» Articles » PMID: 35382114

Sensor-based Categorization of Upper Limb Performance in Daily Life of Persons with and Without Neurological Upper Limb Deficits

Overview
Date 2022 Apr 6
PMID 35382114
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The use of wearable sensor technology (e.g., accelerometers) for tracking human physical activity have allowed for measurement of actual activity performance of the upper limb (UL) in daily life. Data extracted from accelerometers can be used to quantify multiple variables measuring different aspects of UL performance in one or both limbs. A limitation is that several variables are needed to understand the complexity of UL performance in daily life.

Purpose: To identify categories of UL performance in daily life in adults with and without neurological UL deficits.

Methods: This study analyzed data extracted from bimanual, wrist-worn triaxial accelerometers from adults from three previous cohorts (N=211), two samples of persons with stroke and one sample from neurologically intact adult controls. Data used in these analyses were UL performance variables calculated from accelerometer data, associated clinical measures, and participant characteristics. A total of twelve cluster solutions (3-, 4- or 5-clusters based with 12, 9, 7, or 5 input variables) were calculated to systematically evaluate the most parsimonious solution. Quality metrics and principal component analysis of each solution were calculated to arrive at a locally-optimal solution with respect to number of input variables and number of clusters.

Results: Across different numbers of input variables, two principal components consistently explained the most variance. Across the models with differing numbers of UL input performance variables, a 5-cluster solution explained the most overall total variance (79%) and had the best model-fit.

Conclusion: The present study identified 5 categories of UL performance formed from 5 UL performance variables in cohorts with and without neurological UL deficits. Further validation of both the number of UL performance variables and categories will be required on a larger, more heterogeneous sample. Following validation, these categories may be used as outcomes in UL stroke research and implemented into rehabilitation clinical practice.

Citing Articles

Factors associated with upper extremity use after stroke: a scoping review of accelerometry studies.

Gagne-Pelletier L, Poitras I, Roig M, Mercier C J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2025; 22(1):33.

PMID: 39994630 PMC: 11849390. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-025-01568-1.


Trends and Innovations in Wearable Technology for Motor Rehabilitation, Prediction, and Monitoring: A Comprehensive Review.

Lobo P, Morais P, Murray P, Vilaca J Sensors (Basel). 2025; 24(24.

PMID: 39771710 PMC: 11679760. DOI: 10.3390/s24247973.


Quantifying the effects of sleep on sensor-derived variables from upper limb accelerometry in people with and without upper limb impairment.

Miller A, Lang C, Bland M, Lohse K J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2024; 21(1):86.

PMID: 38807245 PMC: 11131201. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-024-01384-z.


Referent data for investigations of upper limb accelerometry: harmonized data from three cohorts of typically-developing children.

Lang C, Hoyt C, Konrad J, Bell K, Marrus N, Bland M Front Pediatr. 2024; 12:1361757.

PMID: 38496366 PMC: 10940427. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1361757.


Associations Between Coordination and Wearable Sensor Variables Vary by Recording Context but Not Assessment Type.

Konrad J, Marrus N, Lohse K, Thuet K, Lang C J Mot Behav. 2024; 56(3):339-355.

PMID: 38189355 PMC: 10957306. DOI: 10.1080/00222895.2023.2300969.


References
1.
Rinehart J, Singleton R, Adair J, Sadek J, Haaland K . Arm use after left or right hemiparesis is influenced by hand preference. Stroke. 2008; 40(2):545-50. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.528497. View

2.
Duncan P, Sullivan K, Behrman A, Azen S, Wu S, Nadeau S . Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(21):2026-36. PMC: 3175688. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1010790. View

3.
Lang C, Barth J, Holleran C, Konrad J, Bland M . Implementation of Wearable Sensing Technology for Movement: Pushing Forward into the Routine Physical Rehabilitation Care Field. Sensors (Basel). 2020; 20(20). PMC: 7601835. DOI: 10.3390/s20205744. View

4.
Nadeau S, Dobkin B, Wu S, Pei Q, Duncan P . The Effects of Stroke Type, Locus, and Extent on Long-Term Outcome of Gait Rehabilitation: The LEAPS Experience. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015; 30(7):615-25. PMC: 4842161. DOI: 10.1177/1545968315613851. View

5.
Balasubramanian S, Melendez-Calderon A, Roby-Brami A, Burdet E . On the analysis of movement smoothness. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015; 12:112. PMC: 4674971. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0090-9. View