A remote quantitative fugl-meyer assessment framework for stroke patients based on wearable sensor networks
Abstract
To extend the use of wearable sensor networks for stroke patients training and assessment in non-clinical settings, this paper proposes a novel remote quantitative Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) framework, in which two accelerometer and seven flex sensors were used to monitoring the movement function of upper limb, wrist and fingers. The extreme learning machine based ensemble regression model was established to map the sensor data to clinical FMA scores while the RRelief algorithm was applied to find the optimal features subset. Considering the FMA scale is time-consuming and complicated, seven training exercises were designed to replace the upper limb related 33 items in FMA scale. 24 stroke inpatients participated in the experiments in clinical settings and 5 of them were involved in the experiments in home settings after they left the hospital. Both the experimental results in clinical and home settings showed that the proposed quantitative FMA model can precisely predict the FMA scores based on wearable sensor data, the coefficient of determination can reach as high as 0.917. It also indicated that the proposed framework can provide a potential approach to the remote quantitative rehabilitation training and evaluation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
FMA variants are the most commonly used batteries of tests among the included works.
“FMA variants are the most commonly used batteries of tests from the included works [68,69,73]”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [68]
In study [68], the SVM model achieved 92.2% accuracy.
“SVM 92.2%”
From Wearable sensors and machine learning in post-stroke rehabilitation assessment: A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [68]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 134
- Authors
- Yu, L., Xiong, D., Guo, L., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Lei
- Venue
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 128
- Pages
- 100-110
- ISSN
- 0169-2607 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2288298981
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 10.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- stroke rehabilitation, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, remote assessment, wearable sensors, accelerometer, flex sensors, upper limb motor function, extreme learning machine, ensemble regression, home-based rehabilitation
- MeSH terms
- Acceleration, Machine Learning, Aged, Algorithms, Clothing, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Exercise, Risk Assessment, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Recovery of Function, Stroke, Upper Extremity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review