4.5 Article

Development of a novel cardiopulmonary resuscitation measurement tool using real-time feedback from wearable wireless instrumentation

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 183-189

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.019

关键词

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); Quality; Dual-quaternions; Electromyogram (EMG); Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU); MYO; Machine learning

资金

  1. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The design and implementation of a wearable training device to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is presented. Methods: The MYO contains both Electromyography (EMG) and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensors which are used to detect effective CPR, and the four common incorrect hand and arm positions viz. relaxed fingers; hands too low on the sternum; patient too close; or patient too far. The device determines the rate and depth of compressions calculated using a Fourier transform and dual-quaternions respectively. In addition, common positional mistakes are determined using classification algorithms (six machine learning algorithms are considered and tested). Feedback via Graphical User Interface (GUI) and audio is integrated. Results: The system is tested by performing CPR on a mannequin and comparing real-time results to theoretical values. Tests show that although the classification algorithm performed well in testing (98%), in real time, it had low accuracy for certain categories (60%) which are attributable to the MYO calibration, sampling rate and misclassification of similar hand positions. Combining these similar incorrect positions into more general categories significantly improves accuracy, and produces the same improved outcome of improved CPR. The rate and depth measures have a general accuracy of 97%. Conclusion: The system allows for portable, real-time feedback for use in training and in the field, and shows promise toward classifying and improving the administration of CPR.

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

4.5
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