Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Classification of functional and non-functional arm use by inertial measurement units in individuals with upper limb impairment after stroke.


ABSTRACT: Background: Arm use metrics derived from wrist-mounted movement sensors are widely used to quantify the upper limb performance in real-life conditions of individuals with stroke throughout motor recovery. The calculation of real-world use metrics, such as arm use duration and laterality preferences, relies on accurately identifying functional movements. Hence, classifying upper limb activity into functional and non-functional classes is paramount. Acceleration thresholds are conventionally used to distinguish these classes. However, these methods are challenged by the high inter and intra-individual variability of movement patterns. In this study, we developed and validated a machine learning classifier for this task and compared it to methods using conventional and optimal thresholds. Methods: Individuals after stroke were video-recorded in their home environment performing semi-naturalistic daily tasks while wearing wrist-mounted inertial measurement units. Data were labeled frame-by-frame following the Taxonomy of Functional Upper Limb Motion definitions, excluding whole-body movements, and sequenced into 1-s epochs. Actigraph counts were computed, and an optimal threshold for functional movement was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analyses on group and individual levels. A logistic regression classifier was trained on the same labels using time and frequency domain features. Performance measures were compared between all classification methods. Results: Video data (6.5 h) of 14 individuals with mild-to-severe upper limb impairment were labeled. Optimal activity count thresholds were ≥20.1 for the affected side and ≥38.6 for the unaffected side and showed high predictive power with an area under the curve (95% CI) of 0.88 (0.87,0.89) and 0.86 (0.85, 0.87), respectively. A classification accuracy of around 80% was equivalent to the optimal threshold and machine learning methods and outperformed the conventional threshold by ∼10%. Optimal thresholds and machine learning methods showed superior specificity (75-82%) to conventional thresholds (58-66%) across unilateral and bilateral activities. Conclusion: This work compares the validity of methods classifying stroke survivors' real-life arm activities measured by wrist-worn sensors excluding whole-body movements. The determined optimal thresholds and machine learning classifiers achieved an equivalent accuracy and higher specificity than conventional thresholds. Our open-sourced classifier or optimal thresholds should be used to specify the intensity and duration of arm use.

SUBMITTER: Pohl J 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9554104 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Classification of functional and non-functional arm use by inertial measurement units in individuals with upper limb impairment after stroke.

Pohl Johannes J   Ryser Alain A   Veerbeek Janne Marieke JM   Verheyden Geert G   Vogt Julia Elisabeth JE   Luft Andreas Rüdiger AR   Awai Easthope Chris C  

Frontiers in physiology 20220928


<b>Background:</b> Arm use metrics derived from wrist-mounted movement sensors are widely used to quantify the upper limb performance in real-life conditions of individuals with stroke throughout motor recovery. The calculation of real-world use metrics, such as arm use duration and laterality preferences, relies on accurately identifying functional movements. Hence, classifying upper limb activity into <i>functional</i> and <i>non-functional</i> classes is paramount. Acceleration thresholds are  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC6783441 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7319021 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7841375 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8567153 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10490152 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7665628 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8125825 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10708829 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC11503723 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9271671 | biostudies-literature