Automatic Subtask Segmentation Approach of the Timed Up and Go Test for Mobility Assessment System Using Wearable Sensors

Population aging is common phenomenon in the worldwide today. Maintaining and promoting the healthy mobility and mentality is crucial to enhance quality of life. The accuracy of mobility assessment in elderly people is an important issue of clinical practice. Many clinical tools are proposed for mobility assessment. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is one of the most widely accepted functional mobility test to measure basic mobility and balance capabilities. The TUG test consists of eight subtasks, including initial sitting, sit-to-stand, walking-out, turning, walking-in, turning around, stand-to-sit and end sitting. The detail information about subtask is essential to aid clinical professional and physiotherapist about making assessment decision. The main objective of this study is to develop an automatic subtask segmentation approach during TUG test execution. Activity-defined window technique and decision rules are designed and employed in the proposed subtask segmentation approach. To ensure feasibility of proposed segmentation approach, the experiment recruits ten volunteers, including five healthy people and five patients with severe knee osteoarthritis. Each volunteer performs three times 10m and 5m TUG and collects the motion data with wearable sensors. There are 60 instances, including 30 instances of 5m TUG and 10m TUG test, which are used to explore the performance of the proposed segmentation approach. The overall performances of the accuracy in the TUG test for healthy volunteers and patients with severe knee osteoarthritis are 95.47% and 95.28%, respectively. The results show that the proposed segmentation approach can fulfill the reliability of automatic subtasks segmentation during the TUG test.

[1]  Bastiaan R. Bloem,et al.  Measurement instruments to assess posture, gait, and balance in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations , 2016, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[2]  Brian M. Sandroff,et al.  Validity of the Timed Up and Go Test as a Measure of Functional Mobility in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis. , 2016, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[3]  Peter J Beek,et al.  Walking adaptability therapy after stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2016, Trials.

[4]  Martin N. Stienen,et al.  The timed up and go test for lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2015, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[5]  Karl Schaller,et al.  Pre- and postoperative correlation of patient-reported outcome measures with standardized Timed Up and Go (TUG) test results in lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2016, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[6]  R. Hinman,et al.  Measures of physical performance assessments: Self‐Paced Walk Test (SPWT), Stair Climb Test (SCT), Six‐Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Chair Stand Test (CST), Timed Up & Go (TUG), Sock Test, Lift and Carry Test (LCT), and Car Task , 2011, Arthritis care & research.

[7]  P. Stratford,et al.  Performance Measures Provide Assessments of Pain and Function in People With Advanced Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee , 2006, Physical Therapy.

[8]  T Togawa,et al.  Classification of waist-acceleration signals in a continuous walking record. , 2000, Medical engineering & physics.

[9]  Marjorie Skubic,et al.  Evaluation of the microsoft kinect skeletal versus depth data analysis for timed-up and go and figure of 8 walk tests , 2016, 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[10]  Yasushi Makihara,et al.  Similar gait action recognition using an inertial sensor , 2015, Pattern Recognit..

[11]  Minoru Yoshizawa,et al.  Parameter exploration for response time reduction in accelerometer-based activity recognition , 2013, UbiComp.

[12]  Ayanori Yorozu,et al.  Association between mild cognitive impairment and trajectory-based spatial parameters during timed up and go test using a laser range sensor , 2017, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[13]  Diane Podsiadlo,et al.  The Timed “Up & Go”: A Test of Basic Functional Mobility for Frail Elderly Persons , 1991, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[14]  Marine Loustau,et al.  Predicting falls with the cognitive timed up-and-go dual task in frail older patients. , 2017, Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine.

[15]  Andrew Sexton,et al.  Convergent Validity of a Wearable Sensor System for Measuring Sub-Task Performance during the Timed Up-and-Go Test , 2017, Sensors.

[16]  David E. Bloom,et al.  Population Aging: Facts, Challenges, and Responses , 2011 .

[17]  Mauro Serpelloni,et al.  Use of Wearable Inertial Sensor in the Assessment of Timed-Up-and-Go Test: Influence of Device Placement on Temporal Variable Estimation , 2016, MobiHealth.

[18]  Marjorie Skubic,et al.  Evaluation of the microsoft kinect skeletal versus depth data analysis for timed-up and go and figure of 8 walk tests. , 2016, Conference proceedings : ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference.

[19]  Robertw . Mann,et al.  Whole-body movements during rising to standing from sitting. , 1990, Physical therapy.