Parkinson's Disease (PD)NCT07457710
Remote Haptic Rehabilitation for Parkinson's Disease
A study testing Haptic device and Non-haptic device in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), run by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Individuals with Parkinson's Disease (PD) often have motor difficulties that can negatively impact daily activities and their quality of life. Research has shown that to slow the progression of these symptoms, patients should partake in effective physical rehabilitation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- What is being tested?
- Haptic device and Non-haptic device
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 25 Mar 2026to 30 Jun 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Over 18 years old
- Diagnosed with PD
Who cannot join
- Hoehn and Yahr stage outside 1-3
- Lives outside the 48 contiguous states in the USA
- Unable to move hands and head without assistance
- Unable to remain seated in an upright position for up to an hour
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia, 24060
Sol Lim, PhD, 6508420393, sol@vt.edu
About this study
Official title: Enhancing Parkinson's Disease Rehabilitation Through Remote Haptic Guidance: Field Study
Individuals with Parkinson's Disease (PD) often have motor difficulties that can negatively impact daily activities and their quality of life. Research has shown that to slow the progression of these symptoms, patients should partake in effective physical rehabilitation. However, effective physical rehabilitation has many barriers, including timing, cost, and other personal or system-level challenges. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the haptic remote rehabilitation system for patients with PD using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field environment.
Read the detailed description
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder that affects the central nervous system, causing unintended or uncontrollable movements. PD is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting 1-2 per 1000 of the population. This prevalence has more than doubled from 2.5 million patients in 1990 to 6.1 million patients in 2016. Upcoming shifts toward an aging population will exacerbate this problem and the healthcare burden. People with PD suffer from diverse motor symptoms (e.g., tremors, rigidity, and dystonia) that adversely affect their daily activities and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve motor symptoms by slowing disease progression, thereby enhancing the well-being of those with PD. However, administering physical rehabilitation in an accessible and affordable way has been quite challenging because of person- and system-level barriers to healthcare services. Visits to physical therapists, in particular, require resources supported by a caregiver and one-on-one time with specialists, both of which are costly. These problems are especially prominent for patients in rural areas, thereby serving as a major barrier to equity in access to public health assets.
At-home, technology-based rehabilitation programs could reduce training costs and enhance training accessibility, such as by removing the need for a PD patient to visit a facility in person or to schedule one-on-one therapist time. In particular, patients have responded positively to remote rehabilitation programs (e.g., through Zoom) as an alternative to in-person therapy. As these remote programs do not require special equipment other than a device for video-conferencing software, they are more accessible to broad user populations. Yet, such remote programs lack important components of usual physical rehabilitation - especially motion guidance, assessment, and feedback - during which critical communications are needed between the therapist and patient that include hands-on interactions. Also, such programs still require one-on-one therapist time, which can be costly and not affordable for long-term participation. To overcome such problems, rehabilitation systems using emerging technologies have been explored, including robotics and virtual reality (VR). Current robotics systems, though, are limited to clinical use due to their cost and size. VR-based rehabilitation programs can be good alternatives, but are still expensive and cumbersome to use, and they can cause motion sickness for PD patients. There is thus a clear need for remote rehabilitation programs that are effective, low-cost, easy to use, provide hands-on assistance, and ensure the safety of PD patients.
- Conditions
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- Being tested
- Haptic device, Non-haptic device
- Keywords
- Parkinson's Disease, Haptic, Remote Rehabilitation
- Medical subject headings
- Parkinson Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Haptic deviceDevice
Participants will receive a custom-made handheld haptic device, which will be used to perform selected movement tasks. The device can generate the feeling of directional feedback.
Non-haptic deviceDevice
Participants will receive a handheld device similar to the haptic group. However, the device in this intervention will not provide any haptic feedback.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Haptic group | Experimental | Participants will receive a handheld device that can provide haptic feedback to guide them in performing different movement tasks. Each participant will be asked to participate in sessions lasting up to one hour, twice/week, for an 8-week period. Participants will be asked to perform typical upper-body movement tasks performed in rehabilitation sessions based on their functional capabilities. This includes "Full Extension Circles", "Shoulder Press", "Full Lateral Movement", and "Random Target Matching" activity. The haptic device will provide directional guidance to support the participants in completing these movement tasks. Receives: Device: Haptic device |
| Non-haptic group | Sham comparator | Participants will receive a handheld device similar to the haptic group. However, this device will not provide any haptic feedback. Each participant will be asked to participate in sessions lasting up to one hour, twice/week, for an 8-week period. Participants will be asked to perform typical upper-body movement tasks performed in rehabilitation sessions based on their functional capabilities. This includes "Full Extension Circles", "Shoulder Press", "Full Lateral Movement", and "Random Target Matching" activity. Participants will be asked to hold the handheld device during the tasks; however, they will not receive any haptic feedback from the device. Receives: Device: Non-haptic device |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
System Usability Scale (SUS)
This scale evaluates participants' perceived usability of the device and the haptic feedback. It consists of 10 items, each scored on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4). The total raw score is converted to a scale of 0-100. A higher score will indicate better usability. A score of 68 is considered average usability. Scores above 68 reflect above average usability, while scores below 68 reflect below-average usability.
Measured: At the end of the trial in week 8
Arm movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness
Each handheld device (both with and without haptic) are equipped with Intertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The data from the IMUs will be used to measure the movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness of the arm. Data recording will start during enrollment as baseline. Whenever participants complete any sessions during the 8-week trial period, data from the IMUs will be recorded to calculate movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness. We will compare these measures across the trial period to determine performance changes in the participants.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks
Secondary outcomes (3)
Outcome Expectations of Exercise Scale (OEES)
This scale evaluates participants' expectations about exercise outcomes, including both perceived benefits and perceived negative consequences. It consists of 13 statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items can be summarized as two subscales: positive outcome expectations (9 items; e.g., improved mood, strength, endurance) and negative outcome expectations (4 items; e.g., avoiding exercise due to shortness of breath, pain, fear of falling, or perceived cardiac stress). For scoring, item ratings are typically summed and divided by the number of items answered to yield a mean score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate stronger outcome expectations. Higher positive-subscale scores reflect greater perceived benefits of exercise, whereas higher negative-subscale scores reflect stronger negative expectations/avoidance concerns about exercise.
Measured: At the end of the trial in week 8
Self-Efficacy Scale (SES)
This scale evaluates participants' confidence in their ability to engage in regular physical activity and to overcome common barriers to exercise. It consists of 5 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true). Items reflect perceived capability to persist with exercise, find ways to be active, achieve exercise goals, and manage barriers (e.g., fatigue or other challenges). For scoring, item ratings are typically summed (range: 5-20) or averaged (range: 1-4). Higher scores indicate greater exercise-related self-efficacy (i.e., stronger confidence in one's ability to be physically active despite obstacles).
Measured: At the end of the trial in week 8
Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8)
This questionnaire includes 8 items representing key domains impacted by Parkinson's disease (mobility, activities of daily living, emotional well-being, stigma, social support/relationships, cognition/concentration, communication, and bodily discomfort). Each item asks how often the participant experienced a problem "during the last month" and is rated on a 5-point response scale: Never, Occasionally, Sometimes, Often, and Always or cannot do at all, and scored from 0 to 4. Item scores are summed to produce a raw total (range: 0-32), which is converted to a 0-100 summary index by dividing by the maximum possible score and multiplying by 100. Higher PDQ-8 scores indicate worse health-related quality of life (i.e., more frequent or severe impacts of Parkinson's disease on daily functioning and well-being).
Measured: At baseline (Week 0)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted9 Mar 2026
- Study start25 Mar 2026
- Primary completion30 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jun 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Parkinson's Disease (PD)Studies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- In this study, the investigator will randomly assign participants to either the haptic group (intervention) or the non-haptic group (sham comparator). Both participants will receive a similar handheld device and will perform selected exercise tasks. The haptic (intervention) group will receive haptic feedback through the device. The non-haptic (sham comparator) group will not receive any haptic feedback. However, both devices will be identical in nature. Participants will remain in their assigned group throughout the study.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sol Lim, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
- Investigators
- Sol Lim, Ph.D., Principal investigator, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07457710
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 25-839
- Other IDs
- 208-05-24
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 26 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 5 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Garzo, A., Jung, J. H., Arcas-Ruiz-Ruano, J., Perry, J. C., & Keller, T. (2022). ArmAssist: A telerehabilitation solution for upper-limb rehabilitation at home. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 30(1), 62-71.
Dockx K, Bekkers EM, Van den Bergh V, Ginis P, Rochester L, Hausdorff JM, Mirelman A, Nieuwboer A. Virtual reality for rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 21;12(12):CD010760. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010760.pub2.
PubMed 28000926Langer A, Gassner L, Flotz A, Hasenauer S, Gruber J, Wizany L, Pokan R, Maetzler W, Zach H. How COVID-19 will boost remote exercise-based treatment in Parkinson's disease: a narrative review. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2021 Mar 8;7(1):25. doi: 10.1038/s41531-021-00160-3.
PubMed 33686074Zaman MS, Ghahari S, McColl MA. Barriers to Accessing Healthcare Services for People with Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review. J Parkinsons Dis. 2021;11(4):1537-1553. doi: 10.3233/JPD-212735.
PubMed 34308913Xia R, Mao ZH. Progression of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Neurosci Bull. 2012 Feb;28(1):39-48. doi: 10.1007/s12264-012-1050-z.
PubMed 22233888Marras C, Beck JC, Bower JH, Roberts E, Ritz B, Ross GW, Abbott RD, Savica R, Van Den Eeden SK, Willis AW, Tanner CM; Parkinson's Foundation P4 Group. Prevalence of Parkinson's disease across North America. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018 Jul 10;4:21. doi: 10.1038/s41531-018-0058-0. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 30003140GBD 2016 Parkinson's Disease Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson's disease, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Nov;17(11):939-953. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3. Epub 2018 Oct 1.
PubMed 30287051Tysnes OB, Storstein A. Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017 Aug;124(8):901-905. doi: 10.1007/s00702-017-1686-y. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
PubMed 28150045
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Enhancing Parkinson's Disease Rehabilitation Through Remote Haptic Guidance: Field Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07457710
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 25-839
- Conditions
- Parkinson's Disease (PD)
- Keywords
- Parkinson's Disease, Haptic, Remote Rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 25 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 9 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Individuals with Parkinson's Disease (PD) often have motor difficulties that can negatively impact daily activities and their quality of life. Research has shown that to slow the progression of these symptoms, patients should partake in effective physical rehabilitation. However, effective physical rehabilitation has many barriers, including timing, cost, and other personal or system-level challenges. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the haptic remote rehabilitation system for patients with PD using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field environment.
Detailed description
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder that affects the central nervous system, causing unintended or uncontrollable movements. PD is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting 1-2 per 1000 of the population. This prevalence has more than doubled from 2.5 million patients in 1990 to 6.1 million patients in 2016. Upcoming shifts toward an aging population will exacerbate this problem and the healthcare burden. People with PD suffer from diverse motor symptoms (e.g., tremors, rigidity, and dystonia) that adversely affect their daily activities and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve motor symptoms by slowing disease progression, thereby enhancing the well-being of those with PD. However, administering physical rehabilitation in an accessible and affordable way has been quite challenging because of person- and system-level barriers to healthcare services. Visits to physical therapists, in particular, require resources supported by a caregiver and one-on-one time with specialists, both of which are costly. These problems are especially prominent for patients in rural areas, thereby serving as a major barrier to equity in access to public health assets.
At-home, technology-based rehabilitation programs could reduce training costs and enhance training accessibility, such as by removing the need for a PD patient to visit a facility in person or to schedule one-on-one therapist time. In particular, patients have responded positively to remote rehabilitation programs (e.g., through Zoom) as an alternative to in-person therapy. As these remote programs do not require special equipment other than a device for video-conferencing software, they are more accessible to broad user populations. Yet, such remote programs lack important components of usual physical rehabilitation - especially motion guidance, assessment, and feedback - during which critical communications are needed between the therapist and patient that include hands-on interactions. Also, such programs still require one-on-one therapist time, which can be costly and not affordable for long-term participation. To overcome such problems, rehabilitation systems using emerging technologies have been explored, including robotics and virtual reality (VR). Current robotics systems, though, are limited to clinical use due to their cost and size. VR-based rehabilitation programs can be good alternatives, but are still expensive and cumbersome to use, and they can cause motion sickness for PD patients. There is thus a clear need for remote rehabilitation programs that are effective, low-cost, easy to use, provide hands-on assistance, and ensure the safety of PD patients.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- In this study, the investigator will randomly assign participants to either the haptic group (intervention) or the non-haptic group (sham comparator). Both participants will receive a similar handheld device and will perform selected exercise tasks. The haptic (intervention) group will receive haptic feedback through the device. The non-haptic (sham comparator) group will not receive any haptic feedback. However, both devices will be identical in nature. Participants will remain in their assigned group throughout the study.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Haptic group | Experimental | Device: Haptic deviceParticipants will receive a handheld device that can provide haptic feedback to guide them in performing different movement tasks. Each participant will be asked to participate in sessions lasting up to one hour, twice/week, for an 8-week period. Participants will be asked to perform typical upper-body movement tasks performed in rehabilitation sessions based on their functional capabilities. This includes "Full Extension Circles", "Shoulder Press", "Full Lateral Movement", and "Random Target Matching" activity. The haptic device will provide directional guidance to support the participants in completing these movement tasks. |
| Non-haptic group | Sham comparator | Device: Non-haptic deviceParticipants will receive a handheld device similar to the haptic group. However, this device will not provide any haptic feedback. Each participant will be asked to participate in sessions lasting up to one hour, twice/week, for an 8-week period. Participants will be asked to perform typical upper-body movement tasks performed in rehabilitation sessions based on their functional capabilities. This includes "Full Extension Circles", "Shoulder Press", "Full Lateral Movement", and "Random Target Matching" activity. Participants will be asked to hold the handheld device during the tasks; however, they will not receive any haptic feedback from the device. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Over 18 years old
- Diagnosed with PD
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Hoehn and Yahr stage outside 1-3
- Lives outside the 48 contiguous states in the USA
- Unable to move hands and head without assistance
- Unable to remain seated in an upright position for up to an hour
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Haptic deviceParticipants will receive a custom-made handheld haptic device, which will be used to perform selected movement tasks. The device can generate the feeling of directional feedback. | Device | Haptic group |
| Non-haptic deviceParticipants will receive a handheld device similar to the haptic group. However, the device in this intervention will not provide any haptic feedback. | Device | Non-haptic group |
Primary outcome
System Usability Scale (SUS)
Time frame: At the end of the trial in week 8
This scale evaluates participants' perceived usability of the device and the haptic feedback. It consists of 10 items, each scored on a 5-point Likert scale (0-4). The total raw score is converted to a scale of 0-100. A higher score will indicate better usability. A score of 68 is considered average usability. Scores above 68 reflect above average usability, while scores below 68 reflect below-average usability.
Arm movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of intervention at 8 weeks
Each handheld device (both with and without haptic) are equipped with Intertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The data from the IMUs will be used to measure the movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness of the arm. Data recording will start during enrollment as baseline. Whenever participants complete any sessions during the 8-week trial period, data from the IMUs will be recorded to calculate movement accuracy, speed, and smoothness. We will compare these measures across the trial period to determine performance changes in the participants.
3 secondary outcomes
Outcome Expectations of Exercise Scale (OEES)
Time frame: At the end of the trial in week 8
Self-Efficacy Scale (SES)
Time frame: At the end of the trial in week 8
Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8)
Time frame: At baseline (Week 0)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Jun 2026.
- BackgroundGarzo, A., Jung, J. H., Arcas-Ruiz-Ruano, J., Perry, J. C., & Keller, T. (2022). ArmAssist: A telerehabilitation solution for upper-limb rehabilitation at home. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 30(1), 62-71.
- Background: PubMed 28000926Dockx K, Bekkers EM, Van den Bergh V, Ginis P, Rochester L, Hausdorff JM, Mirelman A, Nieuwboer A. Virtual reality for rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 21;12(12):CD010760. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010760.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 33686074Langer A, Gassner L, Flotz A, Hasenauer S, Gruber J, Wizany L, Pokan R, Maetzler W, Zach H. How COVID-19 will boost remote exercise-based treatment in Parkinson's disease: a narrative review. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2021 Mar 8;7(1):25. doi: 10.1038/s41531-021-00160-3.
- Background: PubMed 34308913Zaman MS, Ghahari S, McColl MA. Barriers to Accessing Healthcare Services for People with Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review. J Parkinsons Dis. 2021;11(4):1537-1553. doi: 10.3233/JPD-212735.
- Background: PubMed 22233888Xia R, Mao ZH. Progression of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Neurosci Bull. 2012 Feb;28(1):39-48. doi: 10.1007/s12264-012-1050-z.
- Background: PubMed 30003140Marras C, Beck JC, Bower JH, Roberts E, Ritz B, Ross GW, Abbott RD, Savica R, Van Den Eeden SK, Willis AW, Tanner CM; Parkinson's Foundation P4 Group. Prevalence of Parkinson's disease across North America. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2018 Jul 10;4:21. doi: 10.1038/s41531-018-0058-0. eCollection 2018.
- Background: PubMed 30287051GBD 2016 Parkinson's Disease Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of Parkinson's disease, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Nov;17(11):939-953. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30295-3. Epub 2018 Oct 1.
- Background: PubMed 28150045Tysnes OB, Storstein A. Epidemiology of Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2017 Aug;124(8):901-905. doi: 10.1007/s00702-017-1686-y. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Parkinson's Disease (PD)
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
Clinical Safety and Efficacy of Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stromal Cells-derived Exosomes in Patients With Parkinson's Disease
Parkinson Disease (PD)
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Adaptive DBS to Offset STN Dysregulation During Exercise in PD
Parkinson Disease
Not yet recruiting
Evaluating the Effect of the Zeen Mobility Device on Clinical Practicality, Safety, and Impact (Via Assessments of Walking, Standing Tolerance, Balance, Endurance, Effort, and Participation in Daily Tasks) in an Outpatient Rehabilitation Setting for Individuals With Mobility Impairments.
Stroke, Parkinson's Disease (PD)
RecruitingObservational study
Striatal and Extra-Striatal Cholinergic Terminal Density in LRRK2-PD Mutation
Parkinson Disease
Not yet recruiting
Unilateral and Staged Bilateral Pallidothalamic Tractotomy Using Exablate MRgFUS in Advanced Parkinson's Disease.
Parkinson Disease
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Sol Lim, Ph.D. principal investigator
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Haptic device and Non-haptic device in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD), run by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Sol Lim, Ph.D. (540-231-0083, sol@vt.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
System Usability Scale (SUS) (time frame: At the end of the trial in week 8). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07457710, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Jun 2026.