, J.; Svoboda, Z. Quantification of Trunk Postural Stability Using Convex Polyhedron of the Time-Series Accelerometer Data. J. Healthc. Eng. 2016, 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 194. Adamová, B.; Kutilek, P.; Cakrt, O.; Svoboda, Z.; Viteckova, S.; Smrcka, P. Quantifying postural stability of patients with cerebellar disorder during quiet stance using three-axis accelerometer. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 2018, 40, 378–384. [CrossRef] 195. Widener, G.L.; Conley, N.; Whiteford, S.; Gee, J.; Harrell, A.; Gibson-Horn, C.; Block, V.; Allen, D.D. Changes in standing stability with balance-based torso-weighting with cerebellar ataxia: A pilot study. Physiother. Res. Int. 2020, 25, e1814. [CrossRef] 196. Cohen, H.S.; Mulavara, A.P.; Peters, B.T.; Sangi-Haghpeykar, H.; Bloomberg, J.J. Tests of walking balance for screening vestibular disorders. J. Vestib. Res. 2012, 22, 95–104. [CrossRef] 197. Kapoula, Z.; Gaertner, C.; Yang, Q.; Denise, P.; Toupet, M. Vergence and Standing Balance in Subjects with Idiopathic Bilateral Loss of Vestibular Function. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66652. [CrossRef] 198. Kim, S.C.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, N.; Hwang, J.H.; Han, G.C. Ambulatory balance monitoring using a wireless attachable three-axis accelerometer. J. Vestib. Res. 2013, 23, 217–225. [CrossRef] 199. D’Silva, L.J.; Kluding, P.M.; Whitney, S.L.; Dai, H.; Santos, M. Postural sway in individuals with type 2 diabetes and concurrent benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Int. J. Neurosci. 2017, 127, 1065–1073. [CrossRef] 200. Najafi, B.; Horn, D.; Marclay, S.; Crews, R.T.; Wu, S.; Wrobel, J.S. Assessing postural control and postural control strategy in diabetes patients using innovative and wearable technology. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2010, 4, 780–791. [CrossRef] 201. Toosizadeh, N.; Mohler, J.; Armstrong, D.G.; Talal, T.K.; Najafi, B. The influence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy on local postural muscle and central sensory feedback balance control. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135255. [CrossRef] 202. Gago, M.F.; Yelshyna, D.; Bicho, E.; Silva, H.D.; Rocha, L.; Lurdes Rodrigues, M.; Sousa, N. Compensatory Postural Adjustments in an Oculus Virtual Reality Environment and the Risk of Falling in Alzheimer’s Disease. Dement. Geriatr. Cogniy. Dis. Extra 2016, 6, 252–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 203. Hsu, Y.L.; Chung, P.C.J.; Wang, W.H.; Pai, M.C.; Wang, C.Y.; Lin, C.W.; Wu, H.L.; Wang, J.S. Gait and balance analysis for patients with Alzheimer’s disease using an inertial-sensor-based wearable instrument. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2014, 18, 1822–1830. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 204. Dalton, A.; Khalil, H.; Busse, M.; Rosser, A.; van Deursen, R.; Ólaighin, G. Analysis of gait and balance through a single triaxial accelerometer in presymptomatic and symptomatic Huntington’s disease. Gait Posture 2013, 37, 49–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 205. Palermo, E.; Rossi, S.; Marini, F.; Patanè, F.; Cappa, P. Experimental evaluation of accuracy and repeatability of a novel body-to-sensor calibration procedure for inertial sensor-based gait analysis. Measurement 2014, 52, 145–155. [CrossRef] 206. Ancillao, A.; Tedesco, S.; Barton, J.; O’flynn, B. Indirect measurement of ground reaction forces and moments by means of wearable inertial sensors: A systematic review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2564. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 207. Carroll, W.M. The global burden of neurological disorders. Lancet Neurol. 2019, 18, 418–419. [CrossRef] 208. Suppa, A.; Kita, A.; Leodori, G.; Zampogna, A.; Nicolini, E.; Lorenzi, P.; Rao, R.; Irrera, F. l-DOPA and Freezing of Gait in Parkinson’s Disease: Objective Assessment through a Wearable Wireless System. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 406. [CrossRef] 209. Hatcher-Martin, J.M.; Adams, J.L.; Anderson, E.R.; Bove, R.; Burrus, T.M.; Chehrenama, M.; Dolan O’Brien, M.; Eliashiv, D.S.; Erten-Lyons, D.; Giesser, B.S.; et al. Telemedicine in neurology: Telemedicine Work Group of the American Academy of Neurology update. Neurology 2020, 94, 30–38. [CrossRef] 210. Wu, G.; Xue, S. Portable preimpact fall detector with inertial sensors. IEEE Trans. Neural. Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2008, 16, 178–183. [CrossRef] 211. Ma, C.Z.H.; Wong, D.W.C.; Lam, W.K.; Wan, A.H.P.; Lee, W.C.C. Balance improvement effects of biofeedback systems with state-of-the-art wearable sensors: A systematic review. Sensors 2016, 16, 434. [CrossRef] Sensors 2020, 20, 3247 32 of 32 212. Erra, C.; Mileti, I.; Germanotta, M.; Petracca, M.; Imbimbo, I.; De Biase, A.; Rossi, S.; Ricciardi, D.; Pacilli, A.; Di Sipio, E.; et al. Immediate effects of rhythmic auditory stimulation on gait kinematics in Parkinson’s disease ON/OFF medication. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2019, 130, 1789–1797. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 213. Altilio, R.; Liparulo, L.; Panella, M.; Proietti, A.; Paoloni, M. Multimedia and Gaming Technologies for Telerehabilitation of Motor Disabilities [Leading Edge]. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2015, 34, 23–30. [CrossRef] 214. Porciuncula, F.; Roto, A.V.; Kumar, D.; Davis, I.; Roy, S.; Walsh, C.J.; Awad, L.N. Wearable Movement Sensors for Rehabilitation: A Focused Review of Technological and Clinical Advances. PM R 2018, 10, S220–S232. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 215. Allen, J.L.; McKay, J.L.; Sawers, A.; Hackney, M.E.; Ting, L.H. Increased neuromuscular consistency in gait and balance after partnered, dance-based rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurophysiol. 2017, 118, 363–373. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 216. Gordt, K.; Gerhardy, T.; Najafi, B.; Schwenk, M. Effects of Wearable Sensor-Based Balance and Gait Training on Balance, Gait, and Functional Performance in Healthy and Patient Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Gerontology 2017, 64, 74–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 217. Grewal, G.S.; Schwenk, M.; Lee-Eng, J.; Parvaneh, S.; Bharara, M.; Menzies, R.A.; Talal, T.K.; Armstrong, D.G.; Najafi, B. Sensor-Based Interactive Balance Training with Visual Joint Movement Feedback for Improving Postural Stability in Diabetics with Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gerontology 2015, 61, 567–574. [CrossRef] 218. Schwenk, M.; Grewal, G.S.; Holloway, D.; Moucha, A.; Garland, L.; Najafi, B. Interactive sensor-based balance training in older cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A randomized controlled trial. Gerontology 2016, 62, 553–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 219. Schwenk, M.; Sabbagh, M.; Lin, I.; Morgan, P.; Grewal, G.S.; Mohler, J.; Coon, D.W.; Najafi, B. Sensor-based balance training with motion feedback in people with mild cognitive impairment. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2016, 53, 945–958. [CrossRef] 220. Carpinella, I.; Cattaneo, D.; Bonora, G.; Bowman, T.; Martina, L.; Montesano, A.; Ferrarin, M. Wearable Sensor-Based Biofeedback Training for Balance and Gait in Parkinson Disease: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2017, 98, 622–630.e3. [CrossRef] 221. Esteva, A.; Robicquet, A.; Ramsundar, B.; Kuleshov, V.; DePristo, M.; Chou, K.; Cui, C.; Corrado, G.; Thrun, S.; Dean, J. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 24–29. [CrossRef] 222. Rajkomar, A.; Dean, J.; Kohane, I. Machine Learning in Medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1347–1358. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 223. Kubota, K.J.; Chen, J.A.; Little, M.A. Machine learning for large-scale wearable sensor data in Parkinson’s disease: Concepts, promises, pitfalls, and futures. Mov. Disord. 2016, 31, 1314–1326. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 224. Handelman, G.S.; Kok, H.K.; Chandra, R.V.; Razavi, A.H.; Lee, M.J.; Asadi, H. eDoctor: Machine learning and the future of medicine. J. Intern. Med. 2018, 284, 603–619. [CrossRef] 225. Cilliers, L. Wearable devices in healthcare: Privacy and information security issues. Health Inf. Manag. 2019, 1833358319851684. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 226. Guideline on Data Integrity. Available online: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/quality_ assurance/QAS19_819_data_integrity.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 23 May 2020). 227. Mourcou, Q.; Fleury, A.; Diot, B.; Vuillerme, N. iProprio: A smartphone-based system to measure and improve proprioceptive function. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2016, 2016, 2622–2625. [CrossRef] [PubMed] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).