[Conference paper] ePHoRt Project: A Web-Based Platform for Home Motor Rehabilitation – Abstract

Abstract

ePHoRt is a project that aims to develop a web-based system for the remote monitoring of rehabilitation exercises in patients after hip replacement surgery. The tool intends to facilitate and enhance the motor recovery, due to the fact that the patients will be able to perform the therapeutic movements at home and at any time. As in any case of rehabilitation program, the time required to recover is significantly diminished when the individual has the opportunity to practice the exercises regularly and frequently. However, the condition of such patients prohibits transportations to and from medical centers and many of them cannot afford a private physiotherapist. Thus, low-cost technologies will be used to develop the platform, with the aim to democratize its access. By taking into account such a limitation, a relevant option to record the patient’s movements is the Kinect motion capture device. The paper describes an experiment that evaluates the validity and accuracy of this visual capture by a comparison to an accelerometer sensor. The results show a significant correlation between both systems and demonstrate that the Kinect is an appropriate tool for the therapeutic purpose of the project.

References

  1. 1.
    Feys, H., De Weerdt, W., Verbeke, G., et al.: Early and repetitive stimulation of the arm can substantially improve the long-term outcome after stroke: a 5-year follow-up study of a randomized trial. Stroke 35(4), 924–929 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cramp, M.C., Greenwood, R.J., Gill, M., et al.: Effectiveness of a community-based low intensity exercise programme for ambulatory stroke survivors. Disabil. Rehabil. 32(3), 239–247 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mavroidis, C., Nikitczuk, J., Weinberg, B., et al.: Smart portable rehabilitation devices. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2, 18 (2005). doi:10.1186/1743-0003-2-18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holden, M.K., Dyar, T.A., Dayan-Cimadoro, L.: Telerehabilitation using a virtual environment improves upper extremity function in patients with stroke. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 15(1), 36–42 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rand, D., Kizony, R., Weiss, P.T.L.: The Sony PlayStation II EyeToy: low-cost virtual reality for use in rehabilitation. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 32(4), 155–163 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oikonomidis, I., Kyriazis, N., Argyros, A.A.: Efficient model-based 3D tracking of hand articulations using Kinect. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British Machine Vision Conference. University of Dundee (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rybarczyk, Y., Rybarczyk, P., Oliveira, N., Vernay, D.: e-ESPOIR: a user-friendly web-based tool for disability evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe. Maastricht (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mendes, P., Rybarczyk, Y., Rybarczyk, P., Vernay, D.: A web-based platform for the therapeutic education of patients with physical disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodrigues, F., Rybarczyk, Y., Gonçalves, M.J.: On the use of IT for treating aphasic patients: a 3D web-based solution. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applications of Computer Engineering, Lisbon (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rybarczyk, Y., Fonseca, J.: Tangible interface for a rehabilitation of comprehension in aphasic patients. In: Proceedings of the 11th conference of the Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe, Maastricht (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birns, J., Bhalla, A., Rudd, A.: Telestroke: a concept in practice. Age Ageing 39(6), 666–667 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen, K.D., Chen, I.M., Luo, Z., et al.: A wearable sensing system for tracking and monitoring of functional arm movement. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 16(2), 213–220 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., et al.: A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 9(1), 21–37 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rand, D., Eng, J.J., Tang, P.F., et al.: How active are people with stroke? use of accelerometers to assess physical activity. Stroke 40(1), 163–168 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biswas, D., Cranny, A., Maharatna, K.: Body area sensing networks for remote health monitoring. In: Vogiatzaki, E., Krukowski, A. (eds.) Modern Stroke Rehabilitation through e-Health-Based Entertainment, pp. 85–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jovanov, E., Milenkovic, A., Otto, C., De Groen, P.C.: A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2, 6–15 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strath, S.J., Kaminsky, L.A., Ainsworth, B.E., et al.: Guide to the assessment of physical activity: clinical and research applications – a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation 128(20), 2259–2279 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vernay, D., Edan, G., Moreau, T., Visy, J.M., Gury, C.: OSE: a single tool for evaluation and follow-up patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis 12, suppl. 1 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nilsdotter, A., Bremander, A.: Measures of hip function and symptoms. Arthritis Care Res. 63, 200–207 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borg, G.A.: Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 14(5), 377–381 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gameiro, J., Cardoso, T., Rybarczyk, Y.: Kinect-Sign: teaching sign language to listeners through a game. In: Rybarczyk, Y., et al. (eds.) Innovative and Creative Developments in Multimodal Interaction Systems, pp. 141–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rybarczyk, Y., Santos, J.: Motion integration in direction perception of biological motion. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian Conference on Vision, Matsue (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dutta, T.: Evaluation of the kinect sensor for 3-D kinematic measurement in the workplace. Appl. Ergonomics 43, 645–649 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brook, G., Barry, G., Jackson, D., Mhiripiri, D., Olivier, P., Rochester, L.: Accuracy of the microsoft kinect sensor for measuring movement in people with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture 39(4), 1062–1068 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rybarczyk, Y.: 3D markerless motion capture: a low cost approach. In: Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, Recife (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Remondino, F., Roditakis, A.: 3D reconstruction of human skeleton from single images or monocular video sequences. In: Proceedings of Joint Pattern Recognition Symposium, Magdeburg (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krukowski, A., Vogiatzaki, E., Rodríguez, J.M.: Patient health record (PHR) system. In: Maharatna, K., et al. (eds.) Next Generation Remote Healthcare: A Practical System Design Perspective. Springer, New York (2013). Chap. 6Google Scholar

via ePHoRt Project: A Web-Based Platform for Home Motor Rehabilitation | SpringerLink

, , , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: