| Literature DB >> 24859032 |
Gregory Koshmak1, Maria Linden2, Amy Loutfi3.
Abstract
Fall incidents among the elderly often occur in the home and can cause serious injuries affecting their independent living. This paper presents an approach where data from wearable sensors integrated in a smart home environment is combined using a dynamic Bayesian network. The smart home environment provides contextual data, obtained from environmental sensors, and contributes to assessing a fall risk probability. The evaluation of the developed system is performed through simulation. Each time step is represented by a single user activity and interacts with a fall sensors located on a mobile device. A posterior probability is calculated for each recognized activity or contextual information. The output of the system provides a total risk assessment of falling given a response from the fall sensor.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24859032 PMCID: PMC4063049 DOI: 10.3390/s140509330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Smartphone coordinate axis.
Figure 2.Inferring “cooking” activity.
Figure 3.Hidden Markov model (HMM).
Figure 4.The integrated system. DBN, dynamic Bayesian network; ADL, activities of daily living.
Preliminary list of activities.
| Sleeping | Sl | pressure bed sensor + presence in the bedroom |
| Showering | Sh | tap sensor + presence in the bathroom |
| Cooking | C | stove sensor + presence in the kitchen |
| TV watching | TV | TV sensor + presence in the living room |
| Fall Alarm | FA | final indication of the fall |
| Training | Tr | exercise machine sensor + accelerometer sensor |
| Fall Event | FE | fall indication received form the phone-based detector |
Figure 5.The system's directed acyclic graph (DAG) unrolled for two time slices.
Conditional probabilities.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 2 | 1 | 0.6 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 1 | 2 | 0.9 | 1 | 2 | 0.87 |
| 2 | 2 | 0.1 | 2 | 2 | 0.13 |
|
|
| ||||
Conditional probabilities, including interconnections.
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.2 |
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 0.9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0.6 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0.6 |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.4 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.8 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.4 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.4 |
|
|
| ||||||
Figure 6.Simulation process.
Figure 7.System demonstration.
Simulation process summary.
| 28 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.14 | 0.2, 025, 0.53 | |
| 24 | 0.05 | 0.2 | 0.14 | 0.38, 0.4, 0.6 | |
| 17 | 0.09 | 0.8 | 0.29 | 0.8 | |
| 12 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.13 | - | |
| 18 | 0.24 | 0.92 | 0.58 | 0.85, 0.9, 0.92 |
Figure 8.Evaluation results. (a) Simulation results; (b) Demonstration results.
List of confirmed alarms.
| 30 | 0.92 | |||
| 50 | 0.79 | |||
| 70 | 0.85 | |||
| 80 | 0.89 |