Advertisement

Wearable Sensors to Monitor, Enable Feedback, and Measure Outcomes of Activity and Practice

  • Bruce H. Dobkin
  • Clarisa Martinez
Neurorehabilitation and Recovery (J Krakauer and T Kitago, Section Editors)
  • 88 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Neurorehabilitation and Recovery

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Measurements obtained during real-world activity by wearable motion sensors may contribute more naturalistic accounts of clinically meaningful changes in impairment, activity, and participation during neurologic rehabilitation, but obstacles persist. Here we review the basics of wearable sensors, the use of existing systems for neurological and rehabilitation applications and their limitations, and strategies for future use.

Recent Findings

Commercial activity-recognition software and wearable motion sensors for community monitoring primarily calculate steps and sedentary time. Accuracy declines as walking speed slows below 0.8 m/s, less so if worn on the foot or ankle. Upper-extremity sensing is mostly limited to simple inertial activity counts. Research software and activity-recognition algorithms are beginning to provide ground truth about gait cycle variables and reveal purposeful arm actions. Increasingly, clinicians can incorporate inertial and other motion signals to monitor exercise, activities of daily living, and the practice of specific skills, as well as provide tailored feedback to encourage self-management of rehabilitation.

Summary

Efforts are growing to create a compatible collection of clinically relevant sensor applications that capture the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activity and practice in known contexts. Such data would offer more ecologically sound measurement tools, while enabling clinicians to monitor and support remote physical therapies and behavioral modification when combined with telemedicine outreach.

Keywords

Telemedicine Rehabilitation Outcome measures Physical activity Activity monitor Self-management Gait Accelerometry 

Notes

Funding Information

This study received financial support from the American Heart Association—Bugher Foundation (14BFSC17810004), National Institutes of Health (HD071809), and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Bruce H. Dobkin and Clarisa Martinez each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    • Dorsey ER, Venuto C, Venkataraman V, Harris DA, Kieburtz K. Novel methods and technologies for 21st-century clinical trials: a review. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:582–8 This review of web-based trials in neurology describes alternative trial designs enabled by virtual visits and wearable sensors. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:788–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:784–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Althoff T, Sosič R, Hicks JL, King AC, Delp SL, Leskovec J. Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality. Nature. 2017;547:336–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Dobkin BH. Behavioral self-management strategies for practice and exercise should be included in neurologic rehabilitation trials and care. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016;29:693–9 This review of behavioral management techniques enabled by remote sensing describes strategies to aid compliance, feedback, and self-management skills for care and clinical trials.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Montague E, Burns MN, Rashidi P. The behavioral intervention technology model: an integrated conceptual and technological framework for ehealth and mhealth interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:146–1461 The authors review strategies that deploy the electronic health record, the Internet, and sensors to enhance desired behaviors in clinical trials.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Dobkin BH. A rehabilitation-internet-of-things in the home to augment motor skills and exercise training. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:217–27 This review of wearable sensors and Internet-based practice devices derscribes tools to help measure and drive exercise and practice after stroke and disabling motor impairments. Flexible groups of valid and reliable measurement tools enable new trial designs and augment methods to achieve compliance and assess efficacy of experimental interventions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dobkin BH, Carmichael ST. The specific requirements of neural repair trials for stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:470–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dobkin BH. Wearable motion sensors to continuously measure real-world physical activities. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haghi M, Thurow K, Stoll R. Wearable devices in medical internet of things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthc Inform Res. 2017;23:4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Treacy D, Hassett L, Schurr K, Chagpar S, Paul SS, Sherrington C. Validity of different activity monitors to count steps in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Phys Ther. 2017;97:581–8 This comparison of commercial sensors for step counts and gait deployed in hemiparetic persons reveals unexpected limitations for most devices as research tools.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Düking P, Fuss FK, Holmberg H-C, Sperlich B. Recommendations for assessment of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of data provided by wearable sensors designed for monitoring physical activity. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6:e102 The authors make practical suggestions to try to improve the measurement value of wearable sensors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brønd JC, Andersen LB, Arvidsson D. Generating ActiGraph counts from raw acceleration recorded by an alternative monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:2351–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Attal F, Mohammed S, Dedabrishvili M, Chamroukhi F, Oukhellou L, Amirat Y. Physical human activity recognition using wearable sensors. Sensors. 2015;15:31314–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bassett DR, Toth LP, LaMunion SR, Crouter SE. Step counting: a review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sport Med. 2017;47:1303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barak S, Wu SS, Dai Y, Duncan PW, Behrman AL. Locomotor Experience Applied Post-Stroke (LEAPS) Investigative Team. Adherence to accelerometry measurement of community ambulation poststroke. Phys Ther. 2014;94:101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mcginnis RS, Mahadevan N, Moon Y, Seagers K, Sheth N, Wright JAJ, et al. A machine learning approach for gait speed estimation using skin-mounted wearable sensors : from healthy controls to individuals with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2017;12:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Chen S, Lach J, Lo B, Yang G-Z. Toward pervasive gait analysis with wearable sensors: a systematic review. IEEE J Biomed Heal informatics. 2016;20:1521–37 The authors assess the literature about the spatio-temporal and other aspects of gait in disabled persons that can be obtained from wearable sensors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Caldas R, Mundt M, Potthast W, Buarque De Lima Neto F, Markert B. A systematic review of gait analysis methods based on inertial sensors and adaptive algorithms. Gait Posture. 2017;57:204–10 This reviews analytic techniques to obtain spatio-temporal measures of impaired gait.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eskofier BM, Lee SI, Daneault J-F, Golabchi FN, Ferreira-Carvalho G, Vergara-Diaz G, et al. Recent machine learning advancements in sensor-based mobility analysis: deep learning for Parkinson’s disease assessment. 2016 38th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016;655–8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahemi H, Nguyen H, Lee H, Najafi B. Toward smart footwear to track frailty phenotypes—using propulsion performance to determine frailty. Sensors. 2018;18:1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Wang R, Blackburn G, Desai M, Phelan D, Gillinov L, Houghtaling P, et al. Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:104 Watch-like monitors are often less accurate than necessary for clinical trials of exercise interventions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, Blackburn G, Phelan D, Gillinov AM, et al. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Burke LE, Ma J, Azar KMJ, Bennett GG, Peterson ED, Zheng Y, et al. Current science on consumer use of mobile health for cardiovascular disease prevention: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132:1157–213 Little is known about the efficacy of mHealth devices by well persons for risk factor management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Noah B, Keller MS, Mosadeghi S, Stein L, Johl S, Delshad S, et al. Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:20172 Sensors for remote monitoring have had modest impact to date in reducing risk factors for stroke and myocardial infarction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Askim T, Langhammer B, Ihle-Hansen H, Gunnes M, Lydersen S, Indredavik B, et al. Efficacy and safety of individualized coaching after stroke: the LAST study (Life After Stroke): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2018;49:426–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCallum C, Rooksby J, Gray CM. Evaluating the impact of physical activity apps and wearables: interdisciplinary review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6:e58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Lang CE, Waddell KJ, Klaesner JW, Bland MD. A method for quantifying upper limb performance in daily life using accelerometers. J Vis Exp. 2017;122. The authors explain an analytic technique for employing bilateral wrist accelerometers as the outcome measure to try to detect increased use of the affected arm during an important clinical trial of intensity of upper-extremity practice after stroke. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uswatte G, Giuliani C, Winstein C, Zeringue A, Hobbs L, Wolf SL. Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1340–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Waddell KJ, Lang CE. Comparison of self-report versus sensor-based methods for measuring the amount of upper limb activity outside the clinic. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; https//doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.025. Self-reported upper-extremity use can be too unreliable to consider as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waddell KJ, Strube MJ, Bailey RR, Klaesner JW, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW, et al. Does task-specific training improve upper limb performance in daily life poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biswas D, Corda D, Baldus G, Cranny A, Maharatna K, Achner J, et al. Recognition of elementary arm movements using orientation of a tri-axial accelerometer located near the wrist. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:1751–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Brogioli M, Popp WL, Schneider S, Albisser U, Brust AK, Frotzler A, et al. Multi-day recordings of wearable sensors are valid and sensitive measures of function and Independence in human spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34:1141–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCracken LA, Ma JK, Voss C, Chan FH, Martin Ginis KA, West CR. Wrist accelerometry for physical activity measurement in individuals with spinal cord injury-a need for individually calibrated cut-points. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:684–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    • Powell L, Parker J, St-James MM, Mawson S. The effectiveness of lower-limb wearable technology for improving activity and participation in adult stroke survivors: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016; e259. This analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials of remote step sensing finds uncertainty about the efficacy of interventions due to the marked design variations across publications. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mansfield A, Wong JS, Bryce J, Brunton K, Inness EL, Knorr S, et al. Use of accelerometer-based feedback of walking activity for appraising progress with walking-related goals in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:847–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dorsch A, Thomas S, Xu C, Kaiser W, Dobkin B. SIRRACT: an international randomized clinical trial of activity feedback during inpatient stroke rehabilitation enabled by wireless sensing. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:407–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kanai M, Izawa KP, Kobayashi M, Onishi A, Kubo H, Nozoe M, et al. Effect of accelerometer-based feedback on physical activity in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32:1047–56.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518755841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Godinho C, Domingos J, Cunha G, Santos AT, Fernandes RM, Abreu D, et al. A systematic review of the characteristics and validity of monitoring technologies to assess Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlachetzki JCM, Barth J, Marxreiter F, Gossler J, Kohl Z, Reinfelder S, et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rovini E, Maremmani C, Cavallo F. How wearable sensors can support Parkinson’s disease diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ginis P, Nieuwboer A, Dorfman M, Ferrari A, Gazit E, Canning CG, et al. Feasibility and effects of home-based smartphone-delivered automated feedback training for gait in people with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;22:28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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. 2018;64:74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gera G, Chesnutt J, Mancini M, Horak FB, King LA. Inertial sensor-based assessment of central sensory integration for balance after mild traumatic brain injury. Mil Med. 2018;183:327–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Razjouyan J, Lee H, Parthasarathy S, Mohler J, Sharafkhaneh A, Najafi B. Improving sleep quality assessment using wearable sensors by including information from postural/sleep position changes and body acceleration: a comparison of chest-worn sensors, wrist actigraphy, and polysomnography. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13:1301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Whybrow S, Ritz P, Horgan GW, Stubbs RJ. An evaluation of the IDEEA™ activity monitor for estimating energy expenditure. Br J Nutr. 2013;109:173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of NeurologyReed Neurologic Research CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations