4.4 Article

Use of wearable technology for performance assessment: A validation study

期刊

MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 698-704

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.03.017

关键词

Wearable sensor; Osteoarthritis; Rehabilitation; Acceleration; Exercise; Performance

资金

  1. Medical Engineering Solutions in Osteoarthritis Centre of Excellence
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. EPSRC [088844/Z/09/Z]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of osteoarthritis is increasing globally but current compliance with rehabilitation remains poor. This study explores whether wearable sensors can be used to provide objective measures of performance with a view to using them as motivators to aid compliance to osteoarthritis rehabilitation. More specifically, the use of a novel attachable wearable sensor integrated into clothing and inertial measurement units located in two different positions, at the waist and thigh pocket, was investigated. Fourteen healthy volunteers were asked to complete exercises adapted from a knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation programme whilst wearing the three sensors including five times sit-to-stand test, treadmill walking at slow, preferred and fast speeds. The performances of the three sensors were validated against a motion capture system and an instrumented treadmill. The systems showed a high correlation (r(2) > 0.7) and agreement (mean difference range: -0.02-0.03 m, 0.005-0.68 s) with gold standards. The novel attachable wearable sensor was able to monitor exercise tasks as well as the inertial measurement units (ICC > 0.95). Results also suggested that a functional placement (e.g., situated in a pocket) is a valid position for performance monitoring. This study shows the potential use of wearable technologies for assessing subject performance during exercise and suggests functional solutions to enhance acceptance. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IPEM. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据