Advertisement

A Cross-Sectional Study Using Wireless Electrocardiogram to Investigate Physical Workload of Wheelchair Control in Real World Environments

  • Shawn JoshiEmail author
  • Roxana Ramirez Herrera
  • Daniella Nicole Springett
  • Benjamin David Weedon
  • Dafne Zuleima Morgado Ramirez
  • Catherine Holloway
  • Hasan Ayaz
  • Helen Dawes
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 953)

Abstract

The wheelchair is a key invention that provides individuals with limitations in mobility increased independence and participation in society. However, wheelchair control is a complicated motor task that increases physical and mental workload. New wheelchair interfaces, including power-assisted devices can further enable users by reducing the required effort especially in more demanding environments. The protocol engaged novice wheelchair users to push a wheelchair with and without power assist in a simple and complex environment using wireless Electrocardiogram (ECG) to approximate heart rate (HR). Results indicated that HR determined from ECG data, decreased with use of the power-assist. The use of power-assist however did reduce behavioral performance, particularly within obstacles that required more control.

Keywords

Wheelchair Power-assist Heart rate Wireless Real-world Cognitive workload Disability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jamie Whitty and Joel Chappell of the School of Architecture from Oxford Brookes University, for constructing our ramps, Ian Allen, the Oxford Brookes sports booking coordinator, for helping us with numerous appointments, and our research assistants Cyrus Goodger, Jessica Andrich, and JoJo Dawes. This research was funded through the Adaptive Assistive Rehabilitative Technologies – Beyond the Clinic grant by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M025543/1). SJ is additionally supported by the Fulbright US-UK Commission. HD is supported by the Elizabeth Casson Trust and received support from the NIHR Oxford health Biomedical Research Centre. Additional support provided by CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology in Mexico).

References

  1. 1.
    McClure, L.A., Boninger, M.L., Oyster, M.L., Williams, S., Houlihan, B., Lieberman, J.A., Cooper, R.A.: Wheelchair repairs, breakdown, and adverse consequences for people with traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 90, 2034–2038 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, C., McCreadie, M., Unsworth, J., Wickings, H.I., Harrison, A.: Patient satisfaction: an indicator of quality in disablement services centres. Qual. Health Care 44, 31–3631 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalyan, M., Cardenas, D.D., Gerard, B.: Upper extremity pain after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 37, 191–195 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fullerton, H.D., Borckardt, J.J., Alfano, A.P.: Shoulder pain: a comparison of wheelchair athletes and nonathletic wheelchair users. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 35, 1958–1961 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holloway, C.S., Symonds, A., Suzuki, T., Gall, A., Smitham, P., Taylor, S.: Linking wheelchair kinetics to glenohumeral joint demand during everyday accessibility activities. In: 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 2478–2481 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asheghan, M., Hollisaz, M.T., Taheri, T., Kazemi, H., Aghda, A.K.: The prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome among long-term manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: a cross-sectional study. J. Spinal Cord Med. 39, 265–271 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tawashy, A.E., Eng, J.J., Krassioukov, A.V., Miller, W.C., Sproule, S.: Aerobic exercise during early rehabilitation for cervical spinal cord injury. Phys. Ther. 90, 427–437 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Den Berg-Emons, R.J., Bussmann, J.B., Haisma, J.A., Sluis, T.A., Van Der Woude, L.H.V., Bergen, M.P., Stam, H.J.: Prospective study on physical activity levels after spinal cord injury during inpatient rehabilitation and the year after discharge. Assistive Technol. Res. Ser. 26, 134–136 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gauthier, C., Arel, J., Brosseau, R., Hicks, A.L., Gagnon, D.H.: Reliability and minimal detectable change of a new treadmill-based progressive workload incremental test to measure cardiorespiratory fitness in manual wheelchair users. J. Spinal Cord Med. 40, 759–767 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Der Scheer, J.W., De Groot, S., Tepper, M., Gobets, D., Veeger, D.J.H.E.J., Van Der Woude, L.H.V., Woldring, F., Valent, L., Slootman, H., Faber, W.: Wheelchair-specific fitness of inactive people with long-term spinal cord injury. J. Rehabil. Med. 47, 330–337 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holloway, C., Tyler, N.: A micro-level approach to measuring the accessibility of footways for wheelchair users using the Capability Model. Transp. Planning Technol. 36, 636–649 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holloway, C.S.: The Effect of Footway Crossfall Gradient on Wheelchair Accessibility. Department of Civil, Environmental, & Geomatic Engineering. University College London, London (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kloosterman, M.G.M., Snoek, G.J., Van Der Woude, L.H.V., Buurke, J.H., Rietman, J.S.: A systematic review on the pros and cons of using a pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchair. Clin. Rehabil. 27, 299–313 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper, R.A., Boninger, M.L., Spaeth, D.M., Ding, D., Guo, S., Koontz, A.M., Fitzgerald, S.G., Cooper, R., Kelleher, A., Collins, D.M.: Engineering better wheelchairs to enhance community participation. In: IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 14, pp. 438–455 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Woude, L.H.V., de Groot, S., Janssen, T.W.J.: Manual wheelchairs: research and innovation in rehabilitation, sports, daily life, and health. Med. Eng. Phys. 28, 905–915 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine: Preservation of upper limb function following spinal cord injury: what you should know (2008) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgado Ramirez, D.Z., Holloway, C.: “But, i don’t want/need a power wheelchair”: toward accessible power assistance for manual wheelchairs. In: Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 120–129 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao, Y., Tang, J., Cao, Y., Jiao, X., Xu, M., Zhou, P., Ming, D., Qi, H.: Effects of distracting task with different mental workload on steady-state visual evoked potential based brain computer interfaces - an offline study. Front. Neurosci. 12, 1–11 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Making 2, 140–160 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hancock, P.A., Parasuraman, R.: Human factors and safety in the design of intelligent vehicle-highway systems. J. Saf. Res. 23, 181–198 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oyster, M.L., Smith, I.J., Kirby, R.L., Cooper, T.A., Groah, S.L., Pedersen, J.P., Boninger, M.L.: Wheelchair skill performance of manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Top. Spinal Cord Inj. Rehabil. 18, 138–139 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Causse, M., Chua, Z., Peysakhovich, V., Del Campo, N., Matton, N.: Mental workload and neural efficiency quantified in the prefrontal cortex using fNIRS. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–15 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Curtin, A., Ayaz, H.: The age of neuroergonomics: towards ubiquitous and continuous measurement of brain function with fNIRS. Jap. Psychol. Res. 60, 374–386 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ayaz, H., Dehais, F.: Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work and in Everyday Life. Elsevier, Academic Press, London (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark, V.P., Parasuraman, R.: Neuroenhancement: enhancing brain and mind in health and in disease. NeuroImage 85, 889–894 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gramann, K., Fairclough, S.H., Zander, T.O., Ayaz, H.: Editorial: trends in neuroergonomics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 11–14 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karwowski, W., Siemionow, W., Gielo-Perczak, K.: Physical neuroergonomics: the human brain in control of physical work activities. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 4, 175–199 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mehta, R.K., Parasuraman, R.: Neuroergonomics: a review of applications to physical and cognitive work. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 1–10 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parasuraman, R.: Neuroergonomics: research and practice. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 4, 5–20 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parasuraman, R.: Neuroergonomics: brain, cognition, and performance at work. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 181–186 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parasuraman, R., Christensen, J., Grafton, S.: Neuroergonomics: the brain in action and at work. NeuroImage 59, 1–3 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parasuraman, R., Rizzo, M.: Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work. Oxford Univesity Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fallahi, M., Motamedzade, M., Heidarimoghadam, R., Soltanian, A.R., Miyake, S.: Assessment of operators’ mental workload using physiological and subjective measures in cement, city traffic and power plant controlcenters. Health Promo. Perspect. 6, 96–103 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sauer, J., Nickel, P., Wastell, D.: Designing automation for complex work environments under different levels of stress. Appl. Ergon. 44, 119–127 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chen, W.Y., Jang, Y., Wang, J.D., Huang, W.N., Chang, C.C., Mao, H.F., Wang, Y.H.: Wheelchair-related accidents: relationship with wheelchair-using behavior in active community wheelchair users. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 92, 892–898 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roscoe, A.H.: Assessing pilot workload. Why measure heart rate, HRV and respiration? Biol. Psychol. 34, 259–287 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Title II 279–279 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thomas, S., Reading, J., Shephard, R.J.: Revision of the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can. J. Sport Sci. = J. Can. des sciences du sport 17, 338–345 (1992)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Meyers, A.R., Anderson, J.J., Miller, D.R., Shipp, K., Hoenig, H.: Barriers, facilitators, and access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodologic lessons from a pilot study of environmental effects. Soc. Sci. Med. 55, 1435–1446 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rimmer, J.H., Riley, B., Wang, E., Rauworth, A., Jurkowski, J.: Physical activity participation among persons with disabilities: barriers and facilitators. Am. J. Prev. Med. 26, 419–425 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Light, K.C., Obrist, P.A.: Task difficulty, heart rate reactivity, and cardiovascular responses to an appetitive reaction time task. Psychophysiology 20, 301–312 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Faure, V., Lobjois, R., Benguigui, N.: The effects of driving environment complexity and dual tasking on drivers’ mental workload and eye blink behavior. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 40, 78–90 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lyu, N., Xie, L., Wu, C., Fu, Q., Deng, C.: Driver’s cognitive workload and driving performance under traffic sign information exposure in complex environments: a case study of the highways in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14, 1–25 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stikic, M., Berka, C., Levendowski, D.J., Rubio, R., Tan, V., Korszen, S., Barba, D., Wurzel, D.: Modeling temporal sequences of cognitive state changes based on a combination of EEG-engagement, EEG-workload, and heart rate metrics. Front. Neurosci. 8, 1–14 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hilbers, P.A., White, T.P.: Effects of wheelchair design on metabolic and heart rate responses during propulsion by persons with paraplegia. Phys. Ther. 67, 1355–1358 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Champagne, A., Gagnon, D.H., Vincent, C.: Comparison of cardiorespiratory demand and rate of perceived exertion during propulsion in a natural environment with and without the use of a mobility assistance dog in manual wheelchair users, vol. 95, p. 685. Published for the AAP by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD (2016)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Li, W.-C., Chiu, F.-C., Kuo, Y.-s., Wu, K.-J.: The investigation of visual attention and workload by experts and novices in the cockpit BT - engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. In: Applications and Services, pp. 167–176. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2013) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shawn Joshi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Roxana Ramirez Herrera
    • 6
  • Daniella Nicole Springett
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Benjamin David Weedon
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Dafne Zuleima Morgado Ramirez
    • 6
    • 7
  • Catherine Holloway
    • 6
    • 7
  • Hasan Ayaz
    • 1
    • 8
    • 9
    • 10
  • Helen Dawes
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Biomedical Engineering, Science & Health SystemsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.College of MedicineDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Movement Science GroupOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  4. 4.Oxford Institute of Nursing, Midwifery, and Allied Health ResearchOxfordUK
  5. 5.Nuffield Department of Clinical NeurosciencesOxford UniversityOxfordUK
  6. 6.UCL Interaction CentreUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  7. 7.Global Disability Innovation HubLondonUK
  8. 8.Department of Family and Community HealthUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  9. 9.Center for Injury Research and Prevention, Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhialdelphiaUSA
  10. 10.Drexel Business Solution InstituteDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations