| Literature DB >> 28774311 |
Yang Wang1, Zhiwen Liu2, Jian Yang3, Shaodong Ma3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plantar pressure measurement has become increasingly useful in the evaluation of plantar health conditions thanks to the recent progression in sensing technology. Due to the large volume and high energy consumption of monitoring devices, traditional systems for plantar pressure measurement are only focused on static or short-term dynamic monitoring. It makes them inappropriate for early detections of plantar symptoms usually presented in long-term activities.Entities:
Keywords: Exercise load quantification; Heart rate; Plantar pressure; Strike frequency
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28774311 PMCID: PMC5543572 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-017-0389-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Framework of the proposed BSN-based system.
Fig. 2Architecture of the mobile client.
Fig. 3Sensor bands of the mobile client. a and c are the wrist-type band and ankle-type band, respectively. b and d give examples of wearing methods for (a) and (c), respectively.
Fig. 4Software architecture of sensor bands.
Fig. 5Algorithm of HR estimation.
Fig. 6Algorithm of SF estimation.
Fig. 7Architecture of the applications on smart phones.
Fig. 8Software interfaces of mobile application on smart phones. a user login; b configuration; c list of searched devices; d upload information.
Fig. 9An example of synchronous period selection.
Four levels of exercise load quantification.
| Level | Score | Load description | Borg’s RPE | RPE description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | No load | – | Nothing at all | Sitting |
| 2 | 1–20 | Light load | 6–10 | Very, very light–very light | Slow walking |
| 3 | 21–50 | Moderate load | 11–14 | Fairly light–somewhat hard | Fast walking |
| 4 | 51–100 | Intensive load | 15–20 | Hard–very, very hard | Running |
Summary of experimental results from 30 subjects.
| S | G | A | mRaeHR | mRaeSF | mSW | mSJ | mPnthW | mPnthJ | PdthW | PdthJ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 27 | 3.72 | 3.49 | 10.45 | 49.71 | 0.44 | 0.13 | 0.48 | 0.15 |
| 2 | M | 25 | 4.12 | 6.77 | 14.18 | 59.65 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.17 |
| 3 | F | 25 | 4.79 | 4.88 | 13.37 | 71.54 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.21 | 0.12 |
| 4 | M | 22 | 4.41 | 3.27 | 35.60 | 81.85 | 0.26 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| 5 | F | 27 | 3.95 | 4.70 | 17.06 | 68.70 | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.10 |
| 6 | M | 26 | 4.54 | 4.57 | 17.03 | 69.34 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 | M | 23 | 4.42 | 5.54 | 19.37 | 72.37 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.04 |
| 8 | F | 22 | 3.38 | 6.10 | 13.46 | 71.20 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.33 | 0.16 |
| 9 | F | 23 | 2.75 | 6.28 | 18.35 | 72.16 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.13 |
| 10 | M | 24 | 4.01 | 7.44 | 31.71 | 75.12 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.11 |
| 11 | M | 27 | 5.62 | 3.39 | 16.93 | 58.97 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.08 |
| 12 | M | 28 | 4.39 | 4.71 | 19.06 | 73.55 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.26 | 0.13 |
| 13 | F | 26 | 5.50 | 5.67 | 10.03 | 50.50 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.05 |
| 14 | M | 25 | 3.58 | 5.92 | 40.05 | 76.57 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.02 |
| 15 | M | 32 | 3.01 | 2.16 | 28.30 | 66.53 | 0.48 |
| 0.46 |
|
| 16 | F | 25 | 6.57 | 2.15 | 15.81 | 74.83 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.17 |
| 17 | M | 25 | 6.49 | 4.06 | 32.23 | 77.60 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| 18 | F | 23 | 5.16 | 2.11 | 12.19 | 71.96 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.11 |
| 19 | F | 24 | 3.32 | 5.00 | 9.51 | 71.30 | 0.22 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.06 |
| 20 | M | 25 | 4.50 | 4.42 | 15.67 | 68.74 | 0.30 | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.10 |
| 21 | M | 24 | 4.70 | 1.70 | 18.42 | 59.54 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.14 |
| 22 | M | 24 | 10.17 | 4.37 | 44.53 | 82.49 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.08 |
| 23 | F | 26 | 3.98 | 5.68 | 11.86 | 74.73 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.12 |
| 24 | M | 29 | 5.69 | 7.09 | 34.98 | 76.08 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.22 | 0.06 |
| 25 | M | 24 | 4.34 | 5.34 | 24.21 | 72.80 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.16 |
| 26 | M | 26 | 7.03 | 4.30 | 30.24 | 72.61 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.12 |
| 27 | F | 26 | 4.98 | 6.74 | 16.24 | 65.90 | 0.33 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.11 |
| 28 | F | 23 | 6.78 | 6.28 | 17.14 | 74.38 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.09 |
| 29 | M | 27 | 3.64 | 4.61 | 18.07 | 66.35 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.02 |
| 30 | M | 25 | 3.69 | 4.23 | 27.26 | 79.75 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.10 |
Values of mRaeHR and mRaeSF are expressed as percentages
Italic values indicate the significance of noticeable difference related to and
S subject, G gender, A age, M Male, F female, mRaeHR mean of HR, mRaeSF mean of SF, mSW mean score of exercise load in walking status, mSJ mean score of exercise load in jogging status, mPnthW mean value of in walking status, mPnthJ mean value of in jogging status, PdthW value of in walking status PdthJ value of in jogging status
Fig. 10r and of HR and SF estimation on all subjects’ recordings. a r; b .
Mean, range and distribution of scores in motion status.
| Status | Mean | Range | L1 (%) | L2 (%) | L3 (%) | L4 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walking | 21.1 | 2.1–59.1 | 0 | 60.7 | 35.7 | 3.6 |
| Running | 70.2 | 26.6–99.1 | 0 | 0 | 19.7 | 80.3 |
Fig. 11Box plot of scores in different motion status.
Fig. 12Distribution of plantar pressure in different motion status. a walking status; b jogging status.
Fig. 13Comparison of PPV on the left foot among S2, S6 and S15. a and b illustrate the PPV of S2, b and e, c and f are the results of S6 and S15, respectively.
Fig. 14Comparison of with different load exercise.
Consumptions of energy and data uploading time calculated from sensor bands.
| Band type | Energy (mAh) | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| Wrist | 83.4 ± 3.5 | 6.3 ± 0.2 |
| Left ankle | 42.1 ± 1.4 | 45.2 ± 0.2 |
| Right ankle | 42.7 ± 0.8 | 45.4 ± 0.1 |
All data are presented as mean±SD