| Literature DB >> 29104256 |
Ramesh Rajagopalan1, Irene Litvan2, Tzyy-Ping Jung3.
Abstract
Fall prediction is a multifaceted problem that involves complex interactions between physiological, behavioral, and environmental factors. Existing fall detection and prediction systems mainly focus on physiological factors such as gait, vision, and cognition, and do not address the multifactorial nature of falls. In addition, these systems lack efficient user interfaces and feedback for preventing future falls. Recent advances in internet of things (IoT) and mobile technologies offer ample opportunities for integrating contextual information about patient behavior and environment along with physiological health data for predicting falls. This article reviews the state-of-the-art in fall detection and prediction systems. It also describes the challenges, limitations, and future directions in the design and implementation of effective fall prediction and prevention systems.Entities:
Keywords: fall prediction; fall prevention; information fusion; internet of things; wearable and ambient sensing
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29104256 PMCID: PMC5713074 DOI: 10.3390/s17112509
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Qualitative comparison of various fall detection and prediction systems.
| Article | Sensor | Subjects | Obtrusive | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bourke et al. [ | Waist mounted accelerometer | 10 young healthy subjects and 10 elderly heathy subjects | medium | Threshold based algorithm achieves 100% specificity and sensitivity with a false-positive rate of less than 1 false-positive (0.6 false-positives) per day of waking hours. |
| Binachi et al. [ | Waist-mounted wearable sensor system composed of an accelerometer and a barometric pressure sensor. | 20 young healthy volunteers | medium | The proposed system demonstrated an accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 96.9%, 97.5%, and 96.5%, respectively, in the indoor environment, with no false positives generated during extended testing during activities of daily living. |
| Howcraft et al. [ | Accelerometers and pressure sensing insoles | 75 individuals who reported six month prospective fall occurrence | Low | The best performing fall prediction system used a neural network, dual-task gait data, and input parameters from head, pelvis, and left shank accelerometers. |
| Sannino et al. [ | A tag placed on subjects’ chest | real-world database containing a set of fall and non-fall actions | Low | Their method achieves better accuracy than four state of the art machine learning algorithms. |
| Hirata et al. [ | Proximity sensors attached to walking aid device | unspecified | Low | Their method uses a passive intelligent walker to prevent the user’s fall according to the support polygon and the walking characteristic of the user. |
| Bian et al. [ | Infrared camera | Four healthy subjects | Medium | The proposed approach uses the infra-red based depth camera that can operate in dark environments. Experimental results show that the accuracy of the proposed algorithm is improved by 11.8% compared with a state-of-the-art fall detection algorithm. |
| Hilbi et al. [ | Pressure sensors | Older adults in a hospital | Low | The results show that sensitivity and the specificity of the proposed approach are 96% and 99% respectively indicating a satisfactory performance. Further consistently designed studies such as randomized controlled trails are required to show the effect of bed-exit alarm systems on fall risk. |
| Pisan et al. [ | Microsoft Kinect camera | 57 elderly patients | Medium | Their results show that for users who are at risk of falling, the slowing down in reaction time due to cognitive load is much larger than for users who are not at risk of falling. |
Figure 1Interaction between various fall risk factors.