Cited by 78Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMotor Control and Adaptation

Estimating upper-limb impairment level in stroke survivors using wearable inertial sensors and a minimally-burdensome motor task

Oubre, Brandon, Daneault, Jean-Francois, Jung, Hee-Tae, Whritenour, Kallie, Miranda, Jose Garcia Vivas, Park, Joonwoo, Ryu, Taekyeong, Kim, Yangsoo +1 more·2020·IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering

Abstract

Upper-limb paresis is the most common motor impairment post stroke. Current solutions to automate the assessment of upper-limb impairment impose a number of critical burdens on patients and their caregivers that preclude frequent assessment. In this work, we propose an approach to estimate upper-limb impairment in stroke survivors using two wearable inertial sensors, on the wrist and the sternum, and a minimally-burdensome motor task. Twenty-three stroke survivors with no, mild, or moderate upper-limb impairment performed two repetitions of one-to-two minute-long continuous, random (i.e., patternless), voluntary upper-limb movements spanning the entire range of motion. The three-dimensional timeseries of upper-limb movements were segmented into a series of one-dimensional submovements by employing a unique movement decomposition technique. An unsupervised clustering algorithm and a supervised regression model were used to estimate Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) scores based on features extracted from these submovements. Our regression model estimated FMA scores with a normalized root mean square error of 18.2% (r2= 0.70) and needed as little as one minute of movement data to yield reasonable estimation performance. These results support the possibility of frequently monitoring stroke survivors' rehabilitation outcomes, ultimately enabling the development of individually-tailored rehabilitation programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnsre.2020.2966950

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oubre, B., Daneault, J.-F., Jung, H.-T., Whritenour, K., Miranda, J. G. V., Park, J., Ryu, T., Kim, Y., & Lee, S. I.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Published
2020-03
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
601-611
ISSN
  • 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0210
OpenAlex
W2999027068
Cited by
78
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (1755687)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
stroke, upper limb paresis, wearable inertial sensors, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, movement decomposition, unsupervised clustering
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Paresis, Survivors, 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