Noah Balestra1, Gaurav Sharma2,3,4, Linda M Riek5, Ania Busza1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. 2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. 3. Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA. 5. Department of Physical Therapy, Nazareth College, Rochester, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that participation in rehabilitation exercises improves motor function poststroke; however, studies on optimal exercise dose and timing have been limited by the technical challenge of quantifying exercise activities over multiple days. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of using body-worn sensors to track rehabilitation exercises in the inpatient setting and investigate which recording parameters and data analysis strategies are sufficient for accurately identifying and counting exercise repetitions. METHODS: MC10 BioStampRC® sensors were used to measure accelerometer and gyroscope data from upper extremities of healthy controls (n = 13) and individuals with upper extremity weakness due to recent stroke (n = 13) while the subjects performed 3 preselected arm exercises. Sensor data were then labeled by exercise type and this labeled data set was used to train a machine learning classification algorithm for identifying exercise type. The machine learning algorithm and a peak-finding algorithm were used to count exercise repetitions in non-labeled data sets. RESULTS: We achieved a repetition counting accuracy of 95.6% overall, and 95.0% in patients with upper extremity weakness due to stroke when using both accelerometer and gyroscope data. Accuracy was decreased when using fewer sensors or using accelerometer data alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory study suggests that body-worn sensor systems are technically feasible, well tolerated in subjects with recent stroke, and may ultimately be useful for developing a system to measure total exercise "dose" in poststroke patients during clinical rehabilitation or clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that participation in rehabilitation exercises improves motor function poststroke; however, studies on optimal exercise dose and timing have been limited by the technical challenge of quantifying exercise activities over multiple days. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of using body-worn sensors to track rehabilitation exercises in the inpatient setting and investigate which recording parameters and data analysis strategies are sufficient for accurately identifying and counting exercise repetitions. METHODS: MC10 BioStampRC® sensors were used to measure accelerometer and gyroscope data from upper extremities of healthy controls (n = 13) and individuals with upper extremity weakness due to recent stroke (n = 13) while the subjects performed 3 preselected arm exercises. Sensor data were then labeled by exercise type and this labeled data set was used to train a machine learning classification algorithm for identifying exercise type. The machine learning algorithm and a peak-finding algorithm were used to count exercise repetitions in non-labeled data sets. RESULTS: We achieved a repetition counting accuracy of 95.6% overall, and 95.0% in patients with upper extremity weakness due to stroke when using both accelerometer and gyroscope data. Accuracy was decreased when using fewer sensors or using accelerometer data alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our exploratory study suggests that body-worn sensor systems are technically feasible, well tolerated in subjects with recent stroke, and may ultimately be useful for developing a system to measure total exercise "dose" in poststroke patients during clinical rehabilitation or clinical trials.
Authors: Gert Kwakkel; Roland van Peppen; Robert C Wagenaar; Sharon Wood Dauphinee; Carol Richards; Ann Ashburn; Kimberly Miller; Nadina Lincoln; Cecily Partridge; Ian Wellwood; Peter Langhorne Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Paul Muntner; Alvaro Alonso; Marcio S Bittencourt; Clifton W Callaway; April P Carson; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Sandeep R Das; Francesca N Delling; Luc Djousse; Mitchell S V Elkind; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Sadiya S Khan; Brett M Kissela; Kristen L Knutson; Tak W Kwan; Daniel T Lackland; Tené T Lewis; Judith H Lichtman; Chris T Longenecker; Matthew Shane Loop; Pamela L Lutsey; Seth S Martin; Kunihiro Matsushita; Andrew E Moran; Michael E Mussolino; Martin O'Flaherty; Ambarish Pandey; Amanda M Perak; Wayne D Rosamond; Gregory A Roth; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Emily B Schroeder; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; Andrew Stokes; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Mintu P Turakhia; Lisa B VanWagner; John T Wilkins; Sally S Wong; Salim S Virani Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elaine M Bochniewicz; Geoff Emmer; Adam McLeod; Jessica Barth; Alexander W Dromerick; Peter Lum Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Carolee J Winstein; Joel Stein; Ross Arena; Barbara Bates; Leora R Cherney; Steven C Cramer; Frank Deruyter; Janice J Eng; Beth Fisher; Richard L Harvey; Catherine E Lang; Marilyn MacKay-Lyons; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Sue Pugh; Mathew J Reeves; Lorie G Richards; William Stiers; Richard D Zorowitz Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Catherine E Lang; Jillian R Macdonald; Darcy S Reisman; Lara Boyd; Teresa Jacobson Kimberley; Sheila M Schindler-Ivens; T George Hornby; Sandy A Ross; Patricia L Scheets Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.966