4.6 Article

Objective Assessment of Upper-Limb Mobility for Poststroke Rehabilitation

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 859-868

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2477095

关键词

Dynamic time warping; mobility assessment; rehabilitation; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assessment of the limb mobility of stroke patients is an essential part of poststroke rehabilitation. Conventionally, the assessment is manually performed by clinicians using chart-based ordinal scales, which can be subjective and inefficient. By introducing quantitative evaluation measures, the sensitivity and efficiency of the assessment process can be significantly improved. In this paper, a novel single-index-based assessment approach for quantitative upper-limb mobility evaluation has been proposed for poststroke rehabilitation. Instead of the traditional human-observation-based measures, the proposed assessment system utilizes the kinematic information automatically collected during a regular rehabilitation training exercise using a wearable inertial measurement unit. By calculating a single index, the system can efficiently generate objective and consistent quantitative results that can reflect the stroke patient's upper-limbmobility. In order to verify and validate the proposed assessment system, experiments have been conducted using 145 motion samples collected from 21 stroke patients (12 males, nine females, mean age 58.7 +/- 19.3) and eight healthy participants. The results have suggested that the proposed assessment index can not only differentiate the levels of limb function impairment clearly (p < 0.001, two-tailed Welch's t-test), but also strongly correlate with the Brunnstrom stages of recovery (r = 0.86, p < 0.001). The assessment index is also proven to have great potential in automatic Brunnstrom stage classification application with an 82.1% classification accuracy, while using a K-nearest-neighbor classifier.

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

4.6
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