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.
Summary
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
For all neurological diseases, wearable sensors are twenty-first century tools that are increasingly used to try to improve diagnosis, treatment, compliance, personalized clinical management and feedback, and patient education [1•]. For daily care and research trials, sensors can enable continuous monitoring and clinically meaningful outcome measurements about physical activities such as strengthening and conditioning exercise, practice of degraded skills, and activities of daily living, so they are highly relevant to rehabilitation efforts [2, 3]. A variety of commercial and research sensor systems can be clipped to the chest, arm, waist, and leg, worn in a pocket or shoe or adhered to the skin. The combination of an accelerometer plus other motion sensors is called an inertial measurement unit or an IMU. Wearable IMUs have become ubiquitous monitors of step counts, exercise, and sleep in healthy persons. Big data analytic methods have enabled the accelerometer in smartphones to detect and classify differences in activity among large populations in relation to age, gender, weight, and disease states [4].
The most frequent application of wearable inertial sensing in neurology thus far is to measure and give general feedback to increase walking. More is on the near horizon. For neurological rehabilitation, mobile health (mHealth) applications of wearable IMUs outside of the clinic or laboratory offer the possibility of remote transmission of intermittent or continuous, high-fidelity, objective, patient-centered data during daily activities and practice. Upper- and lower-extremity accelerometer, gyroscope, and derived kinematic signals could be analyzed to provide sensitive measurements of the type, quantity, and quality of clinically important movements, potentially serving as a biomarker of gains and declines in function over time and after interventions. This real-world audit of activity and compliance may also offer clinically meaningful outcome measures in naturalistic settings, instead of only having self-reports about the type and amount of activity.
Ground truth about activity also provides a firm basis for feedback about exercise, skilled movements, and gait, allowing sensors to serve as part of a behavioral intervention technology [5••, 6••]. Wearables may be used in concert with telemedicine video interactions between users and therapists, which could lower the cost of rehabilitation care, as well as enable outreach to patients who have no access to rehabilitation expertise [7•]. Clinical trials of pharmacologic and neural repair interventions to date usually do not include a rehabilitation practice component. Sensors enable an inexpensive, standardized, remote rehabilitation effort to optimize the activity-dependent and task-related benefits of the experimental intervention [8]. In addition, remote testing becomes feasible, which may reduce the burdens on participants and give investigators serial data about important outcomes. For example, remote intermittent tests of functional capacity could take place in the home using a standard 15-m walking test or 6-min walk for endurance while wearing sensors.
This is the exciting promise. The reality must catch up. We review some of the basics about activity sensing that explain present limitations, the pros and cons about existing systems for neurological and rehabilitation applications, recent clinical trial results with sensing, and strategies for their near-term deployment.
Types of Wearable Wireless Sensors
Over 20 companies offer wearable sensors for clinical research; commercial fitness companies offer many models. Some of the key requirements of systems that might find their way into rehabilitation research include battery life, type of wireless transmission, capacity to form a network of sensors, ability to log data, availability of raw data signals to the investigator, standard activity-recognition algorithms, and support by software libraries such as MATLAB and Python [9, 10].
The most frequently deployed commercial sensors are wrist-worn triaxial accelerometers that measure accelerations from which velocity and displacement of a body segment in x, y, and z axes can be estimated. These commercial systems use proprietary algorithms that often depend on an inertial or rotational signal greater than a set threshold, which is then defined as an activity count, for example, for a step. Peak vertical center of mass displacements can also be recorded when the inertial sensor is worn at the low back or waist. However, analytic methods for step counts derived from wrist- and trunk-worn sensors become inaccurate when walking is slow and accelerations during leg swing are low and irregular, as in persons with hemiparetic gait [11••]. In practical terms, the peak acceleration and angular velocity of the leg occurs during the swing phase between toe-off and heel-strike in the gait cycle, which is most readily measured by a leg-worn device. When the sensor is placed on the top of the foot, an algorithm will be able to include a definite signal of no movement in mid-stance and will detect turns. A magnetometer may be added to assess directional vectors of spatial orientation. A barometric pressure sensor will recognize a change in altitude, even rising from sit to stand. The combination of an accelerometer with gyroscope and magnetometer is the most often deployed IMU. Thus, from any known body location, an investigator can obtain linear accelerations, angular velocities, and a heading angle with respect to magnetic north.
A global positioning satellite (GPS) signal is most accurate outdoors to provide location (context about activity) and calculate speed and distance of continuous walking with a wrist band and smartphone application. The subject must start and stop the app, however, to capture a continuous walk or the device may average standing with walking time. A heart rate monitor signal, usually from wrist plethysmography, is often fused with the inertial signal in commercial wrist sensors to give context about effort and metabolic information (aerobic effect, calories). For special requirements, wireless sensing can incorporate electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram, or electromyogram signals; a goniometer or other flexible material for joint movement angles; piezo-electrodes to measure, for example, foot pressure; biosensors such as continuous glucose monitors; and contextual information from light or ambient sound sensors. Sensor information can be supplemented and given context by smartphone-based, in-the-moment self-reports about mood, pain, social interaction, type of activity, or other personal events.
Unfortunately, no off-the-shelf system is available for rehabilitation studies in the community to collect, synchronize, and analyze upper-extremity actions or leg movements other than walking. Published studies often introduce home-grown algorithms to classify and measure movements in the laboratory. Most commercially available systems use proprietary analytic algorithms and the raw data often is not accessible, so an investigator cannot pursue either validation of the algorithm, debugging, or additional analyses [9, 12•], but this confounder is changing [13]. Given the growing interest in remote monitoring of activity in patients who participate in pharmacological trials for neurologic diseases, the next five years should bring more accurate, flexible, and relevant research systems within reach of clinical investigators. Table 1 shows some of the companies whose sensor systems allow access to raw accelerometer and other IMU data in relation to whether the data can be accessed remotely, which is necessary for feedback, and has been validated in patient populations.
Common Measures Captured by Wearable Devices
The signals from well-placed wearable inertial sensors with reliable activity-recognition algorithms have quantified sitting down and standing up; walking; spatial-temporal gait variations; running; stair climbing; movement during sleep or a seizure, tremor, and truncal or limb ataxia; episodic movement disorders such as torticollis; wheelchair propelling; and upper-extremity activity counts. Identification of each activity, however, requires fusion of the signals from each body sensor. The choice of sensors, number, and placement depends on the activity and movement variables to be ascertained. Practical sensor systems must meet many complex design requirements, including cosmetic, privacy, and technology acceptability by users, as well as signal processing, data transmission, annotation, and scalability for easy use [9]. To date, no singular strategy has been adopted for sensor placement, data pre-processing, extraction of features from the inertial signal, and activity classification across key functional movements [14]. This poses the greatest limitation at present for routine use of sensing in clinical research and care.
Step Counting
Step counting is the most common function of commercial wearable activity trackers offered by Fitbit, Garmin, Jawbone, Apple, and others. Leonardo da Vinci would have found them to be more advanced than his invention of the first mechanical step counter, which was worn at the waist with gears rotated by a long lever arm tied to the thigh. Increasingly, companies such as FitBit (www.fitabase.com) provide some research support to remotely access and monitor the activity data from individual users. This service makes consumer-grade sensors a possible option for researchers looking for ready-to-use wearables to estimate sedentary time or to identify periods of continual walking activity at speeds > 0.8 m/s in persons without irregular gait pattern deviations [15]. Wrist-worn accelerometers, however, do not consistently count steps when the wrist is stationary, such as pushing a stroller or walker or using treadmill hand rails. They may record invalid steps when folding laundry, whisking or gesturing.
The accuracy of research-grade devices varies widely for impaired persons. For example, Treacy et al. examined patients who walked < 1.2 m/s but could walk at least 10 m during inpatient rehabilitation [11••]. The Fitbit One was worn on the ankle and wrist, the ActivPAL on the thigh, the G-Sensor on the hip, the Garmin Vivofit on the wrist, the Actigraph on the hip, and the StepWatch just above the ankle. Results for hemiparetic persons were best when the device was worn on the least affected leg. These systems do not allow investigators to simultaneously capture and merge signals from the hemiparetic and less-affected leg to assess bilateral movement deviations. Compared to automated GAITRite walking measurements, the ankle and thigh sensors were much more accurate as walking speed fell below 0.8 m/s. At < 0.4 m/s, the Fitbit One on the ankle began to drop from 90% down to 40% accuracy in counting steps, and the ActivPAL dropped from 70% to 43%. Only the StepWatch, for reasons noted later, maintained an accuracy of 90–100%. Thus, as the acceleration of leg swing decreases, devices became less accurate, but not as inaccurate as when worn on the wrist or hip. A sensor system, then, ought to be validated prior to a trial for its accuracy in detecting activity counts for the range of community walking speeds and levels of disability of the specific population.
The Food and Drug Administration cleared the StepWatch (Modus, Inc.) as a class 2 medical device for use in research. Its adaptable filtering and patient-specific calibration, based on several signature movements during stepping at one of the three levels of cadence, enable a more flexible algorithm that accounts for its better appreciation of a stride at slow walking velocity. Remarkably, its inertial IMU is a single-axis analog accelerometer (most other IMUs include a micro-electrical mechanical triaxial sensor). The company has released a platform that allows researchers to remotely access step count summary data, making it a viable option for more accurate, longitudinal tracking of patients with neurological conditions. Remote daily access to data is an important direction for companies. An example of this requirement for clinical trials occurred in the Locomotor Experience Applied Post-Stroke (LEAPS) trial [16]. For 400 participants who were asked to wear the ankle sensors for 5 days at baseline and at the end of the trial, adherence rates for the StepWatch 3 monitor for at least two days of wear were only 68% for the first day, 61% for the second, and 53% for both days. Of note, non-compliance was significantly associated with lower Fugl-Meyer score, slower walking speed, and poorer endurance. Adherence might have been better if daily activity counts had been uploaded and made available to the researchers, who would then have contacted non-compliers to find out whether the sensor was working properly or to resolve barriers to use.
Characteristics of Gait
Step counts in real-world settings in real time have been useful, but for persons with neurological impairments or undergoing rehabilitation, clinicians would especially value remote measures during community activities that include task-related variations in walking speed, stride length, gait cycle time, cadence, percent time in stance/swing and double/single-limb support, and kinematics. The Ambulatory Parkinson’s Disease Monitoring (APDM) system is highly accurate over defined distances in a clinic. The system can report postural sway area, trunk range of motion, lower-limb gait cadence, stride length, velocity, gait cycle time, and postural transitions, as well as hip, knee, and ankle kinematics when using additional sensors. But the sensors must be in radio contact with a nearby computer. APDM is currently testing its system outside the lab setting in patients with a variety of neurological impairments. Other investigators report additional analytic strategies to capture walking speed and gait features [17,18,19•].
In addition, the standard machine learning pipeline for sensor-based movement assessment consisting of inertial signal pre-processing, feature extraction, and classifier training is increasingly being compared to deep learning frameworks for movement classification accuracy [20]. For example, disease or disability phenotypes were discerned by using sensor-derived gait parameters to distinguish among non-frail, pre-frail, and frail persons [21]. The key parameters obtained with shank sensors and derived by an artificial neural network analysis were propulsion duration and acceleration, heel-off and toe-off speed, mid-stance and mid-swing speed, and speed norms. Remote monitoring of the upper extremity (UE) may also need to incorporate more sophisticated analytic methods.
Heart Rate
During mobility activities and exercise, knowledge of an individual’s heart rate (HR) enables an investigator to monitor exercise safety and provide feedback to gradually increase the intensity of exertion for a variety of health benefits in sedentary, disabled persons. Many commercial wrist monitors provide estimates of HR and energy expenditure, but HR data is usually not synchronized to gait data within research sensor systems. Indeed, HR accuracy from wrist sensors is less than expected, declines at higher heart rates, and leads to energy expenditure estimates that can exceed 25% median error rates [22•, 23]. In addition, no clinically meaningful important difference has been established for HR increases during overground walking during exercise in older disabled persons, so HR goals for hemi- and paraparetic persons are uncertain.
Applications Relevant to Neurorehabilitation
Risk Factor and Behavioral Management
Sensors can be deployed as a behavioral intervention technology, in which ground truth about activity and exercise enable goal-setting, instruction, or coaching on ways to meet goals, adherence to convenient practice schedules, barrier identification, and self-monitoring [9]. Tailored counseling plus remote supervision have been found to be critical components to increase practice and exercise. Heterogeneous motion-sensing trials that mostly deployed a smartphone, combined with behavioral interventions to reduce risk factors for stroke and cardiovascular disease (e.g., blood pressure, waist size, exercise level), have shown only modest evidence of efficacy [24••, 25•, 26]. The type and frequency of feedback, however, has not yet reached the levels supported by theories for self-efficacy [5••, 27].
Upper extremity
The 9 degrees of freedom of motion of the UE and the range of UE neurological impairments have been a challenge when aiming to discern purposeful movements outside of a lab or clinic. Even more difficult is to determine whether the hand successfully reached and grasped an object during free-ranging activities. The relative amount of use of a paretic limb compared to the non-paretic arm has been quantified along several motion-related variables [28•, 29]. Of note, self-reports about actual use of the UE during a clinical trial differed from the ground truth, with high variability in half of the 64 subjects; underreporting was most common [30•, 31]. Thus, self-reports about perception of use and actual use may differ and affect trial results. An interesting strategy was tested to recognize the arm movements used to perform the task of pouring a cup of tea. Investigators used a simple technique to recognize the occurrences of six pre-defined orientations of a triaxial wrist sensor. A similar technique might reveal measurements of basic movements to be practiced remotely when logged by the user and transmitted to a therapist [32]. A kinematic analysis of UE movements, enabled by multiple IMUs on the chest, scapula, and arm, could also help define purposeful, self-care actions. Recognition algorithms could be developed from movement templates obtained by studying perhaps six to eight key UE movements in hemiparetic persons with varying degrees of motor impairment, including forward reach to grasp and lifting the hand to the mouth or face within peri-personal space bounded by the width of the torso at levels from the waist to the top of the head. Additional sensors, however, would be necessary to detect a successful grasp or pinch of the hand. Deep learning strategies built upon data obtained from many hemiparetic persons might enable detection with high accuracy in the future.
The frequency, intensity, and laterality of activities performed by the upper extremities during wheelchair propulsion has been demonstrated in those with spinal cord injury using IMUs positioned on both wrists, on the chest, and on one wheel of the wheelchair [33]. Individualized calibration of moderate-vigorous physical activity was found to improve accuracy [34], as it has in other studies [7•].
Sensing Across Diseases
Stroke
A review of trials that deployed lower-extremity wearable sensors for persons with stroke found some evidence for improvement in activity and participation, but the designs and aims of the 11 studies with 550 participants had highly varied methods and outcome measures [35•]. During inpatient rehabilitation, lower-extremity sensors have been used to successfully monitor the intensity of walking therapy and provide feedback to try to increase the amount and velocity of walking practice. Results mostly revealed no added gains, perhaps due to time limitations for each therapy during inpatient rehabilitation [36,37,38].
Parkinson’s Disease
A variety of studies reveal good clinimetric properties for assessing gait in persons with PD, including the detection of short stride and shuffling, but perhaps less so for freezing [39,40,41]. A phase 2 randomized clinical trial in 40 participants used two ankle or foot accelerometers and a smartphone to measure home and community gait speed, cadence, stride length, and leg symmetry in real time, along with auditory feedback and cueing to limit freezing of gait. Feasibility of feedback was demonstrated and balance improved in the feedback group [42].
Balance
A meta-analysis of seven small RCTs of IMU-based interventions for static or dynamic balance with feedback in adults with Parkinson’s, stroke, and peripheral neuropathy and frail older adults found significant overall effects of training, especially for up to 36 sessions, on static steady-state balance and possibly several gait outcomes [43]. The APDM balance system has also shown promise in persons with a mild traumatic brain injury in detecting excessive sway [44].
Sleep Disorders
Sleep disorders are common in those with neurological disorders and may affect rehabilitation efforts. The most popular method of sleep quality assessment is based on measuring body acceleration patterns from wrist sensors. A chest sensor may improve appreciation of body positional changes and accelerations to estimate sleep parameters during polysomnography at home [45].
Telerehabilitation
Remote monitoring of outpatients over the Internet with personalized instruction about skills practice and exercise for strengthening and conditioning is made especially feasible by wearable sensing. The therapist can measure how well a patient actually performs specified practice tasks and routine activities. For clinical trials and care, this strategy expands the possibility of receiving more therapy at low cost [7•]. Several home-based compared to clinic-based interventions with interactive devices after stroke have been equivalent in enhancing gains after mild to moderate stroke, so sensors and telerehabilitation may also be able to deliver care in select patients that is at least as good as clinic visits.
Conclusions
For routine use in the rehabilitation of neurological diseases, a variety of IMU systems are available to monitor step counts and cadence outside the laboratory, but user-friendly solutions to gather data remotely about the type and quantity and quality of practice and of spontaneous gait or functional use of the upper extremity are just becoming available. The most flexible system for ease of use in research would include recommendations about the locations for sensors to be worn in relation to the tasks to be monitored; precise synchronization of data across all wireless sensors; continuous data collection capacity for > 8 h without a computer having to be within sensor transmission range; > 8 h of data storage on the IMUs or on a smartphone when real-time feedback is planned; open access to raw signals and to activity-recognition algorithms; analytic methods for upper- and lower-extremity activities that were proven accurate in disabled persons; automated standard outcome measurements along with methods to go deeper into assessments; flexible behavioral modification paradigms built into a system’s software; and a common platform so that investigators can store sensor and metadata for others to use with privacy and permission protocols. As these tools become more robust, rehabilitation researchers will be able to broaden their strategies to enhance outcomes.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
• Dorsey ER, Venuto C, Venkataraman V, Harris DA, Kieburtz K. Novel methods and technologies for 21st-century clinical trials: a review. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:582–8 This review of web-based trials in neurology describes alternative trial designs enabled by virtual visits and wearable sensors.
Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:788–98.
Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:784–92.
Althoff T, Sosič R, Hicks JL, King AC, Delp SL, Leskovec J. Large-scale physical activity data reveal worldwide activity inequality. Nature. 2017;547:336–9.
•• Dobkin BH. Behavioral self-management strategies for practice and exercise should be included in neurologic rehabilitation trials and care. Curr Opin Neurol. 2016;29:693–9 This review of behavioral management techniques enabled by remote sensing describes strategies to aid compliance, feedback, and self-management skills for care and clinical trials.
•• Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Montague E, Burns MN, Rashidi P. The behavioral intervention technology model: an integrated conceptual and technological framework for ehealth and mhealth interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:146–1461 The authors review strategies that deploy the electronic health record, the Internet, and sensors to enhance desired behaviors in clinical trials.
• Dobkin BH. A rehabilitation-internet-of-things in the home to augment motor skills and exercise training. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:217–27 This review of wearable sensors and Internet-based practice devices derscribes tools to help measure and drive exercise and practice after stroke and disabling motor impairments. Flexible groups of valid and reliable measurement tools enable new trial designs and augment methods to achieve compliance and assess efficacy of experimental interventions.
Dobkin BH, Carmichael ST. The specific requirements of neural repair trials for stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:470–8.
Dobkin BH. Wearable motion sensors to continuously measure real-world physical activities. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:602–8.
Haghi M, Thurow K, Stoll R. Wearable devices in medical internet of things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthc Inform Res. 2017;23:4–15.
•• Treacy D, Hassett L, Schurr K, Chagpar S, Paul SS, Sherrington C. Validity of different activity monitors to count steps in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Phys Ther. 2017;97:581–8 This comparison of commercial sensors for step counts and gait deployed in hemiparetic persons reveals unexpected limitations for most devices as research tools.
• Düking P, Fuss FK, Holmberg H-C, Sperlich B. Recommendations for assessment of the reliability, sensitivity, and validity of data provided by wearable sensors designed for monitoring physical activity. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6:e102 The authors make practical suggestions to try to improve the measurement value of wearable sensors.
Brønd JC, Andersen LB, Arvidsson D. Generating ActiGraph counts from raw acceleration recorded by an alternative monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:2351–60.
Attal F, Mohammed S, Dedabrishvili M, Chamroukhi F, Oukhellou L, Amirat Y. Physical human activity recognition using wearable sensors. Sensors. 2015;15:31314–38.
Bassett DR, Toth LP, LaMunion SR, Crouter SE. Step counting: a review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sport Med. 2017;47:1303–15.
Barak S, Wu SS, Dai Y, Duncan PW, Behrman AL. Locomotor Experience Applied Post-Stroke (LEAPS) Investigative Team. Adherence to accelerometry measurement of community ambulation poststroke. Phys Ther. 2014;94:101–10.
Mcginnis RS, Mahadevan N, Moon Y, Seagers K, Sheth N, Wright JAJ, et al. A machine learning approach for gait speed estimation using skin-mounted wearable sensors : from healthy controls to individuals with multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2017;12:1–16.
• Chen S, Lach J, Lo B, Yang G-Z. Toward pervasive gait analysis with wearable sensors: a systematic review. IEEE J Biomed Heal informatics. 2016;20:1521–37 The authors assess the literature about the spatio-temporal and other aspects of gait in disabled persons that can be obtained from wearable sensors.
• Caldas R, Mundt M, Potthast W, Buarque De Lima Neto F, Markert B. A systematic review of gait analysis methods based on inertial sensors and adaptive algorithms. Gait Posture. 2017;57:204–10 This reviews analytic techniques to obtain spatio-temporal measures of impaired gait.
Eskofier BM, Lee SI, Daneault J-F, Golabchi FN, Ferreira-Carvalho G, Vergara-Diaz G, et al. Recent machine learning advancements in sensor-based mobility analysis: deep learning for Parkinson’s disease assessment. 2016 38th Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016;655–8.
Rahemi H, Nguyen H, Lee H, Najafi B. Toward smart footwear to track frailty phenotypes—using propulsion performance to determine frailty. Sensors. 2018;18:1763.
• Wang R, Blackburn G, Desai M, Phelan D, Gillinov L, Houghtaling P, et al. Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:104 Watch-like monitors are often less accurate than necessary for clinical trials of exercise interventions.
Gillinov S, Etiwy M, Wang R, Blackburn G, Phelan D, Gillinov AM, et al. Variable accuracy of wearable heart rate monitors during aerobic exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017;49:1697–703.
•• Burke LE, Ma J, Azar KMJ, Bennett GG, Peterson ED, Zheng Y, et al. Current science on consumer use of mobile health for cardiovascular disease prevention: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132:1157–213 Little is known about the efficacy of mHealth devices by well persons for risk factor management.
• Noah B, Keller MS, Mosadeghi S, Stein L, Johl S, Delshad S, et al. Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:20172 Sensors for remote monitoring have had modest impact to date in reducing risk factors for stroke and myocardial infarction.
Askim T, Langhammer B, Ihle-Hansen H, Gunnes M, Lydersen S, Indredavik B, et al. Efficacy and safety of individualized coaching after stroke: the LAST study (Life After Stroke): a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2018;49:426–32.
McCallum C, Rooksby J, Gray CM. Evaluating the impact of physical activity apps and wearables: interdisciplinary review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018;6:e58.
• Lang CE, Waddell KJ, Klaesner JW, Bland MD. A method for quantifying upper limb performance in daily life using accelerometers. J Vis Exp. 2017;122. The authors explain an analytic technique for employing bilateral wrist accelerometers as the outcome measure to try to detect increased use of the affected arm during an important clinical trial of intensity of upper-extremity practice after stroke.
Uswatte G, Giuliani C, Winstein C, Zeringue A, Hobbs L, Wolf SL. Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1340–5.
• Waddell KJ, Lang CE. Comparison of self-report versus sensor-based methods for measuring the amount of upper limb activity outside the clinic. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; https//doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.025. Self-reported upper-extremity use can be too unreliable to consider as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials.
Waddell KJ, Strube MJ, Bailey RR, Klaesner JW, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW, et al. Does task-specific training improve upper limb performance in daily life poststroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:290–300.
Biswas D, Corda D, Baldus G, Cranny A, Maharatna K, Achner J, et al. Recognition of elementary arm movements using orientation of a tri-axial accelerometer located near the wrist. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:1751–68.
Brogioli M, Popp WL, Schneider S, Albisser U, Brust AK, Frotzler A, et al. Multi-day recordings of wearable sensors are valid and sensitive measures of function and Independence in human spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34:1141–8.
McCracken LA, Ma JK, Voss C, Chan FH, Martin Ginis KA, West CR. Wrist accelerometry for physical activity measurement in individuals with spinal cord injury-a need for individually calibrated cut-points. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:684–9.
• Powell L, Parker J, St-James MM, Mawson S. The effectiveness of lower-limb wearable technology for improving activity and participation in adult stroke survivors: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016; e259. This analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials of remote step sensing finds uncertainty about the efficacy of interventions due to the marked design variations across publications.
Mansfield A, Wong JS, Bryce J, Brunton K, Inness EL, Knorr S, et al. Use of accelerometer-based feedback of walking activity for appraising progress with walking-related goals in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:847–57.
Dorsch A, Thomas S, Xu C, Kaiser W, Dobkin B. SIRRACT: an international randomized clinical trial of activity feedback during inpatient stroke rehabilitation enabled by wireless sensing. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:407–15.
Kanai M, Izawa KP, Kobayashi M, Onishi A, Kubo H, Nozoe M, et al. Effect of accelerometer-based feedback on physical activity in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32:1047–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518755841.
Godinho C, Domingos J, Cunha G, Santos AT, Fernandes RM, Abreu D, et al. A systematic review of the characteristics and validity of monitoring technologies to assess Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:24.
Schlachetzki JCM, Barth J, Marxreiter F, Gossler J, Kohl Z, Reinfelder S, et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183989.
Rovini E, Maremmani C, Cavallo F. How wearable sensors can support Parkinson’s disease diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:555.
Ginis P, Nieuwboer A, Dorfman M, Ferrari A, Gazit E, Canning CG, et al. Feasibility and effects of home-based smartphone-delivered automated feedback training for gait in people with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;22:28–34.
Gordt K, Gerhardy T, Najafi B, Schwenk M. Effects of wearable sensor-based balance and gait training on balance, gait, and functional performance in healthy and patient populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gerontology. 2018;64:74–89.
Gera G, Chesnutt J, Mancini M, Horak FB, King LA. Inertial sensor-based assessment of central sensory integration for balance after mild traumatic brain injury. Mil Med. 2018;183:327–32.
Razjouyan J, Lee H, Parthasarathy S, Mohler J, Sharafkhaneh A, Najafi B. Improving sleep quality assessment using wearable sensors by including information from postural/sleep position changes and body acceleration: a comparison of chest-worn sensors, wrist actigraphy, and polysomnography. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13:1301–10.
Whybrow S, Ritz P, Horgan GW, Stubbs RJ. An evaluation of the IDEEA™ activity monitor for estimating energy expenditure. Br J Nutr. 2013;109:173–83.
Funding
This study received financial support from the American Heart Association—Bugher Foundation (14BFSC17810004), National Institutes of Health (HD071809), and the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Bruce H. Dobkin and Clarisa Martinez each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dobkin, B.H., Martinez, C. Wearable Sensors to Monitor, Enable Feedback, and Measure Outcomes of Activity and Practice. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 18, 87 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-018-0896-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-018-0896-5