| Literature DB >> 31075985 |
Sumit Majumder1, M Jamal Deen2,3.
Abstract
Over the past few decades, we have witnessed a dramatic rise in life expectancy owing to significant advances in medical science and technology, medicine as well as increased awareness about nutrition, education, and environmental and personal hygiene. Consequently, the elderly population in many countries are expected to rise rapidly in the coming years. A rapidly rising elderly demographics is expected to adversely affect the socioeconomic systems of many nations in terms of costs associated with their healthcare and wellbeing. In addition, diseases related to the cardiovascular system, eye, respiratory system, skin and mental health are widespread globally. However, most of these diseases can be avoided and/or properly managed through continuous monitoring. In order to enable continuous health monitoring as well as to serve growing healthcare needs; affordable, non-invasive and easy-to-use healthcare solutions are critical. The ever-increasing penetration of smartphones, coupled with embedded sensors and modern communication technologies, make it an attractive technology for enabling continuous and remote monitoring of an individual's health and wellbeing with negligible additional costs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art research and developments in smartphone-sensor based healthcare technologies. A discussion on regulatory policies for medical devices and their implications in smartphone-based healthcare systems is presented. Finally, some future research perspectives and concerns regarding smartphone-based healthcare systems are described.Entities:
Keywords: mHealth; medical device; regulation; remote healthcare; smartphone; smartphone sensor; telehealth
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31075985 PMCID: PMC6539461 DOI: 10.3390/s19092164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Smartphone sensors used for health monitoring.
| Monitored Health Issues | Typically Used Smartphone Sensors |
|---|---|
| Cardiovascular activity e.g., heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV) | Image sensor (camera), microphone |
| Eye health | Image sensor (camera) |
| Respiratory and lung health | Image sensor (camera), microphone |
| Skin health | Image sensor camera) |
| Daily activity and fall | Motion sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, proximity sensor), Global positioning system (GPS) |
| Sleep | Motion sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) |
| Ear health | Microphone |
| Cognitive function and mental health | Motion sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope), camera, light sensor, GPS |
Figure 1Evolution of smartphones and smartphone-embedded sensors over time.
Figure 2Built-in sensors in a typical present-day smartphone.
Figure 3Measuring heart rate (a) from a typical trace of a single lead Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal, and (b) using a smartphone camera.
Figure 4Photoplethysmograph (PPG) signal obtained from the pulsatile flow of blood volume.
Smartphone-sensors for cardiovascular health monitoring.
| Ref. | Year | Measured Signs | Type | Smartphone Model | Sensor Used | Video Resolution | Frame Rate | Video Length | Method | Performance | # of Subjects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2018 | HR, HRV | Contact-based (index finger) | iPhone 6, Apple Inc., Cupertino CA | Front camera | 1280 × 720 | 240 | 5 min | • Reflection of light from the finger is measured. | Pearson Correlation coefficient (PC) for most parameters between PPG and ECG: >0.99 | 50 (11 F, 39 M) |
| [ | 2016 | HR, HRV | Contact-based (index finger) | iPhone 4S, Apple Inc., Cupertino CA | Rear camera | 30 | 5 min | • Combination of the steepest slope detection of pulse wave derived from the green channel of the reflected light and its correlation to an optimized pulse wave pattern. | PC: >0.99 (HR), ≥0.90 (HRV) | 68 (28 F, 40 M) | |
| [ | 2016 | HR, RR | Contact-based (HR) and contactless (RR) | HTC One M8, HTC Corporation, New Taipei City, Taiwan | Front (for RR) and rear (for HR) camera | RR: 320 × 240 (ROI: 49 × 90 abdomen) | 30 (down-sampled to 20 (RR), 25 (HR)) | -- | • Frequency domain analysis of the noncontact video recordings of chest and abdominal motion. | Average of median errors for RR: 1.43%–1.62% between 6 and 60 breaths per minute | 11 |
| [ | 2012 | HR | Contactless (face) | iPhone 4, Apple Inc., Cupertino CA | Front camera | 640 × 480 | 30 | 20 s | • Analysis of the raw video signal (green channel) and ICA-decomposed signals of the face in the frequency domain. | Error rate: 1.1% (raw signal), 1.5% (ICA-decomposed signals) | 10 |
| [ | 2018 | HR, RR | Contactless (face) | LG G2, LG Electronics Inc., Korea | Rear camera | -- | 30 (down-sampled to 10) | 20 s | • Frequency domain analysis of the color variations in the reflected light (hue) from the face. | PC: 0.9201 (HR) and 0.6575 (RR) | 25 (10 F, 15 M) |
| [ | 2016 | HR | Contact-based (index finger) | -- | Rear camera | 1920 × 1080 | -- | -- | • Frame-difference based motion detection for improving data quality. | 20 | |
| • Blood volume flow was observed clearly in the Red channel. | Average accuracy: | ||||||||||
| [ | 2015 | Pulse, HR, HRV | Contact-based (index finger) | Motorola Moto X, Motorola, Libertyville, IL and Samsung S 5 | Rear camera | 640 × 480 | 30 | 100 s | • Extracts PPG by averaging the Green channel data of the video. | PC of pulse and R-R interval from two phone models > 0.95 | 11 |
| [ | 2014 | HR, NPV | Contact-based (index finger) | iPhone 4S, Apple Inc., Cupertino CA | Rear camera | ROI: | 30 | 20 s | • HR and NPV were measured in the presence of a controlled motion (6 Hz) of the left hand. | Higher SNR for B and G channel PPG in presence of 6Hz MA. PC: HR>0.996 (R, B, G), NPV = 0.79 (G) | 12 (M) |
| [ | 2014 | HR, HRV | Contact-based (index finger) | Sony Xperia S, Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. | Rear camera | -- | -- | 60 s | • HR was estimated by detecting the consecutive PPG peaks and also the dominant frequency. | HR error rate: 4.8% AF detection: 97% specificity, 75% sensitivity | |
| [ | 2012 | HR, HRV | Contact-based (index finger) | iPhone 4s and | Rear camera | ROI: | 30 (iPhone), | 2, 5 min (iPhone, Droid) | • Several ECG parameters were extracted with two different models of smartphone both in supine and tilt position and performed comparative analysis with the data obtained from a standard five lead ECG. | PC: ~ 1.0 (HR), PC for Other ECG parameters: 0.72-1 (Droid), 0.8-1 (iPhone) | 9 (iPhone) |
| [ | 2012 | HR | Contact-based (index finger) | HTC HD2 and | Rear camera | ROI: | 25 | 6 s | • HR is calculated by detecting the consecutive PPG peaks. | Error: ± 2 bpm | 10 |
| [ | 2012 | HR | Contact-based (index finger) | Motorola Droid, Motorola, Libertyville, IL | Rear camera | ROI: | 20 | 5 min | • HR from the PPG signals was obtained at sitting, reading and video gaming by using an Android-based software. | PC: ≥ 0.99 | 14 (11 F, 3 M) |
Figure 5Typical spirometric flow curves (a) volume-time curve, and (b) flow-volume curve.
Figure 6Image of the retinal fundus of a healthy eye; Source: https://pixabay.com/en/eye-fundus-close-1636542/.
Figure 7Typical arrangement of the optical components for fundus imaging with a smartphone.
Figure 8Several types of skin diseases (a) Eczema, (b) Psoriasis and (c) two forms of Melanoma.
Figure 9General architecture of a smartphone-based activity monitoring system.
Typical features extracted from motion signals [22].
| Spatial Domain | Temporal Domain | Frequency Domain | Statistical Domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step length | Double support time | Spectral power | Correlation |
| Stride length | Stance time | Peak frequency | Mean |
| Step width | Swing time | Maximum spectral amplitude | standard deviation |
| RMS acceleration | Step time | Covariance | |
| Walking speed | Stride time | energy | |
| Signal vector magnitude (SMV) | Cadence (steps/min) | Kurtosis |
Smartphone-sensor based activity monitoring systems.
| Ref. | Proposition | Phone | Sensors | Experiment Protocol | n | Method | Performance/Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Human activity and gait recognition | Samsung Nexus S | • Subjects walked ~30 m for each of three different walking speeds | 25 | • Each gait cycle was detected and normalized in length. | • Gait recognition accuracy 89.3% with dynamic time warping (DTW) distance metric. | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • University of California Irvine (UCI) Human activity recognition (HAR) dataset | 30 | • Feature selection using random forests variable importance measures. | • Activity (walking, ascending and descending stairs, sitting, standing, and laying) recognition accuracy 91.76%. | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • A hybrid model based on the fuzzy min-max (FMM) neural network and the classification and regression tree (CART). | • Activity (walking, ascending and descending stairs, sitting, standing, and laying) recognition accuracy 96.52%. | |
| [ | Evaluation of hyperbox (HB) NN for classifying activities | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • One HB is assigned for all attributes of a class and has one or more associated neurons for class distribution. | • Performance was comparable to SVM, decision tree, KNN and MLP classifier. | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Nexus One, HTC Hero, Motorola Backflip |
| • Wireless sensor data mining (WISDM) dataset from | 36 | • Extracted 43 features from the mean and standard deviation of acceleration, mean absolute difference, mean resultant acceleration, time between peaks and binned distribution. | • Accuracy > ~97% (walking, jogging, sitting and standing), ~86% (ascending stairs), and ~73% (descending stairs) |
| [ | Human activity recognition | iPod Touch | • Measured activities: sitting, walking, jogging, and ascending and descending stairs at different paces | 16 | • Evaluated different classification models (decision tree, multilayer perception, Naive Bayes, logistic regression, KNN and meta-algorithms such as boosting and bagging) in terms of recognition accuracy. | • Accuracy for sitting, walking, and jogging at different paces: 90.1%–94.1% | |
| [ | Complex activity recognition system | Samsung Galaxy S IV | • Four smartphones worn on the waist lower back, thigh, and wrist. | • Conditional random field (CRF) based classification was performed on each device separately. | • Activity recognition accuracy > 80% | ||
| • Final recognition was based on the result from the most relevant device to that particular activity. | |||||||
| [ | A feature selection approach for faster recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • Data segmentation by sliding window and extraction of time and frequency domain features | • Activity recognition Accuracy, precision and F1-score to 87.8%, 88.0% and 87.7% (with | |
| [ | Algorithm for Human activity recognition | Google NEXUS 4 | • Subjects performed each activity twice for 30 s each, keeping the device at five different orientations. | 5 | • Employed coordinate transformation and principal component analysis (CT-PCA) on the data to eliminate the effect of orientation variation. | • Activity (static, walking, running, going upstairs, and going downstairs) recognition accuracy 88.74% with online-independent SVM (OISVM) | |
| [ | A hardware friendly SVM for HAR | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • Standard support vector machine (SVM) with fixed-point arithmetic for computational cost reduction. | Activity recognition accuracy ~89% (similar to standard SVM) | |
| [ | Unsupervised learning for activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy Nexus | • Smartphone was kept in a pants pocket for measurements | -- | • Experiment 1: known | • GMM achieved 100% recognition accuracy when | |
| • DBSCAN requires setting two parameters ( | |||||||
| [ | DNN for Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • DNN was formed by stacking several convolutional and pooling layers to extract discriminative features. | ||
| • Number of layers, number of feature maps, pooling and convolutional filter size were adjusted to maximize test-accuracy by ‘softmax’ classifier. | |||||||
| • Multilayer perceptron for final recognition. | • Accuracy: 94.79%–95.75% | ||||||
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II and Huawei P20 Pro | • Smartphone was attached to the waist. | 30 | • An Ensemble Extreme learning machine with Gaussian random projection (GRP). | Activity (sitting, standing, laying, walking, walking upstairs and downstairs) recognition accuracies: 97.35% (Samsung), 98.88% (Huawei) | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy Note I, Motorola Droid, | • Collected 2 weeks of GPS data continuously | 3 | • A fuzzy logic -based approach for classification. | Classification accuracy: ~96% | |
| • Location uncertainty improved by calculating the probabilities of different activities at a single location. | |||||||
| Nokia N900 | GPS | • Recognized activities by a segment aggregation method while adjusting for location uncertainties. | |||||
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S 4 | • Free walk at a natural pace and run in a straight path, maintain a standing position and minimize additional bodily movement (25 s each). | 1 | • Feature set consisted of linear acceleration, normal acceleration and angular velocity. | Classification accuracy: 85% | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | • A database of 12 activities (standing, sitting, lying down, walking, ascending and descending stairs, stand-to/from-sit, sit-to/from-lie, stand-to/from-lie, and lie-to/from-stand). | -- | • Extracted features were processed by a kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). | |||
| • Deep belief network (DBN) for classification. | Mean recognition rate: 89.61% and | ||||||
| [ | Human activity recognition | Huawei Mate 9 | • Activities were logged approximately 5–8 hours a day for 4 months | 1 | • A six-layer independently recurrent neural network (IndRNN) processed data of different lengths and captured the temporal patterns at different time intervals. | Classification accuracy: ~96% | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • UCI HAR dataset | 30 | • DNN-based subassembly divides sensor data into various motion states. The transformation subassembly derives the intrinsic correlation between the sensor data and personal health. | • Accuracy: 95.9% with unsupervised feature extraction | |
| [ | Walk@Work(W@W)-App for HAR | -- | • 1 h laboratory protocol and two continuous hours of occupational free-living activities | 17 (10F 7 M) | • Calculated agreement, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and mean differences of sitting time against the inclinometer ActivPAL3TM, and step counts against the SW200 Yamax Digi-Walker pedometer for performance comparison. | • ICC: 0.85 for self-paced walking, 0.80 for active working tasks. | |
| [ | Human activity recognition | Samsung Galaxy S II | • Four smartphones attached to four body position: right pocket, belt, right arm, and right wrist | 4 | • Data from three types of sensors were evaluated in terms of recognition accuracy using seven classifiers (naïve Bayes, SVM, neural networks, logistic regression, KNN, rule-based classifiers and decision trees). | • Best performance was achieved using both gyroscope and accelerometer data together. | |
| [ | Balance analysis and Audio Bio-Feedback (ABF) system | iPhone 4 | • Smartphone was mounted on a belt. | 20 | • Tilt angles and heading were calculated from accelerometer and gyroscope, respectively as well as from the magnetometer. | -- | |
| • Kalman filter was used to correctly estimate the rotation angles from the difference between the two previous estimates. | |||||||
| • Subjects kept sway minimum in parallel feet (10 cm apart), tandem stance-positions, and 2 experimental conditions with and without ABF. | |||||||
| [ | Fall detection and notification system | Lenovo Le-phone |
| • Smartphone mounted on the waist | -- | • Extracted signal magnitude area (SMA), signal magnitude vector (SMV) and tilt angle from the median filtered accelerometer data. | |
| • Fall detection with a decision tree-based algorithm. | • Performance comparison not reported. | ||||||
| [ | Fall detection | Samsung |
| • Collected acceleration data | • Detected a fall if the acceleration along a direction changed at a faster rate than that in normal daily activities. | • Performance comparison not reported. | |
| [ | Fall detection, tracking and notification system | -- |
| • Evaluated the tracking error range at two outdoors and one indoor fall location. | 10 | • Calculated accelerometer SMV. | • Overall accuracy of the location tracking system: < 9 m. |
| [ | Fall detection and daily activity recognition | Sony C6002 Xperia Z, Apple iPhone 4s | • Subjects kept phones in the right, left and front-pockets and fall onto a 15 cm thick cushion. | 8 | • Activities were classified using supervised machine learning (SVM, Decision tree, KNN and discriminant analysis) algorithms. | • ADL (sitting, standing, walking, laying, walking upstairs and walking downstairs) recognition accuracy 99% with the SVM. | |
| [ | Fall detection algorithm | Sony Z3 |
| • Smartphone was placed in the front pocket | 10 | • Six features (SMV, sum vector excluding gravity magnitude, max and min value of acceleration in gravity vector direction, mean of the absolute derivation of acceleration in gravity vector direction, and gravity vector changing angle) were derived from the accelerometer data. | |
| • SVM was used to classify fall and non-fall events. | • 96.67% sensitivity, 95% specificity | ||||||
| [ | Fall detection based on high-level fuzzy petri net (HLFPN) | HTC Desire S |
| • Smartphone was placed in the thigh pocket | 12 | • Calculated accelerometer SMV and frequency of occurrences from the accelerometer data. | • Fall detection accuracy 90% with HLFPN |
| • Fuzzy degree was generated by substituting the calculated values into the membership function formulated by the experiment. | |||||||
| [ | Knee Joint ROM | iPhone 6 |
| • Dynamic knee extension ROM was measured three times with an interval of 5 min. | 21 (M) | • A MATLAB program automatically detected the min/max values of knee extension angles from the accelerometer data. | • Highly correlated ( |
| [ | Assessment of smartphone apps for measuring knee range of motion | -- | Camera, inclinometer | • Five measurements of knee range of motion from each subject by a commercial system, two apps - Goniometer Pro and Dr. Goniometer | 10 | • Goniometer Pro: attached to the anterior of the thigh proximal to the skin incision, and on the anterior of the distal tibia distal to the skin incision and knee flexion angle ( | • |
| • Dr. Goniometer: calculated | |||||||
| [ | An app Toss ‘N’ | Any Android phone (version 4.0 +) | • Subjects installed TNT in the phones and kept it in the bedroom while sleeping and entered a daily sleep diary every morning. | 27 | • The time-series sensor data were divided into a series of non-overlapped 10 min windows for data analysis and feature extraction. | • Classification accuracy: 93.06% (Sleep state), 83.97% (daily sleep quality), 81.48% (overall sleep quality) | |
| [ | Best effort sleep (BES) model for sleep duration monitoring | Light sensor and Mic | • BES tracked six phone usage features (total duration of phone-lock, phone-off, phone charging, phone in darkness, phone in a stationary state and phone in a silent environment) on a daily basis for one week. | 8 | • Model assumption: Sleep duration is a weighted linear combination of six features. | • Sleep duration estimation error range: ± 42 min | |
| [ | Sleep monitoring system | iPhone |
| • Subjects recorded data for at least four consecutive nights using both the ActiGraph, attached to the non-dominant wrist and the smartphone, placed close to the pillow. | 13 | • Four sleep measures (sleep onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and sleep efficiency (SE%)) are extracted from both systems. | • Satisfactory agreement with the ActiGraph for all sleep parameters except for the SOL. |
| [ | Contactless Sleep Apnea Detection | Samsung | Phone speaker and micro-phone | • The speaker transmits 18–20 kHz sound waves and the microphone senses the reflections. | 37 | • Employed FMCW (frequency modulated continuous wave) transmissions to isolate reflections arriving at different times. | • Highly correlated (correlation coefficient of 0.9957, 0.9860, and 0.9533 for central apnea, obstructive apnea and hypopnea, respectively) with the ground truth |
a: accelerometer, ω: gyroscope, P: pressure sensor, T: temperature sensor, H: humidity sensor, ф: magnetometer, n: number of subjects.