Use of Wearable Sensors in Angelman Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Veronika Vozka; Wei Siong Neo; Jane Kinkus Yatcilla; Carolyn E B McCormick; Roslyn Harold; Kimberly Gálvez-Ortega; Mihir Dey; Laura E Fitzpatrick; A J Schwichtenberg; Orlando S Hoilett; Dan Foti; Bridgette L Kelleher

doi:10.1111/jir.70121

Use of Wearable Sensors in Angelman Syndrome: A Systematic Review

J Intellect Disabil Res. 2026 May 12. doi: 10.1111/jir.70121. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
² Libraries and School of Information Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
³ Department of Human Development and Family Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
⁴ Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
⁵ Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
⁶ College of Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

PMID: 42118603
DOI: 10.1111/jir.70121

Abstract

Background: Wearable sensors are a promising method for collecting clinical trial outcome data for people with Angelman syndrome (AS). However, there has yet to be a systematic probe into the ways in which wearable sensors have been successfully used in AS. The current study aims to provide a quantitative summary of wearable sensors used in AS, including contexts of use and psychometric properties, and to present key narrative highlights.

Method: Literature searches were performed in three electronic databases: APA PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection. Data items were categorized into four categories: sample characteristics, study methodological details, wearable sensor characteristics and psychometric properties assessed. Sample characteristics included sample size, age, biological sex, race/ethnicity and cognitive/developmental functioning. Study methodological details were subdivided into study design and setting. Wearable sensor characteristics included sensor type, placement site, means of attachment, assessed construct and sensor-related data loss. Psychometric properties assessed included reliability and validity of sensor-derived data.

Results: We identified 16 articles through our systematic review. Wearable sensors were used to study sleep (n = 10, 62.5%), language (n = 2, 12.5%), gait (n = 2, 12.5%), caregiver proximity (n = 1, 6.3%), EEG power (n = 1, 6.3%), and arousal (n = 1, 6.3%) in AS through actigraphs, vocalization recorders, inertial sensors, radio-frequency identification watches, wireless EEG caps, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy caps, respectively. Findings from these studies broadly indicate that wearable sensors are feasible, reliable and valid for assessing a range of behaviours relevant to AS.

Conclusions: Wearable sensors are a promising solution to enhance assessments in AS. However, with the small extant literature characterized by small sample sizes and restricted focus on a few relevant features in AS, there remains ample opportunities to explore the use of wearable sensors in people with AS. Additional studies will better inform clinical decision-making and ultimately improve the lives of people with AS and their families.

Keywords: Angelman; end point; genetic syndrome; outcome measures; personalized medicine; systematic review; wearables.

Publication types

Review

Grants and funding

Purdue Institute for Integrative Neuroscience