| Literature DB >> 26861337 |
Lei Yu1,2, Daxi Xiong3, Liquan Guo4, Jiping Wang5.
Abstract
Clinical rehabilitation assessment is an important part of the therapy process because it is the premise for prescribing suitable rehabilitation interventions. However, the commonly used assessment scales have the following two drawbacks: (1) they are susceptible to subjective factors; (2) they only have several rating levels and are influenced by a ceiling effect, making it impossible to exactly detect any further improvement in the movement. Meanwhile, energy constraints are a primary design consideration in wearable sensor network systems since they are often battery-operated. Traditionally, for wearable sensor network systems that follow the Shannon/Nyquist sampling theorem, there are many data that need to be sampled and transmitted. This paper proposes a novel wearable sensor network system to monitor and quantitatively assess the upper limb motion function, based on compressed sensing technology. With the sparse representation model, less data is transmitted to the computer than with traditional systems. The experimental results show that the accelerometer signals of Bobath handshake and shoulder touch exercises can be compressed, and the length of the compressed signal is less than 1/3 of the raw signal length. More importantly, the reconstruction errors have no influence on the predictive accuracy of the Brunnstrom stage classification model. It also indicated that the proposed system can not only reduce the amount of data during the sampling and transmission processes, but also, the reconstructed accelerometer signals can be used for quantitative assessment without any loss of useful information.Entities:
Keywords: Brunnstrom stage classification; compressed sensing; quantitative assessment; stroke; wearable sensor network
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26861337 PMCID: PMC4801578 DOI: 10.3390/s16020202
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1System structure of a compressed sensing-based wearable sensor network.
Figure 2Structure of single layer feedforward network.
Flow of the ELM algorithm.
| Step 1: Generate random input weight |
| Step 2: Compute the output of neurons in hidden layer according to Equation (6). |
| Step 3: Compute the output weight |
The general information of the 23 stroke patients.
| Brunnstrom Stage Level | Patients | Sex (M/F) | Hemiplegic Side (Left/Right) | Limb Dominance (Left/Right) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| II | 2 | 0/2 | 2/0 | 0/2 |
| III | 10 | 5/5 | 6/4 | 2/8 |
| IV | 4 | 3/1 | 3/1 | 0/4 |
| V | 7 | 5/2 | 2/5 | 1/6 |
Figure 3General view of (a) the accelerometer sensors and (b) the accelerometer sensor location.
Figure 4Raw accelerometer signals.
Figure 5Compressed accelerometer signals.
Figure 6Reconstructed accelerometer signals and absolute errors (AE).
Signal recovery results of BSBL, BP and OMP algorithms.
| Methods | Correlation Coefficients between Reconstructed and Raw Signals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | Y1 | Z1 | X2 | Y2 | Z2 | |
| BSBL | ||||||
| BP | 0.8762 | 0.8814 | 0.8729 | 0.8651 | 0.8964 | 0.9015 |
| OMP | 0.9356 | 0.9521 | 0.9188 | 0.9672 | 0.9248 | 0.9366 |
Figure 7Effects of the block size on SNR.
Figure 8Effects of the compression ratio on SNR.
Figure 9Sparsity of raw accelerometer signal (axis X1).
Figure 10(a)–(e) Reconstructed and raw accelerometer signals from Brunnstrom stages II to VI.
Figure 11Comparison of compressed and raw signals on quantitative assessment model accuracy.
Comparison of compressed and raw signals on quantitative assessment model accuracy.
| Brunnstrom Stage | Samples in Testing Set | Predictive Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Model | Compressed Sensing Model | ||
| II | 2 | 100 (2/2) | 100 (2/2) |
| III | 14 | 85.7 (12/14) | 78.6 (11/14) |
| IV | 9 | 88.8 (8/9) | 100 (9/9) |
| V | 9 | 100 (9/9) | 88.8 (8/9) |
| VI | 4 | 100 (4/4) | 100 (4/4) |
| Total | 38 | 92.1 (35/38) | 89.5 (34/38) |
Analysis of variance results.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Prob > F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between Groups | 0.0132 | 1 | 0.01316 | 0.01 | 0.9205 |
| Within Groups | 96.9737 | 74 | 1.31046 | ||
| Total | 96.9868 | 75 |