A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Cyber-Human Assessment of Rehabilitation Movement

Background: The evidence-based quantification of the relation between changes in movement quality and functionality can assist clinicians in achieving more effective structuring or adaptations of therapy. Facilitating this quantification through computational tools can also result in the generation of large-scale data sets that can inform automated assessment of rehabilitation. Interpretable automated assessment can leave more time for clinicians to focus on treatment and allow for remotely supervised therapy at the home. Methods: In our first experiment, we developed a rating process and accompanying computational tool to assist clinicians in following a standardized movement assessment process relating functionality to movement quality. We conducted three studies with three different versions of the computational rating tool. Clinicians rated task, segment, and movement feature performance for 440 videos in which stroke survivors executed standardized upper extremity therapy tasks related to functional activities. In our second experiment, we used the 440 rated videos, in addition to 140 videos of unimpaired subjects performing the same tasks, to improve our previously developed automated assessment ensemble model that automatically generates segmentation times and task ratings across the impaired and unimpaired movement. The automated assessment ensemble integrates expert knowledge constraints into data-driven training through a combination of HMM, transformer, MSTCN++, and decision tree computational modules. In our third experiment, we used the therapist and automated ratings to develop a four-layer Hierarchical Bayesian Model (HBM) for computing the statistical relation of movement quality changes to functionality. We first calculated conditional layer probabilities using clinician ratings of task, segment, and movement features. We increased the granularity of observation of the HBM by formulating {Delta}HBM, a correlation graph between kinematics and movement composite features. Finally, we used k-means clustering on the {Delta}HBM to identify three clusters of features among the 16 movement composite and 20 kinematic features and used the centroid of these clusters as the weights of the input data to our computational assessment ensemble. Results: We evaluated the efficacy of our rating interface in terms of inter-rater reliability (IRR) across tasks, segments, and movement features. The third version of the interface produced an average IRR of 67%, while the time per session (TPS) was the lowest of the three studies. By analyzing the ratings, we were able to identify a small number of movement features that have the highest probability of predicting functional improvement. We evaluated the performance of our automated assessment model using 60% impaired and 40% unimpaired movement data and achieved a frame-wise segmentation accuracy of 87.85{+/-}0.58 and a block-segmentation accuracy of 98.46{+/-}1.6. We also demonstrated the performance of our proposed HBM in correlation to clinician ratings with a correlation of over 90%. The HBM also generates a correlation graph, {Delta}HBM that relates 16 composite movement features to the 20 kinematic features. We can thus integrate the HBM into the computational assessment ensemble to perform automated and integrated movement quality and functionality assessment that is driven by computationally extracted kinematics. Conclusions: Combining standardized clinician ratings of videos with knowledge based and data-driven computational analysis of rehabilitation movement allows the expression of an HBM that increases the observability of the relation of movement quality to functionality and enables the training of computational algorithms for automated assessment of rehabilitation movement. While our work primarily focuses on the upper extremity of stroke survivors, the models can be adopted to many other neurorehabilitation contexts.

[1]  Alan T. Asbeck,et al.  Capturing Upper Body Kinematics and Localization with Low-Cost Sensors for Rehabilitation Applications , 2022, Sensors.

[2]  Jia-Bin Huang,et al.  Automated Movement Assessment in Stroke Rehabilitation , 2021, bioRxiv.

[3]  Aisling Kelliher,et al.  Understanding the Needs and Values of Rehabilitation Therapists in Designing and Implementing Telehealth Solutions , 2021, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[4]  Yaser Sheikh,et al.  OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation Using Part Affinity Fields , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[5]  Aisling Kelliher,et al.  Towards Standardized Processes for Physical Therapists to Quantify Patient Rehabilitation , 2020, CHI.

[6]  P. Salmon,et al.  Sports Organizations as Complex Systems: Using Cognitive Work Analysis to Identify the Factors Influencing Performance in an Elite Netball Organization , 2019, Front. Sports Act. Living.

[7]  Yazan Abu Farha,et al.  MS-TCN: Multi-Stage Temporal Convolutional Network for Action Segmentation , 2019, 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[8]  Robin M. Queen,et al.  Validity and Repeatability of Single-Sensor Loadsol Insoles during Landing , 2018, Sensors.

[9]  R. Michael Buehrer,et al.  Pedestrian GraphSLAM Using Smartphone-Based PDR in Indoor Environments , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops).

[10]  Athanassios Bissas,et al.  Differences between motion capture and video analysis systems in calculating knee angles in elite-standard race walking , 2018, Journal of sports sciences.

[11]  Christopher Wee Keong Kuah,et al.  Innovating With Rehabilitation Technology in the Real World , 2017, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[12]  Rushil Anirudh,et al.  Elastic Functional Coding of Riemannian Trajectories , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[13]  J. Krakauer,et al.  Computational neurorehabilitation: modeling plasticity and learning to predict recovery , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[14]  Todd Ingalls,et al.  Interdisciplinary Concepts for Design and Implementation of Mixed Reality Interactive Neurorehabilitation Systems for Stroke , 2014, Physical Therapy.

[15]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Design and testing of a selectively compliant underactuated hand , 2014, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[16]  Jiping He,et al.  A Computational Framework for Quantitative Evaluation of Movement during Rehabilitation , 2011 .

[17]  Charles Kemp,et al.  How to Grow a Mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction , 2011, Science.

[18]  M. Levin,et al.  What Do Motor “Recovery” and “Compensation” Mean in Patients Following Stroke? , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[19]  Jiping He,et al.  A portable, low-cost assessment device for reaching times , 2008, 2008 30th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[20]  N. Yozbatiran,et al.  A Standardized Approach to Performing the Action Research Arm Test , 2008, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[21]  Thanassis Rikakis,et al.  Media adaptation framework in biofeedback system for stroke patient rehabilitation , 2007, ACM Multimedia.

[22]  M. Levin,et al.  Improvement of Arm Movement Patterns and Endpoint Control Depends on Type of Feedback During Practice in Stroke Survivors , 2007, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[23]  J. Krakauer Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. , 2006, Current opinion in neurology.

[24]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Rapid Contextual Design: A How-To Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design , 2004, UBIQ.

[25]  S. Black,et al.  The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[26]  Michael C. Pyryt Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies , 1998 .

[27]  P S Freedson,et al.  Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. , 1998, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[28]  Robert B. Cantrick,et al.  A Generative Theory of Tonal Music , 1985 .

[29]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[30]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar , 1966 .

[31]  Research through Design , Documentation , Annotation , and Curation , .