scholarly journals Physical Activity Comparison Between Body Sides in Hemiparetic Patients Using Wearable Motion Sensors in Free-Living and Therapy: A Case Series

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Derungs ◽  
Corina Schuster-Amft ◽  
Oliver Amft
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Activity Comparison ◽  
Wearable Motion Sensors

scholarly journals The Use of Inertial Measurement Units for the Study of Free Living Environment Activity Assessment: A Literature Review

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (19) ◽  
pp. 5625
Author(s):  
Sylvain Jung ◽  
Mona Michaud ◽  
Laurent Oudre ◽  
Eric Dorveaux ◽  
Louis Gorintin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Living Conditions ◽  
Living Environment ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Activity Assessment ◽  
Measurement Units ◽  
Wearable Motion Sensors ◽  
Free Living Conditions

This article presents an overview of fifty-eight articles dedicated to the evaluation of physical activity in free-living conditions using wearable motion sensors. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the technical aspects linked to sensors (types, number, body positions, and technical characteristics) as well as a deep discussion on the protocols implemented in free-living conditions (environment, duration, instructions, activities, and annotation). Finally, it presents a description and a comparison of the main algorithms and processing tools used for assessing physical activity from raw signals.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Two Motion Sensors for the Assessment of Free-Living Physical Activity of Adolescents

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1558-1576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Cuberek ◽  
Walid El Ansari ◽  
Karel Frömel ◽  
Krzysztof Skalik ◽  
Erik Sigmund
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Free Living

Convergent Validity of 3 Low Cost Motion Sensors With the ActiGraph Accelerometer

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 662-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. McClain ◽  
Teresa L. Hart ◽  
Renee S. Getz ◽  
Catrine Tudor-Locke
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Activity Time ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Time Estimates ◽  
Actigraph Accelerometer

Background:This study evaluated the utility of several lower cost physical activity (PA) assessment instruments for detecting PA volume (steps) and intensity (time in MVPA or activity time) using convergent methods of assessment.Methods:Participants included 26 adults (9 male) age 27.3 ± 7.1 years with a BMI of 23.8 ± 2.8 kg/m2. Instruments evaluated included the Omron HJ-151 (OM), New Lifestyles NL-1000 (NL), Walk4Life W4L Pro (W4L), and ActiGraph GT1M (AG). Participants wore all instruments during a laboratory phase, consisting of 10 single minute treadmill walking bouts ranging in speed from 40 to 112 m/min, and immediate following the laboratory phase and during the remainder of their free-living day (11.3 ± 1.5 hours). Previously validated AG MVPA cutpoints were used for comparison with OM, NL, and W4L MVPA or activity time outputs during the laboratory and free-living phase.Results:OM and NL produced similar MVPA estimates during free-living to commonly used AG walking cutpoints, and W4L activity time estimates were similar to one AG lifestyle cutpoint evaluated.Conclusion:Current findings indicate that the OM, NL, and W4L, ranging in price from $15 to $49, can provide reasonable estimates of free-living MVPA or activity time in comparison with a range of AG walking and lifestyle cutpoints.

scholarly journals Current clinical utilisation of wearable motion sensors for the assessment of outcome following knee arthroplasty: a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R Small ◽  
Garrett S Bullock ◽  
Sara Khalid ◽  
Karen Barker ◽  
Marialena Trivella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Patient Assessment ◽  
Inertial Measurement ◽  
Testing Protocol ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Measurement Units ◽  
Wearable Motion Sensors

ObjectivesWearable motion sensors are used with increasing frequency in the evaluation of gait, function and physical activity within orthopaedics and sports medicine. The integration of wearable technology into the clinical pathway offers the ability to improve post-operative patient assessment beyond the scope of current, questionnaire-based patient-reported outcome measures. This scoping review assesses the current methodology and clinical application of accelerometers and inertial measurement units for the evaluation of patient activity and functional recovery following knee arthroplasty.DesignThis is a systematically conducted scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and reported consulting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. A protocol for this review is registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/rzg9q).Data sourcesCINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched for manuscripts published between 2008 and 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included clinical studies reporting the use of any combination of accelerometers, pedometers or inertial measurement units for patient assessment at any time point following knee arthroplasty.Data extraction and synthesisData extracted from manuscripts included patient demographics, sensor technology, testing protocol and sensor-based outcome variables.Results45 studies were identified, including 2076 knee arthroplasty patients, 620 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis and 449 healthy controls. Primary aims of the identified studies included functional assessment, physical activity monitoring and evaluation of knee instability. Methodology varied widely between studies, with inconsistency in reported sensor configuration, testing protocol and output variables.ConclusionsThe use of wearable sensors in evaluation of knee arthroplasty procedures is becoming increasingly common and offers the potential to improve clinical understanding of recovery and rehabilitation. While current studies lack consistency, significant opportunity exists for the development of standardised measures and protocols for function and physical activity evaluation.

scholarly journals Wearable motion sensors and digital biomarkers in stroke rehabilitation

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-232
Author(s):  
Adrian Derungs ◽  
Corina Schuster-Amft ◽  
Oliver Amft
Keyword(s):  
Performance Monitoring ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Observation Study ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Daily Routines ◽  
Arm Reaching ◽  
Gait Parameters ◽  
Stride Duration ◽  
Wearable Motion Sensors ◽  
Digital Biomarkers

AbstractWe propose three novel digital biomarkers for the longitudinal performance monitoring and movement evaluation of hemiparetic patients, e.g. after stroke. We devised convergence points (CP) for the bilateral walking analysis based on gait parameters, e.g. stride duration using regression- modelling to estimate similarity between body sides. The physical activity (PA) was devised to evaluate the energy expenditure of all extremities during training and free-living. The functional range of motion (fROM) is a digital biomarker to quantify the upper arm reaching ability, represented in 3D visualisations. In this work, we detail CP, PA, and fROM to derive rehabilitation insights for personalising therapies. We evaluated the proposed digital biomarkers in a clinical observation study with 11 patients after stroke during their rehabilitation including therapy and self-paced daily routines.

Pedometer Measures of Free-Living Physical Activity: Comparison of 13 Models

2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICK L. SCHNEIDER ◽  
SCOTT E. CROUTER ◽  
DAVID R. BASSETT
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Free Living ◽  
Activity Comparison

scholarly journals Quantifying Habitual Physical Activity and Sedentariness in Older Adults—Different Outcomes of Two Simultaneously Body-Worn Motion Sensor Approaches and a Self-Estimation

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1877
Author(s):  
Rieke Trumpf ◽  
Wiebren Zijlstra ◽  
Peter Haussermann ◽  
Tim Fleiner
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Habitual Physical Activity ◽  
Motion Sensor ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Lower Back ◽  
Hybrid Motion ◽  
Accurate Quantification

Applicable and accurate assessment methods are required for a clinically relevant quantification of habitual physical activity (PA) levels and sedentariness in older adults. The aim of this study is to compare habitual PA and sedentariness, as assessed with (1) a wrist-worn actigraph, (2) a hybrid motion sensor attached to the lower back, and (3) a self-estimation based on a questionnaire. Over the course of one week, PA of 58 community-dwelling subjectively healthy older adults was recorded. The results indicate that actigraphy overestimates the PA levels in older adults, whereas sedentariness is underestimated when compared to the hybrid motion sensor approach. Significantly longer durations (hh:mm/day) for all PA intensities were assessed with the actigraph (light: 04:19; moderate to vigorous: 05:08) when compared to the durations (hh:mm/day) that were assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (light: 01:24; moderate to vigorous: 02:21) and the self-estimated durations (hh:mm/day) (light: 02:33; moderate to vigorous: 03:04). Actigraphy-assessed durations of sedentariness (14:32 hh:mm/day) were significantly shorter when compared to the durations assessed with the hybrid motion sensor (20:15 hh:mm/day). Self-estimated duration of light intensity was significantly shorter when compared to the results of the hybrid motion sensor. The results of the present study highlight the importance of an accurate quantification of habitual PA levels and sedentariness in older adults. The use of hybrid motion sensors can offer important insights into the PA levels and PA types (e.g., sitting, lying) and it can increase the knowledge about mobility-related PA and patterns of sedentariness, while actigraphy appears to be not recommendable for this purpose.

Methods to assess physical activity with special reference to motion sensors and accelerometers

1991 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.A.L. Meijer ◽  
K.R. Westerterp ◽  
F.M.H. Verhoeven ◽  
H.B.M. Koper ◽  
F. ten Hoor
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Motion Sensors
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document