Wearable Sensors to Monitor, Enable Feedback, and Measure Outcomes of Activity and Practice
- 649 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsTelemedicine Rehabilitation Outcome measures Physical activity Activity monitor Self-management Gait Accelerometry
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 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
- 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.•• 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.• 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
- 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.• 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
- 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.• 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.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
- 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.• 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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