Wearable technologies for active living and rehabilitation: Current research challenges and future opportunities

Mary M Rodgers, Gad Alon, Vinay M Pai, Richard S Conroy, Mary M Rodgers, Gad Alon, Vinay M Pai, Richard S Conroy

Abstract

This paper presents some recent developments in the field of wearable sensors and systems that are relevant to rehabilitation and provides examples of systems with evidence supporting their effectiveness for rehabilitation. A discussion of current challenges and future developments for selected systems is followed by suggestions for future directions needed to advance towards wider deployment of wearable sensors and systems for rehabilitation.

Keywords: Wearable technology; augmented reality; functional electrical stimulation; interactive feedback; rehabilitation; smart systems (rehabilitation); virtual reality; wearable sensor systems.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

    1. Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2014; 95: 986–995. e981.
    1. Rodgers MM, Pai VM, Conroy RS. Recent advances in wearable sensors for health monitoring. IEEE Sens J 2015; 15: 3119–3126.
    1. Frontera WR, Bean JF, Damiano D, et al. Rehabilitation research at the National Institutes of Health: moving the field forward (executive summary). Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31: 304–314.
    1. Nagi SZ. Some conceptual issues in disability and rehabilitation. In: Sussman M. (ed). Sociology and rehabilitation, Washington, DC: American Sociological Society, 1965, pp. 100.
    1. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease, published in accordance with resolution WHA29. 35 of the Twenty-ninth World Health Assembly, May 1976, 1980.
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning,, Disability and Health: ICF. World Health Organization, 2001.
    1. Jette AM, Keysor JJ. Disability models: implications for arthritis exercise and physical activity interventions. Arthritis Care Res 2003; 49: 114–120.
    1. 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.
    1. Banaee H, Ahmed MU, Loutfi A. Data mining for wearable sensors in health monitoring systems: a review of recent trends and challenges. Sensors 2013; 13: 17472–17500.
    1. Thilarajah S, Clark RA, Williams G. Wearable sensors and mobile health (mHealth) technologies to assess and promote physical activity in stroke: a narrative review. Brain Impairment 2016; 17: 34–42.
    1. Moller AC, Merchant G, Conroy DE, et al. Applying and advancing behavior change theories and techniques in the context of a digital health revolution: proposals for more effectively realizing untapped potential. J Behav Med 2017; 40: 85–98.
    1. Knapp M, Barlow J, Comas-Herrera A, et al. The case for investment in technology to manage the global costs of dementia, London: PIRU Publication, 2015.
    1. Wang Q, Markopoulos P, Yu B, et al. Interactive wearable systems for upper body rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017; 14: 20.
    1. Iosa M, Picerno P, Paolucci S, et al. Wearable inertial sensors for human movement analysis. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13: 641–659.
    1. Iqbal MH, Aydin A, Brunckhorst O, et al. A review of wearable technology in medicine. J R Soc Med 2016; 109: 372–380.
    1. Kraal JJ, Sartor F, Papini G, et al. Energy expenditure estimation in beta-blocker-medicated cardiac patients by combining heart rate and body movement data. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2016; 23: 1734–1742.
    1. Reeder B, David A. Health at hand: a systematic review of smart watch uses for health and wellness. J Biomed Inform 2016; 63: 269–276.
    1. Lim WK, Davila S, Teo JX, et al. Beyond fitness tracking: the use of consumer-grade wearable data from normal volunteers in cardiovascular and lipidomics research. PLoS Biol 2018; 16: e2004285.
    1. Shin JH, Kim MY, Lee JY, et al. Effects of virtual reality-based rehabilitation on distal upper extremity function and health-related quality of life: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2016; 13: 17.
    1. Chen KH, Chen PC, Liu KC, et al. Wearable sensor-based rehabilitation exercise assessment for knee osteoarthritis. Sensors 2015; 15: 4193–4211.
    1. Laver KE, Lange B, George S, et al. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2018; 49: e160–e161.
    1. Tieri G, Morone G, Paolucci S, et al. Virtual reality in cognitive and motor rehabilitation: facts, fiction and fallacies. Expert Rev Med Devices 2018; 15: 107–117.
    1. Munroe C, Meng Y, Yanco H, et al. Augmented reality eyeglasses for promoting home-based rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy. In: The eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, Christchurch, NZ, 7–10 March 2016, pp.565–565. New York, NY: IEEE Press.
    1. McEwen D, Taillon-Hobson A, Bilodeau M, et al. Virtual reality exercise improves mobility after stroke: an inpatient randomized controlled trial. Stroke 2014; 45: 1853–1855.
    1. Massetti T, da Silva TD, Crocetta TB, et al. The clinical utility of virtual reality in neurorehabilitation: a systematic review. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis 2018; 10: 1179573518813541.
    1. Dorsch AK, King CE, Dobkin BH. Neurorehabilitation technology, New York, NY: Springer, 2016.
    1. Alon G, Embrey DG, Brandsma BA, et al. Comparing four electrical stimulators with different pulses properties and their effect on the discomfort and elicited dorsiflexion. Int J Physiother Res 2013; 1: 122–129.
    1. Springer S, Vatine JJ, Lipson R, et al. Effects of dual-channel functional electrical stimulation on gait performance in patients with hemiparesis. Sci World J 2012; 2012: 530906.
    1. Kluding PM, Dunning K, O'Dell MW, et al. Foot drop stimulation versus ankle foot orthosis after stroke: 30-week outcomes. Stroke 2013; 44: 1660–1669.
    1. Springer S, Vatine JJ, Wolf A, et al. The effects of dual-channel functional electrical stimulation on stance phase sagittal kinematics in patients with hemiparesis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2013; 23: 476–482.
    1. Pool D, Blackmore AM, Bear N, et al. Effects of short-term daily community walk aide use on children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther 2014; 26: 308–317.
    1. El-Gohary M, McNames J. Human joint angle estimation with inertial sensors and validation with a robot arm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2015; 62: 1759–1767.
    1. Freeman C, Exell T, Meadmore K, et al. Computational models of upper-limb motion during functional reaching tasks for application in FES-based stroke rehabilitation. Biomed Tech 2015; 60: 179–191.
    1. Kutlu M, Freeman CT, Hallewell E, et al. Upper-limb stroke rehabilitation using electrode-array based functional electrical stimulation with sensing and control innovations. Med Eng Phys 2016; 38: 366–379.
    1. Sampson P, Freeman C, Coote S, et al. Using functional electrical stimulation mediated by iterative learning control and robotics to improve arm movement for people with multiple sclerosis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2016; 24: 235–248.
    1. Noma T, Matsumoto S, Shimodozono M, et al. Novel neuromuscular electrical stimulation system for the upper limbs in chronic stroke patients: a feasibility study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2014; 93: 503–510.
    1. Knutson JS, Gunzler DD, Wilson RD, et al. Contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation improves hand dexterity in chronic hemiparesis: a randomized trial. Stroke 2016; 47: 2596–2602.
    1. Wang HP, Bi ZY, Zhou Y, et al. Real-time and wearable functional electrical stimulation system for volitional hand motor function control using the electromyography bridge method. Neural Regen Res 2017; 12: 133–142.
    1. Kim T, Kim S, Lee B. Effects of action observational training plus brain–computer interface-based functional electrical stimulation on paretic arm motor recovery in patient with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Occup Ther Int 2016; 23: 39–47.
    1. Chen YL, Li YC, Kuo TS, et al. The development of a closed-loop controlled functional electrical stimulation (FES) in gait training. J Med Eng Technol 2001; 25: 41–48.
    1. Jovic J, Fraisse P, Coste CA, et al. Improving valid and deficient body segment coordination to improve FES-assisted sit-to-stand in paraplegic subjects. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, June 27–July 1, 2011 Zurich, Switzerland. DOI: 10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975369.
    1. Zhang Q, Hayashibe M, Azevedo-Coste C. Evoked electromyography-based closed-loop torque control in functional electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2013; 60: 2299–2307.
    1. Heller BW, Clarke AJ, Good TR, et al. Automated setup of functional electrical stimulation for drop foot using a novel 64 channel prototype stimulator and electrode array: results from a gait-lab based study. Med Eng Phys 2013; 35: 74–81.
    1. Wegrzyk J, Ranjeva JP, Foure A, et al. Specific brain activation patterns associated with two neuromuscular electrical stimulation protocols. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 2742.
    1. Alon G, Conroy VM, Donner TW. Intensive training of subjects with chronic hemiparesis on a motorized cycle combined with functional electrical stimulation (FES): a feasibility and safety study. Physiother Res Int 2011; 16: 81–91.
    1. Khalifa S, Hassan M, Seneviratne A, et al. Energy-harvesting wearables for activity-aware services. IEEE Internet Comput 2015; 19: 8–16.
    1. Khalifa S, Hassan M and Seneviratne A. Step detection from power generation pattern in energy-harvesting wearable devices. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on data science and data intensive systems, Sydney, Australia, 11–13 December 2015, pp.604–610. DOI: 10.1109/Dsdis.2015.102.
    1. Bassett DR, Jr, Rowlands AV, Trost SG. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: S32.
    1. Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12: 159.
    1. Han KT, Wang PC. Validity of research-grade actigraphy unit for measuring exercise intensity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14: 511.
    1. Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Klassen TD, et al. Capturing step counts at slow walking speeds in older adults: comparison of ankle and waist placement of measuring device. J Rehabil Med 2015; 47: 830–835.
    1. Spagnolli A, Guardigli E, Orso V, et al. Measuring user acceptance of wearable symbiotic devices: validation study across application scenarios. In: Jacucci G, Gamberini L, Freeman J, et al.(eds). Symbiotic interaction 2014. Third International Workshop, Symbiotic 2014, Helsinki, Finland, 30–31 October 2014, Proceedings, pp.87–98. London: Springer.
    1. Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA, 1985.
    1. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003; 27: 425–478.
    1. Li H, Wu J, Gao Y, et al. Examining individuals’ adoption of healthcare wearable devices: an empirical study from privacy calculus perspective. Int J Med Inform 2016; 88: 8–17.
    1. Norman D. The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition, New York, NY: Basic Books (AZ), 2013.
    1. Orji R, Moffatt K. Persuasive technology for health and wellness: state-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Inform J 2018; 24: 66–91. DOI: 10.1177/1460458216650979.
    1. Cancela J, Pastorino M, Tzallas AT, et al. Wearability assessment of a wearable system for Parkinson’s disease remote monitoring based on a body area network of sensors. Sensors 2014; 14: 17235–17255.
    1. Gövercin M, Költzsch Y, Meis M, et al. Defining the user requirements for wearable and optical fall prediction and fall detection devices for home use. Inform Health Soc Care 2010; 35: 177–187.
    1. Crea S, Cipriani C, Donati M, et al. Providing time-discrete gait information by wearable feedback apparatus for lower-limb amputees: usability and functional validation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2015; 23: 250–257.
    1. Ananthanarayan S, Sheh M, Chien A, et al. Designing wearable interfaces for knee rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare, 2014, pp.101–108. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering). May 20–23, 2014 Oldenburg, Germany.
    1. Orji R. Design for behaviour change: a model-driven approach for tailoring persuasive technologies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, 2014.
    1. Zhang X, Guo X, Lai K-h, et al. Understanding gender differences in m-health adoption: a modified theory of reasoned action model. Telemed e-Health 2014; 20: 39–46.
    1. Venčkauskas A, Štuikys V, Toldinas J, et al. A model-driven framework to develop personalized health monitoring. Symmetry 2016; 8: 65.
    1. Clawson J, Voida A, Patel N, et al. Mobiphos: a collocated-synchronous mobile photo sharing application. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2–5 September 2008, pp.187–195.
    1. Lucero A, Keränen J and Jokela T. Social and spatial interactions: shared co-located mobile phone use. In: CHI'10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 2010, pp.3223–3228. New York, NY: ACM. April 10–15, 2010 Atlanta, GA, USA.
    1. Lucero A, Jones M, Jokela T, et al. Mobile collocated interactions: taking an offline break together. Interactions 2013; 20: 26–32.
    1. Patel NJ and Clawson J. Designing and evaluating mobile systems for collocated group use. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, 2011, pp.765–768. New York, NY: ACM. August 30–September 2, 2011 Stockholm, Sweden.
    1. Lucero A, Clawson J, Fischer J, et al. Mobile collocated interactions with wearables: past, present, and future, Berlin: Springer, 2016.
    1. Benford S, Crabtree A, Flintham M, et al. Can you see me now? ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 2006; 13: 100–133.
    1. Hall ET. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. Am Anthropol 1963; 65: 1003–1026.
    1. Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J, et al. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. J Med Internet Res 2010; 12: e19.
    1. Lee JM, Hirschfeld E, Wedding J. A patient-designed do-it-yourself mobile technology system for diabetes: promise and challenges for a new era in medicine. JAMA 2016; 315: 1447–1448.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner