| Literature DB >> 27330890 |
Riyad Al-Shaqi1, Monjur Mourshed1, Yacine Rezgui1.
Abstract
One of the challenges of the ageing population in many countries is the efficient delivery of health and care services, which is further complicated by the increase in neurological conditions among the elderly due to rising life expectancy. Personal care of the elderly is of concern to their relatives, in case they are alone in their homes and unforeseen circumstances occur, affecting their wellbeing. The alternative; i.e. care in nursing homes or hospitals is costly and increases further if specialized care is mobilized to patients' place of residence. Enabling technologies for independent living by the elderly such as the ambient assisted living systems (AALS) are seen as essential to enhancing care in a cost-effective manner. In light of significant advances in telecommunication, computing and sensor miniaturization, as well as the ubiquity of mobile and connected devices embodying the concept of the Internet of Things (IoT), end-to-end solutions for ambient assisted living have become a reality. The premise of such applications is the continuous and most often real-time monitoring of the environment and occupant behavior using an event-driven intelligent system, thereby providing a facility for monitoring and assessment, and triggering assistance as and when needed. As a growing area of research, it is essential to investigate the approaches for developing AALS in literature to identify current practices and directions for future research. This paper is, therefore, aimed at a comprehensive and critical review of the frameworks and sensor systems used in various ambient assisted living systems, as well as their objectives and relationships with care and clinical systems. Findings from our work suggest that most frameworks focused on activity monitoring for assessing immediate risks, while the opportunities for integrating environmental factors for analytics and decision-making, in particular for the long-term care were often overlooked. The potential for wearable devices and sensors, as well as distributed storage and access (e.g. cloud) are yet to be fully appreciated. There is a distinct lack of strong supporting clinical evidence from the implemented technologies. Socio-cultural aspects such as divergence among groups, acceptability and usability of AALS were also overlooked. Future systems need to look into the issues of privacy and cyber security.Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Ambient assisted living; Dementia; Elderly; Independent living; Smart homes
Year: 2016 PMID: 27330890 PMCID: PMC4870543 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2272-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Number of persons aged 65 years or over, per hundred children under 15 years.
Data source: (UN 2012)
Fig. 2Architecture of a typical ambient assisted living system. Adapted from (Pollack 2005)
AALS sensor characteristics and cost
| Sensor | Usage | Signal type | References | Device costa (US$) | Installation | Comment | Noise |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnetic switch | Detect the opening of doors, windows, cabinets, etc. | Binary | Virone et al. | 5.00 ± 0.75 | Easy | High operational reliability. Maintenance free. | No |
| Temperature sensor | Detect ambient or water temperature | Continuous | Rowe et al. ( | 9.00 ± 2.00 | Moderately difficult | Normal operational reliability. May need frequent calibration. | No |
| Photosensor | Detect illuminance level | Continuous | Rowe et al. | 5.00 ± 1.25 | Moderately difficult | Location and orientation dependent | No |
| Pressure pad | Measure applied pressure at surfaces | Continuous | Virone et al. | 25.00 ± 5.00 | Difficult | Need frequent calibration. | Almost no noise |
| Water flow sensor | Measure flow in taps and showers | Continuous | Gaddam et al. | 24.00 ± 3.00 | Easy | Need frequent maintenance. | No |
| Infrared motion sensor | Detect motion or movement | Binary | Rowe et al. | 35.00 ± 2.00 | Moderately difficult | Normal operational reliability. May need frequent calibration. | No |
| Home electric appliances | Send signals when user turns equipment on/off | Binary | Rowe et al. | 30.00 ± 5.00 | Easy | Need frequent maintenance. | Almost no noise |
| Power/current sensor | Send numeric numbers according to electricity usage | Continuous | ONS | 120.00 ± 3.00 | Difficult | Needs professional installation and maintenance. | No |
| Force sensor | Detect movement and falls | Continuous | Kidd et al. | 33.00 ± 5.00 | Difficult | Need high adjustment | Yes |
| Smoke/heat sensor | Detect smoke or fire | Binary | Mitseva et al. | 18.00 ± 6.00 | Easy | Needs proper installation. | Yes |
| Biosensor | Monitoring human vital-signs | Continuous | Lie et al. | 180.00 ± 5.00 | Difficult | Need professional adjustment | No |
aIndicative cost data, as of January 2015—collected by the authors from various US suppliers. Cost vary according to measurement accuracy, technology, device packaging and number of units
Application, sensor location and aims of recent AALS projects
| Project | Origin | Application | Sensor location | Monitoring aims | References | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | Health and wellbeing | Social interaction | Physically fixed | Wearable | Environmental | Health | Cognitive | |||
| AlarmNet | Virginia, USA | – | – | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | (Wood et al. |
| Assisted Cognition Environment | Washington, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Qixin et al. |
| AWARE | Georgia, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Kidd et al. |
| BioMOBIUS Research | Dublin, Ireland | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | (BioMobus |
| CASAS | Washington, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Rashidi |
| Casattenta | Bologna, Italy | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Farella et al. |
| CodeBlue–Wireless Sensors for Medical Care | Harvard, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | (Wood et al. |
| GatorTech Smart House | Florida, USA | √ | – | √ | √ | – | √ | – | – | (Helal et al. |
| Georgia-Tech Aware Smart Home | Georgia, USA | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | (Kientz et al. |
| Gerontological Smart Home Environment | Paris, France | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | (Gerontological |
| I-LivingTM | Illinois, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | – | √ | – | – | (Bal et al. |
| MavHome | Texas, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | – | √ | – | – | (Cook et al. |
| MIT House_n | Massachusetts, USA | √ | √ | – | √ | – | √ | – | – | (Chan et al. |
| ORCATECH | Oregon, USA | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | (Nehmer et al. |
| SISARL | Hsinchu, Taiwan | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Bal et al. |
| Smart Medical Home | New York, USA | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | (Ricquebourg et al. |
| SOPRANO | Patras, Greece | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | (Müller et al. |
| TAFETA | Ottawa, Canada | √ | √ | – | √ | – | √ | √ | – | (Tafeta |
| WellAWARE | Virginia, USA | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | √ | (Bal et al. |
| CareWatch | Scotland, UK | √ | – | √ | – | – | – | – | – | (Rowe et al. |
| TeleCARE | Scotland, UK | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | – | (Whitten et al. |
| CAALYX | Madrid, Spain | √ | √ | √ | √ | – | √ | √ | – | (Rocha et al. |
| Total | 20 | 19 | 11 | 21 | 11 | 21 | 17 | 9 | ||
It is evident from Table 2 that all projects (n = 22) primarily aim for proper environmental and subject condition monitoring, before going into achieving any required support function
Fig. 3AAL system for providing different type of support