Commonly used sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, surface electromyography sensors, etc., which provide a convenient and practical solution for human activity recognition (HAR), have gained extensive attention. However, which kind of sensor can provide adequate information in achieving a satisfactory performance, or whether the position of a single sensor would play a significant effect on the performance in HAR are sparsely studied. In this paper, a comparative study to fully investigate the performance of the aforementioned sensors for classifying four activities (walking, tooth brushing, face washing, drinking) is explored. Sensors are spatially distributed over the human body, and subjects are categorized into three groups (able-bodied people, stroke survivors, and the union of both). Performances of using accelerometer, gyroscope, sEMG, and their combination in each group are evaluated by adopting the Support Vector Machine classifier with the Leave-One-Subject-Out Cross-Validation technique, and the optimal sensor position for each kind of sensor is presented based on the accuracy. Experimental results show that using the accelerometer could obtain the best performance in each group. The highest accuracy of HAR involving stroke survivors was 95.84 ± 1.75% (mean ± standard error), achieved by the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris. Furthermore, taking the practical application of HAR into consideration, a novel approach to distinguish various activities of stroke survivors based on a pre-trained HAR model built on healthy subjects is proposed, the highest accuracy of which is 77.89 ± 4.81% (mean ± standard error) with the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris.
Background Impairments in upper limb motor function and cognitive ability are major health problems experienced by stroke patients, necessitating the development of novel and effective treatment options in stroke care. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of robot-assisted therapy on improving upper limb and cognitive functions in stroke patients. Methods This will be a single-blinded, 2-arm, parallel design, randomized controlled trial which will include a sample size of 86 acute and subacute stroke patients to be recruited from a single clinical hospital in Shanghai, China. Upon qualifying the study eligibility, participants will be randomly assigned to receive either robot-assisted therapy or conventional therapy with both interventions being conducted over a 6-week period in a clinical rehabilitation setting. In addition to comprehensive rehabilitation, the robot-assisted therapy group will receive a 30-min Armguider robot-assisted therapy intervention 5 days a week. Primary efficacy outcomes will include Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE). Other secondary outcomes will include Trail Making Test (TMT), Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT). All trial outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 6-week follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses will be performed to examine changes from baseline in the outcomes. Adverse events will be monitored throughout the trial period. Discussion This will be the first randomized controlled trial aimed at examining the effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb and cognitive functions in acute and subacute stroke patients. Findings from the study will contribute to our understanding of using a novel robotic rehabilitation approach to stroke care and rehabilitation. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100050856. Registered on 5 September 2021.
BACKGROUND: Ischemic compression is widely used to clinically treat neck pain. However, no meta-analysis has been conducted to evaluate the effects of this process on neck pain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of ischemic compression on the myofascial trigger points for improving neck pain-related symptoms (mainly pain, joint mobility limitation and function limitation) and to compare ischemic compression with other therapies. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, OVID, Web of Science, EBSCO, SCOUPS, Cochrane Library, PEDro, Wanfang, CNKI and Chinese VIP Database in June 2021. Only randomised controlled trials on the effects of ischemic compression on neck pain were included. The major outcomes were pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, pain-related disability and range of motion. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 725 participants were included. Significant differences were observed between ischemic compression and sham/no treatment group in pain intensity, pressure pain threshold and range of motion immediately and in the short term. Significant effect sizes of dry needling were observed over ischemic compression in terms of improving pain intensity (SMD = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.16; P= 0.02), pain-related disability (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.17; P= 0.007) and range of motion (MD =-2.12; 95% CI: -2.59 to -1.65; P< 0.001) immediately after treatment. Dry needling also showed a significant small effect size for the short-term reduction of pain (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.85; P= 0.03). CONCLUSION: Ischemic compression can be recommended in the immediate and short-term pain relief and increase in the pressure pain threshold and range of motion. Dry needling is superior to ischemic compression in relieving pain and improving pain-related disability and range of motion immediately after treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.