Bruce H Dobkin1, Clarisa Martinez2. 1. Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Neurology, Reed Neurologic Research Center, 710 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1769, USA. bdobkin@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Neurology, Reed Neurologic Research Center, 710 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1769, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Measurements obtained during real-world activity by wearable motion sensors may contribute more naturalistic accounts of clinically meaningful changes in impairment, activity, and participation during neurologic rehabilitation, but obstacles persist. Here we review the basics of wearable sensors, the use of existing systems for neurological and rehabilitation applications and their limitations, and strategies for future use. RECENT FINDINGS: Commercial activity-recognition software and wearable motion sensors for community monitoring primarily calculate steps and sedentary time. Accuracy declines as walking speed slows below 0.8 m/s, less so if worn on the foot or ankle. Upper-extremity sensing is mostly limited to simple inertial activity counts. Research software and activity-recognition algorithms are beginning to provide ground truth about gait cycle variables and reveal purposeful arm actions. Increasingly, clinicians can incorporate inertial and other motion signals to monitor exercise, activities of daily living, and the practice of specific skills, as well as provide tailored feedback to encourage self-management of rehabilitation. Efforts are growing to create a compatible collection of clinically relevant sensor applications that capture the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activity and practice in known contexts. Such data would offer more ecologically sound measurement tools, while enabling clinicians to monitor and support remote physical therapies and behavioral modification when combined with telemedicine outreach.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Measurements obtained during real-world activity by wearable motion sensors may contribute more naturalistic accounts of clinically meaningful changes in impairment, activity, and participation during neurologic rehabilitation, but obstacles persist. Here we review the basics of wearable sensors, the use of existing systems for neurological and rehabilitation applications and their limitations, and strategies for future use. RECENT FINDINGS: Commercial activity-recognition software and wearable motion sensors for community monitoring primarily calculate steps and sedentary time. Accuracy declines as walking speed slows below 0.8 m/s, less so if worn on the foot or ankle. Upper-extremity sensing is mostly limited to simple inertial activity counts. Research software and activity-recognition algorithms are beginning to provide ground truth about gait cycle variables and reveal purposeful arm actions. Increasingly, clinicians can incorporate inertial and other motion signals to monitor exercise, activities of daily living, and the practice of specific skills, as well as provide tailored feedback to encourage self-management of rehabilitation. Efforts are growing to create a compatible collection of clinically relevant sensor applications that capture the type, quantity, and quality of everyday activity and practice in known contexts. Such data would offer more ecologically sound measurement tools, while enabling clinicians to monitor and support remote physical therapies and behavioral modification when combined with telemedicine outreach.
Authors: Stephen Gillinov; Muhammad Etiwy; Robert Wang; Gordon Blackburn; Dermot Phelan; A Marc Gillinov; Penny Houghtaling; Hoda Javadikasgari; Milind Y Desai Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Gitendra Uswatte; Carol Giuliani; Carolee Winstein; Angelique Zeringue; Laura Hobbs; Steven L Wolf Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kimberly J Waddell; Michael J Strube; Ryan R Bailey; Joseph W Klaesner; Rebecca L Birkenmeier; Alexander W Dromerick; Catherine E Lang Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 4.895
Authors: Johannes C M Schlachetzki; Jens Barth; Franz Marxreiter; Julia Gossler; Zacharias Kohl; Samuel Reinfelder; Heiko Gassner; Kamiar Aminian; Bjoern M Eskofier; Jürgen Winkler; Jochen Klucken Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patricia A Richardson; Lauren E Harrison; Lauren C Heathcote; Gillian Rush; Deborah Shear; Chitra Lalloo; Korey Hood; Rikard K Wicksell; Jennifer Stinson; Laura E Simons Journal: Expert Rev Neurother Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 4.618
Authors: Verena Hartung; Mustafa Sarshar; Viktoria Karle; Layal Shammas; Asarnusch Rashid; Paul Roullier; Caroline Eilers; Mathias Mäurer; Peter Flachenecker; Klaus Pfeifer; Alexander Tallner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 3.390