↓ Skip to main content

Auto detection and segmentation of physical activities during a Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) task in healthy older adults using multiple inertial sensors

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Auto detection and segmentation of physical activities during a Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) task in healthy older adults using multiple inertial sensors
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0026-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hung P Nguyen, Fouaz Ayachi, Catherine Lavigne–Pelletier, Margaux Blamoutier, Fariborz Rahimi, Patrick Boissy, Mandar Jog, Christian Duval

Abstract

Recently, much attention has been given to the use of inertial sensors for remote monitoring of individuals with limited mobility. However, the focus has been mostly on the detection of symptoms, not specific activities. The objective of the present study was to develop an automated recognition and segmentation algorithm based on inertial sensor data to identify common gross motor patterns during activity of daily living. A modified Time-Up-And-Go (TUG) task was used since it is comprised of four common daily living activities; Standing, Walking, Turning, and Sitting, all performed in a continuous fashion resulting in six different segments during the task. Sixteen healthy older adults performed two trials of a 5 and 10 meter TUG task. They were outfitted with 17 inertial motion sensors covering each body segment. Data from the 10 meter TUG were used to identify pertinent sensors on the trunk, head, hip, knee, and thigh that provided suitable data for detecting and segmenting activities associated with the TUG. Raw data from sensors were detrended to remove sensor drift, normalized, and band pass filtered with optimal frequencies to reveal kinematic peaks that corresponded to different activities. Segmentation was accomplished by identifying the time stamps of the first minimum or maximum to the right and the left of these peaks. Segmentation time stamps were compared to results from two examiners visually segmenting the activities of the TUG. We were able to detect these activities in a TUG with 100% sensitivity and specificity (n = 192) during the 10 meter TUG. The rate of success was subsequently confirmed in the 5 meter TUG (n = 192) without altering the parameters of the algorithm. When applying the segmentation algorithms to the 10 meter TUG, we were able to parse 100% of the transition points (n = 224) between different segments that were as reliable and less variable than visual segmentation performed by two independent examiners. The present study lays the foundation for the development of a comprehensive algorithm to detect and segment naturalistic activities using inertial sensors, in hope of evaluating automatically motor performance within the detected tasks.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 149 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 16%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 38 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 35 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Sports and Recreations 10 7%
Computer Science 9 6%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 47 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,281,599
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,136
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,627
of 264,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.