4.1 Article

Fall detection from a manual wheelchair: preliminary findings based on accelerometers using machine learning techniques

Journal

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2023.2177775

Keywords

accidental falls; activity recognition; fall detection; wearable sensor; wheelchair

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to develop and train a fall detection algorithm to differentiate falls from wheelchair mobility activities. Using data from accelerometers mounted at the participant's wrist, chest, and head, results indicate excellent accuracy in differentiating falls and wheelchair mobility activities.
Automated fall detection devices for individuals who use wheelchairs to minimize the consequences of falls are lacking. This study aimed to develop and train a fall detection algorithm to differentiate falls from wheelchair mobility activities using machine learning techniques. Thirty, healthy, ambulatory, young adults simulated falls from a wheelchair and performed other wheelchair-related mobility activities in a laboratory. Neural Network classifiers were used to train the algorithm developed based on data retrieved from accelerometers mounted at the participant's wrist, chest, and head. Results indicate excellent accuracy to differentiate between falls and wheelchair mobility activities. The sensors mounted at the wrist, chest, and head presented with an accuracy of 100%, 96.9%, and 94.8%, respectively, using data from 258 falls and 220 wheelchair mobility activities. This pilot study indicates that a fall detection algorithm developed in a laboratory setting based on fall accelerometer patterns can accurately differentiate wheelchair-related falls and wheelchair mobility activities. This algorithm should be integrated into a wrist-worn devices and tested among individuals who use a wheelchair in the community.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available