Estimating Walking Speed in the Wild.

An individual's physical activity substantially impacts the potential for prevention and recovery from diverse health issues, including cardiovascular diseases. Precise quantification of a patient's level of day-to-day physical activity, which can be characterized by the type, intensity, and duration of movement, is crucial for clinicians. Walking is a primary and fundamental physical activity for most individuals. Walking speed has been shown to correlate with various heart pathologies and overall function. As such, it is often used as a metric to assess health performance. A range of clinical walking tests exist to evaluate gait and inform clinical decision-making. However, these assessments are often short, provide qualitative movement assessments, and are performed in a clinical setting that is not representative of the real-world. Technological advancements in wearable sensing and associated algorithms enable new opportunities to complement in-clinic evaluations of movement during free-living. However, the use of wearable devices to inform clinical decisions presents several challenges, including lack of subject compliance and limited sensor battery life. To bridge the gap between free-living and clinical environments, we propose an approach in which we utilize different wearable sensors at different temporal scales and resolutions. Here, we present a method to accurately estimate gait speed in the free-living environment from a low-power, lightweight accelerometer-based bio-logging tag secured on the thigh. We use high-resolution measurements of gait kinematics to build subject-specific data-driven models to accurately map stride frequencies extracted from the bio-logging system to stride speeds. The model-based estimates of stride speed were evaluated using a long outdoor walk and compared to stride parameters calculated from a foot-worn inertial measurement unit using the zero-velocity update algorithm. The proposed method presents an average concordance correlation coefficient of 0.80 for all subjects, and 97% of the error is within ±0.2