ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Exploration of Human Activity Recognition Using a Single Sensor for Stroke Survivors and Able-Bodied People.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recognition of everyday activities using experiment data from wearable sensors: a deep learning-based framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Digital biomarkers derived from wearable sensors in neurorehabilitation: a scoping review.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Differentiating Human Falls from Daily Activities Using Machine Learning Methods Based on Accelerometer and Altimeter Sensor Fusion Feature Engineering.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Insights into motor impairment assessment using myographic signals with artificial intelligence: a scoping review.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Review
- Application of Smart Watch-Based Functional Evaluation for Upper Extremity Impairment: A Preliminary Study on Older Emirati Stroke Population.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Review on Assisted Living Using Wearable Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Human Activity Recognition Algorithm with Physiological and Inertial Signals Fusion: Photoplethysmography, Electrodermal Activity, and Accelerometry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Data Augmentation Techniques for Accurate Action Classification in Stroke Patients with Hemiparesis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Robust Gaze Estimation Approach via Exploring Relevant Electrooculogram Features and Optimal Electrodes Placements.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2024Article
- Automatic Post-Stroke Severity Assessment Using Novel Unsupervised Consensus Learning for Wearable and Camera-Based Sensor Datasets.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A deep learning wearable-based solution for continuous at-home monitoring of upper limb goal-directed movements.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Review of adaptive control for stroke lower limb exoskeleton rehabilitation robot based on motion intention recognition.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Commonly used sensors like accelerometers, gyroscopes, surface electromyography sensors, etc., which provide a convenient and practical solution for human activity recognition (HAR), have gained extensive attention. However, which kind of sensor can provide adequate information in achieving a satisfactory performance, or whether the position of a single sensor would play a significant effect on the performance in HAR are sparsely studied. In this paper, a comparative study to fully investigate the performance of the aforementioned sensors for classifying four activities (walking, tooth brushing, face washing, drinking) is explored. Sensors are spatially distributed over the human body, and subjects are categorized into three groups (able-bodied people, stroke survivors, and the union of both). Performances of using accelerometer, gyroscope, sEMG, and their combination in each group are evaluated by adopting the Support Vector Machine classifier with the Leave-One-Subject-Out Cross-Validation technique, and the optimal sensor position for each kind of sensor is presented based on the accuracy. Experimental results show that using the accelerometer could obtain the best performance in each group. The highest accuracy of HAR involving stroke survivors was 95.84 ± 1.75% (mean ± standard error), achieved by the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris. Furthermore, taking the practical application of HAR into consideration, a novel approach to distinguish various activities of stroke survivors based on a pre-trained HAR model built on healthy subjects is proposed, the highest accuracy of which is 77.89 ± 4.81% (mean ± standard error) with the accelerometer attached to the extensor carpi ulnaris.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.