| Literature DB >> 30223429 |
Ke Lu1, Liyun Yang2,3, Fernando Seoane4,5,6, Farhad Abtahi7,8, Mikael Forsman9,10, Kaj Lindecrantz11,12.
Abstract
This paper presents a new method that integrates heart rate, respiration, and motion information obtained from a wearable sensor system to estimate energy expenditure. The system measures electrocardiography, impedance pneumography, and acceleration from upper and lower limbs. A multilayer perceptron neural network model was developed, evaluated, and compared to two existing methods, with data from 11 subjects (mean age, 27 years, range, 21⁻65 years) who performed a 3-h protocol including submaximal tests, simulated work tasks, and periods of rest. Oxygen uptake was measured with an indirect calorimeter as a reference, with a time resolution of 15 s. When compared to the reference, the new model showed a lower mean absolute error (MAE = 1.65 mL/kg/min, R² = 0.92) than the two existing methods, i.e., the flex-HR method (MAE = 2.83 mL/kg/min, R² = 0.75), which uses only heart rate, and arm-leg HR+M method (MAE = 2.12 mL/kg/min, R² = 0.86), which uses heart rate and motion information. As indicated, this new model may, in combination with a wearable system, be useful in occupational and general health applications.Entities:
Keywords: accelerometer; energy expenditure; impedance pneumography; neural network; wearable device
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223429 PMCID: PMC6164120 DOI: 10.3390/s18093092
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The wearable sensor system and its placement. The system includes a vest with textile electrodes, a wireless ECG and IP recording unit, 4 accelerometers, rubber wristbands, and trousers with specially designed pockets.
Characteristics of included participants (median [range]).
| Men ( | Women ( | All ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 27 [21–65] | 43 [25–61] | 27 [21–65] |
| Height (cm) | 181 [171–199] | 169 [165–173] | 177 [165–199] |
| Weight (kg) | 77 [51–89] | 60 [58–62] | 75 [51–89] |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.8 [17.4–25.6] | 20.9 [20.7–21.2] | 22.6 [17.4–25.6] |
| VO2 max (mL/min/kg) | 42.9 [32.1–54.6] | 35.6 [30.9–40.3] | 40.3 [30.9–54.6] |
Figure 2A demonstration of the flow of the oxygen consumption (VO2) process. The input and output are explained in Table 2.
Summary of the input features and the output of the neural network.
| Input Features | % HRmax | HR normalized by age predicted HRmax |
| % VE-rel max | VE-rel normalized by estimated VE-rel max | |
| ACCarm | Mean absolute value of wrist acceleration | |
| ACCleg | Mean absolute value of thigh acceleration | |
| Output | % VO2 max | VO2 normalized by estimated VO2 max |
A comparison of requirements of input data and personalized measurement among the three methods.
| Methods | Input Data | Additional Individualized Measurements |
|---|---|---|
| Flex-HR | HR | Flex HR Point |
| Arm-Leg HR+M | HR, ACCleg, ACCarm | REE |
| Proposed | HR, ACCleg, ACCarm, VE-rel | VO2 max |
A summary of tasks performed during the experiments and corresponding mean VO2 level (mL/min/kg) of the 11 subjects.
| Group | Task | VO2 Level (Mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Resting | Lying | 3.78 ± 0.96 |
| Sitting | 3.82 ± 1.16 | |
| Standing | 4.01 ± 0.41 | |
| Work Tasks | Office Work | 4.01 ± 1.42 |
| Painting Work | 8.51 ± 1.68 | |
| Postal Delivery Work | 14.04 ± 2.37 | |
| Meat Cutting Work | 7.62 ± 1.89 | |
| Construction Work | 12.24 ± 4.56 | |
| Submaximal Tests | Step Test | 22.23 ± 7.71 |
| Treadmill Test | 22.88 ± 8.05 | |
| Arm Ergometer Test | 11.06 ± 4.98 |
Results of the cross validation of the relative VO2 (%VO2 max) from the neural network.
| Gender | Age (Year) | Weight (kg) | Height (cm) | BMI (kg/m2) | VO2 max (mL/kg/min) | %VO2 max | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Train | Test 1 | ||||||||||
| Bias | RMSE | R2 | Bias | RMSE | R2 | ||||||
| M | 65 | 80 | 188 | 22.6 | 32.7 | −0.03 | 5.26 | 0.92 | −2.03 | 5.74 | 0.88 |
| M | 21 | 77 | 176.5 | 24.7 | 54.6 | 0.07 | 5.54 | 0.90 | −0.35 | 5.40 | 0.92 |
| F | 61 | 62 | 173 | 20.7 | 30.9 | 0.10 | 5.06 | 0.92 | −1.19 | 8.03 | 0.84 |
| F | 25 | 58 | 165.5 | 21.2 | 40.3 | −0.01 | 5.39 | 0.91 | 0.11 | 4.55 | 0.93 |
| M | 27 | 88.5 | 199 | 22.3 | 47.8 | 0.04 | 5.33 | 0.91 | 0.18 | 4.69 | 0.94 |
| M | 27 | 51 | 171 | 17.4 | 39.6 | 0.14 | 5.21 | 0.92 | −0.36 | 6.61 | 0.87 |
| M | 25 | 79.8 | 176.5 | 25.6 | 43.6 | 0.05 | 5.35 | 0.91 | 1.84 | 4.60 | 0.93 |
| M | 29 | 88.9 | 190 | 24.6 | 42.9 | −0.03 | 5.54 | 0.91 | −0.51 | 4.07 | 0.95 |
| M | 42 | 75 | 177 | 23.9 | 32.1 | 0.03 | 5.26 | 0.92 | 2.71 | 5.93 | 0.88 |
| M | 26 | 75 | 181.5 | 22.8 | 37.2 | 0.06 | 5.28 | 0.91 | −0.68 | 4.86 | 0.92 |
| M | 26 | 68.5 | 184 | 20.2 | 44.8 | 0.08 | 5.30 | 0.91 | −1.47 | 5.76 | 0.90 |
| Average Mean (SD) | −0.16 | 5.47 | 0.91 | ||||||||
1 In each row, the data for the specific subject was excluded in the training and used for the testing.
Comparison of VO2 estimation results among flex-HR, arm-leg HR+M, and proposed method (mL/kg/min).
| Methods | Individual Bias 1 | Group Bias | MAE | RMSE | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flex-HR | 1.11 | 0.69 | 2.83 | 4.00 | 0.75 |
| Arm-Leg HR+M | 0.60 | −0.09 | 2.12 | 2.95 | 0.86 |
| Proposed | 0.42 | −0.07 | 1.65 | 2.28 | 0.92 |
1 Mean absolute value of individual biases.
Figure 3Bland-Altman plots and error rate histograms of flex-HR, arm-leg HR+M, and proposed methods against the criterion measurement. Data used in individual calibration are plotted in grey.
Comparison of task specific errors among three methods (mL/kg/min).
| Resting | Office Work | Painting | Postal Delivery | Meat Cutting | Construction Work | Step | Treadmill | Arm Ergometer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||
| Bias | −0.05 | −0.29 | −0.47 |
|
| 1.05 | −1.05 1 |
|
|
| RMSE | 0.90 | 0.84 |
|
|
| 3.90 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| Bias |
|
| − | −1.59 | −0.16 | −1.09 |
| −0.01 2 | 0.00 2 |
| RMSE |
|
| 2.55 | 2.57 | 1.56 |
| 2.53 | 1.82 2 | 1.14 2 |
|
| |||||||||
| Bias | 0.02 | 0.17 | −0.47 | −0.46 | 0.55 |
| −1.08 3 | 0.44 | 0.06 |
| RMSE | 0.93 | 0.86 | 1.69 | 2.36 | 1.62 | 3.88 | 2.83 3 | 2.71 | 1.69 |
The bold and italic numbers indicate the largest error in each activity. 1 Data used for individual calibration, with pre-estimated VO2 level. 2 Data used for individual calibration, with measured VO2 level. 3 Data used for VO2max estimation, with pre-estimated VO2 level.