Development and evaluation of a gyroscope-based wheel rotation monitor for manual wheelchair users

Abstract

Objective: To develop and evaluate a wireless gyroscope-based wheel rotation monitor (G-WRM) that can estimate speeds and distances traveled by wheelchair users during regular wheelchair propulsion as well as wheelchair sports such as handcycling, and provide users with real-time feedback through a smartphone application. Methods: The speeds and the distances estimated by the G-WRM were compared with the criterion measures by calculating absolute difference, mean difference, and percentage errors during a series of laboratory-based tests. Intraclass correlations (ICC) and the Bland-Altman plots were also used to assess the agreements between the G-WRM and the criterion measures. In addition, battery life and wireless data transmission tests under a number of usage conditions were performed. Results: The percentage errors for the angular velocities, speeds, and distances obtained from three prototype G-WRMs were less than 3% for all the test trials. The high ICC values (ICC (3,1) > 0.94) and the Bland-Altman plots indicate excellent agreement between the estimated speeds and distances by the G-WRMs and the criterion measures. The battery life tests showed that the device could last for 35 hours in wireless mode and 139 hours in secure digital card mode. The wireless data transmission tests indicated less than 0.3% of data loss. Conclusion:The results indicate that the G-WRM is an appropriate tool for tracking a spectrum of wheelchairrelated activities from regular wheelchair propulsion to wheelchair sports such as handcycling. The real-time feedback provided by the G-WRM can help wheelchair users self-monitor their everyday activities.

Validity of activity monitors in wheelchair users: A systematic review

“…The specifications of each device are shown in Appendix 2. Of the 29 articles selected, 6 studies evaluated commercially available monitors with default algorithms for quantifying PA in MWUs [24][25][26][27][28][29] (Appendix 3), 15 evaluated commercially available monitors with custom algorithms [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] (Appendix 4), and 10 evaluated custom-made devices and algorithms [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] (Appendix 5). These activity monitors could be categorized into three types: accelerometer-based, multisensor-based, and others (gyroscope-or HR-based).…”

“…Among the 29 articles, 14 investigated accelerometer-based monitors (1 uniaxial [38] and 13 triaxial [26,[32][33][39][40][41][42][46][47][48][49][50][51]), 9 evaluated multisensor-based devices [24][25][28][29]31,[34][35][36][37], 1 evaluated a gyroscope-based monitor [44], and 5 evaluated combinations of any 2 of the 3 types [27,30,43,45]. Among all articles, 19 included only MWUs with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) [24,[26][27][28][29]31,[33][34][35][36][37][40][41][43][44]46,[50][51][52]; 7 included MWUs with a mix of diagnoses, including SCI, amputation, congenital bone disorder, complex regional pain syndrome, CharcotMarie-Tooth disease, demyelinating disease, dystonia, fib...…”

“…The energy expenditure (EE), oxygen consumption, metabolic equivalent, and HR indexes were frequently reported outcome measures for quantifying the energy cost of PA. Of the 29 selected studies, 14 quantified PA in terms of energy cost [24][25][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][37][38]50]. Six of the studies reported distance traveled, speed (linear and/or angular), absolute angle of rotation, and number of wheel revolutions as measures of wheelchair movements [36,[44][45][46][48][49]. Eleven of the studies reported propulsion frequency, propulsion force, upper-limb activity counts, duration of user movement, and types of activities as the measures of user movements [24][25][26]34,36,38,43,[46][47][48]51].…”

“…Two studies used doubly labeled water [24,35], and 14 studies used metabolic analysis systems such as Cosmed K4b2 or Quark b2 (COSMED; Rome, Italy), TrueOne 2400 computerized metabolic system (TrueOne; Salt Lake City, Utah), Oxycon mobile (Viasys Healthcare; Hochberg, Germany), gas analyzer (AR-1 type-4, Arco System; Chiba, Japan), and Metabolic Analysis System (Aerosport Inc; Ann Arbor, Michigan) as the criterion for measuring energy cost [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][37][38][39][40]42,50]. Other methods, including video analysis, observation, direct measurements, and motion capture systems, were used as reference comparisons for validating wheelchair and user movements [34,36,41,[43][44][45][46]49,[51][52]. Six studies used video recording as a reference for distances traveled, propulsion frequency, and duration of movement [36,43,[45][46]49,51].…”

“…Three studies used direct measurement and observation to record distances traveled, propulsion frequency, and PA types as reference comparisons [34,36,45]. Two studies used SMART Wheel (Three Rivers Holdings, Inc; Mesa, Arizona) and VICON (Vicon Peak; Lake Forest, California) to measure/calculate the propulsion force, propulsion frequency, and distance traveled [43][44]. In addition, two studies used a validated questionnaire and self-reported PA record as reference comparisons for EE [25][26].…”