Wearable inertial sensors for human movement analysis: a five-year update

References

• Iosa M, Picerno P, Paolucci S, et al. Wearable inertial sensors for human movement analysis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016;13:641–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petraglia F, Scarcella L, Pedrazzi G, et al. Inertial sensors versus standard systems in gait analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019;55:265–280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poitras I, Dupuis F, Bielmann M, et al. Validity and reliability of wearable sensors for joint angle estimation: a systematic review. Sensors (Switzerland): MDPI AG; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kobsar D, Charlton JM, Tse CTF, et al. Validity and reliability of wearable inertial sensors in healthy adult walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17:62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vu HTT, Dong D, Cao HL, et al. A review of gait phase detection algorithms for lower limb prostheses. Sensors (Switzerland): MDPI AG; 2020. p. 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Ghislieri M, Gastaldi L, Pastorelli S, et al. Wearable inertial sensors to assess standing balance: a systematic review. Sensors (Switzerland): MDPI AG; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston W, O’Reilly M, Argent R, Caulfield B. Reliability, validity and utility of inertial sensor systems for postural control assessment in sport science and medicine applications: a systematic review. Sport Med. 2019;49:783–818.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walmsley CP, Williams SA, Grisbrook T, et al. Measurement of upper limb range of motion using wearable sensors: a systematic review. Sport Med. 2018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rast FM, Labruyère R. Systematic review on the application of wearable inertial sensors to quantify everyday life motor activity in people with mobility impairments, J Neuroeng Rehabil, 2020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vienne A, Barrois RP, Buffat S, et al. Inertial sensors to assess gait quality in patients with neurological disorders: a systematic review of technical and analytical challenges. Front Psychol. 2017; 8. Frontiers Research Foundation https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00817
   Google Scholar
• Vienne-Jumeau A, Quijoux F, Vidal PP, et al. Value of gait analysis for measuring disease severity using inertial sensors in patients with multiple sclerosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2019; 8. BioMed Central Ltd https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0918-z
   Google Scholar
• Vienne-Jumeau A, Quijoux F, Vidal PP, et al. Wearable inertial sensors provide reliable biomarkers of disease severity in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63:138–147. Elsevier Masson SAS
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlachetzki JCM, Barth J, Marxreiter F, et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One. 2017;12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubble RP, Naughton GA, Silburn Pa, et al. Wearable sensor use for assessing standing balance and walking stability in people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review. PLoS One.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brognara L, Palumbo P, Grimm B, et al. Assessing Gait in Parkinson’s disease using wearable motion sensors: a systematic review. Diseases. 2019;7:18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Oliveira Gondim ITG, de Souza CDCB, Rodrigues MAB, et al. Portable accelerometers for the evaluation of spatio-temporal gait parameters in people with Parkinson’s disease: an integrative review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;90:104097. Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooney JA, Rose J. A scoping review of neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve gait in cerebral palsy: the arc of progress and future strategies. Front Neurol.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobsar D, Masood Z, Khan H, et al. Wearable inertial sensors for gait analysis in adults with osteoarthritis—a scoping review. Sensors (Switzerland): MDPI AG; 2020. p. 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Small SR, Bullock GS, Khalid S, et al. Current clinical utilisation of wearable motion sensors for the assessment of outcome following knee arthroplasty: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e033832. BMJ Publishing Group
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Straaten R, De Baets L, Jonkers I, et al. Mobile assessment of the lower limb kinematics in healthy persons and in persons with degenerative knee disorders: a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2018;59:229–241. Elsevier B.V
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnevale A, Longo UG, Schena E, et al. Wearable systems for shoulder kinematics assessment: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braito I, Maselli M, Sgandurra G, et al. Assessment of upper limb use in children with typical development and neurodevelopmental disorders by inertial sensors: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018; 15. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0447-y
   Google Scholar
• Routhier F, Duclos NC, Lacroix É, et al. Clinicians’ perspectives on inertial measurement units in clinical practice. PLoS One.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polhemus AM, Bergquist R, Bosch De Basea M, et al. Walking-related digital mobility outcomes as clinical trial endpoint measures: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020 ;10:e038704. BMJ Publishing Group
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warmerdam E, Hausdorff JM, Atrsaei A, et al. Long-term unsupervised mobility assessment in movement disorders. Lancet Neurol.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodie MAD, Coppens MJM, Lord SR, et al. Wearable pendant device monitoring using new wavelet-based methods shows daily life and laboratory gaits are different. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2016;54:663–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Colabianchi N, Wensman J, et al. Wearable sensors quantify mobility in people with lower limb amputation during daily life. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020;28:1282–1291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punt M, Bruijn SM, Wittink H, et al. Do clinical assessments, steady-state or daily-life gait characteristics predict falls in ambulatory chronic stroke survivors? J Rehabil Med. 2017;49:402–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Din S, Galna B, Godfrey A, et al. Analysis of free-living gait in older adults with and without Parkinson’s disease and with and without a history of falls: identifying generic and disease-specific characteristics. J Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74:500–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodie MA, Coppens MJ, Ejupi A, et al. Comparison between clinical gait and daily-life gait assessments of fall risk in older people. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17:2274–2282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss A, Brozgol M, Dorfman M, et al. Does the evaluation of gait quality during daily life provide insight into fall risk? A novel approach using 3-Day accelerometer recordings. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:742–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Schooten KS, Rispens SM, Elders PJM, et al. Assessing physical activity in older adults: required days of trunk accelerometer measurements for reliable estimation. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23:9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis JC, Bryan S, Li LC, et al. Mobility and cognition are associated with wellbeing and health related quality of life among older adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the vancouver falls prevention cohort. BMC Geriatr.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafrin J, Sullivan J, Goldman DP, et al. The association between observed mobility and quality of life in the near elderly. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0182920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolea MI, Galvin JE. The relationship between mobility dysfunction staging and global cognitive performance. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2016;30:230–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergland A, Jørgensen L, Emaus N, et al. Mobility as a predictor of all-cause mortality in older men and women: 11.8 year follow-up in the Tromsø study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beard JR, Officer A, De Carvalho IA, et al. The World report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2016;387:2145–2154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerreta F. EMA experience on mHealth technology. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ctti recommendations: developing novel endpoints generated by mobile technology for use in clinical trials. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• van Schooten KS, Pijnappels M, Van Dieën JH, et al. Quality of daily-life gait: novel outcome for trials that focus on balance, mobility, and falls. Sensors (Switzerland).
   Google Scholar
• Clay I. The future of digital health. Digit Biomarkers. 2020;4:1–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor KI, Staunton H, Lipsmeier F, et al. Outcome measures based on digital health technology sensor data: data- and patient-centric approaches. Npj Digit Med.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rochester L, Mazzà C, Mueller A, et al. A roadmap to inform development, validation and approval of digital mobility outcomes: the mobilise-D approach. Digit Biomarkers. 2020;4:13–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viceconti M, Penna SH, Dartee W, et al. Toward a regulatory qualification of real-world mobility performance biomarkers in Parkinson’s patients using digital mobility outcomes. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson D, Alexander R, Aggarwal V, et al. Precompetitive consensus building to facilitate the use of digital health technologies to support Parkinson disease drug development through regulatory science. Digit Biomarkers. 2020;4:28–49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonci T, Keogh A, Del DS, et al. An objective methodology for the selection of a device for continuous mobility assessment. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:788–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trojaniello D, Ravaschio A, Hausdorff JM, et al. Comparative assessment of different methods for the estimation of gait temporal parameters using a single inertial sensor: application to elderly, post-stroke, Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s disease subjects. Gait Posture. 2015;42:310–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foxlin E. Pedestrian tracking with shoe-mounted inertial sensors. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2005;25:38–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuren J, Patel B, Gottlieb S. FDA regulation of mobile medical apps. JAMA. 2018;320:337–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravizza A, De Maria C, Di Pietro L, et al. Audenino AL and bignardi C. comprehensive review on current and future regulatory requirements on wearable sensors in Preclinical and clinical testing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumder S, Deen MJ. Smartphone sensors for health monitoring and diagnosis. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19:2164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mecklai K, Smith N. Stern AD and Kramer DB. Remote patient monitoring—overdue or overused? N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1384–1386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Mañas L, Féart C, Mann G, et al. Searching for an operational definition of frailty: a delphi method based consensus statement. the frailty operative definition-consensus conference project. J Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68:62–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofori-Asenso R, Chin KL, Mazidi M, et al. Global incidence of frailty and prefrailty among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2:e198398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang SF, Lin PL. Frail phenotype and mortality prediction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int J Nurs Stud Elsevier Ltd. 2015;52:1362–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apóstolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, et al. Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15::1154–1208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Panhwar YN, Naghdy F, Naghdy G, et al. Assessment of frailty: a survey of quantitative and clinical methods. BMC Biomed Eng. 2019;1:7.
   Google Scholar
• Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol - Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwenk M, Howe C, Saleh A, et al. Frailty and technology: a systematic review of gait analysis in those with frailty. Gerontology. 2014;60:79–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dasenbrock L, Heinks A, Schwenk M, et al. Technology-based measurements for screening, monitoring and preventing frailty. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;49:581–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apsega A, Petrauskas L, Alekna V, et al. Wearable sensors technology as a tool for discriminating frailty levels during instrumented gait analysis. Appl Sci. 2020;10:8451.
   Google Scholar
• Ritt M, Schülein S, Lubrich H, et al. High-technology based gait assessment in frail people: associations between spatio-temporal and three-dimensional gait characteristics with frailty status across four different frailty measures. J Nutr Heal Aging. 2017;21:346–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradeep Kumar D, Toosizadeh N, Mohler J, et al. Sensor-based characterization of daily walking: a new paradigm in pre-frailty/frailty assessment. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20:164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene BR, Doheny EP, O’Halloran A, et al. Frailty status can be accurately assessed using inertial sensors and the TUG test. Age Ageing. 2014;43:406–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Differences in trunk accelerometry between frail and non-frail elderly persons in functional tasks. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:100.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss A, Herman T, Plotnik M, et al. An instrumented timed up and go: the added value of an accelerometer for identifying fall risk in idiopathic fallers. Physiol Meas. 2011;32:2003–2018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regterschot GRH, Zhang W, Baldus H, et al. Sensor-based monitoring of sit-to-stand performance is indicative of objective and self-reported aspects of functional status in older adults. Gait Posture. 2015;41:935–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim B, McKay SM, Lee J. Consumer-grade wearable device for predicting frailty in Canadian home care service clients: prospective observational proof-of-concept study. J Med Internet Res.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razjouyan J, Naik AD, Horstman MJ, et al. Wearable sensors and the assessment of frailty among vulnerable older adults: an observational cohort study. Sensors (Switzerland). 2018;18:1336.
   Google Scholar
• Freire Junior RC, Porto JM, Rodrigues NC, et al. Spatial and temporal gait characteristics in pre-frail community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16:1102–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller A, Hoefling HA, Muaremi A, et al. Continuous digital monitoring of walking speed in frail elderly patients: noninterventional validation study and longitudinal clinical trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parvaneh S, Mohler J, Toosizadeh N, et al. Postural transitions during activities of daily living could identify frailty status: application of wearable technology to identify frailty during unsupervised condition. Gerontology. 2017;63:479–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohler MJ, Wendel CS, Taylor-Piliae RE, et al. Motor performance and physical activity as predictors of prospective falls in community-dwelling older adults by frailty level: application of wearable technology. Gerontology. 2016;62:654–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong R, Rau PLP, Yan X. Application of smart bracelet to monitor frailty-related gait parameters of older Chinese adults: a preliminary study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18:1366–1371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deandrea S, Lucenteforte E, Bravi F, et al. Risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO global report on falls prevention in older age - ageing and life course, family and community health. World Heal. Organ; 2007. Geneva; Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing Age Ageing.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich S, Rapp K, Rissmann U, et al. Cost of falls in old age: a systematic review. Osteoporos Int.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrose AF, Paul G, Hausdorff JM. Risk factors for falls among older adults: a review of the literature.Maturitas.2013;75:51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang I, Okubo Y, Sturnieks D, et al. Detection of near falls using wearable devices: a systematic review. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2019;42:48–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu X, Qu X. Pre-impact fall detection, Biomed Eng Online, 2016;15:61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar JR, Chira C, De La Cal E, et al. Autonomous on-wrist acceleration-based fall detection systems: unsolved challenges. Neurocomputing. 2021:452:404-413.
   Google Scholar
• Khan SS, Hoey J. Review of fall detection techniques: a data availability perspective.Med Eng Phys.2017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel M, Pavic A, Goodwin VA. Wearable inertial sensors to measure gait and posture characteristic differences in older adult fallers and non-fallers: a scoping review.Gait Posture.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodie MA, Lord SR, Coppens MJ, et al. Eight-week remote monitoring using a freely worn device reveals unstable gait patterns in older fallers. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015;62:2588–2594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aicha AN, Englebienne G, van Schooten KS, et al. Deep learning to predict falls in older adults based on daily-life trunk accelerometry. Sensors (Switzerland). 2018;18
   Google Scholar
• Kiprijanovska I, Gjoreski H, Gams M. Detection of gait abnormalities for fall risk assessment using wrist‐worn inertial sensors and deep learning. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20:1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadley RW, Klenk J, Thies SB, et al. Methods for the real-world evaluation of fall detection technology: a scoping review. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18:2060.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klenk J, Schwickert L, Palmerini L, et al. The FARSEEING real-world fall repository: a large-scale collaborative database to collect and share sensor signals from real-world falls. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2016;13:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz O, Musngi M, Park EJ, et al. A comparison of accuracy of fall detection algorithms (threshold-based vs. machine learning) using waist-mounted tri-axial accelerometer signals from a comprehensive set of falls and non-fall trials. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017;55:45–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmerini L, Klenk J, Becker C, et al. Accelerometer-based fall detection using machine learning: training and testing on real-world falls. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Özdemir AT. An analysis on sensor locations of the human body for wearable fall detection devices: principles and practice. Sensors (Switzerland). 2016;16.
   Google Scholar
• Cancela J, Pastorino M, Tzallas AT, et al. Wearability assessment of a wearable system for Parkinson’s disease remote monitoring based on a body area network of sensors. Sensors (Switzerland). 2014;14:17235–17255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann J, Chandaria V, McGregor A. Wearable and Implantable Sensors: the Patient’s Perspective. Sensors. 2012;12:16695–16709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tunca C, Pehlivan N, Ak N, et al. Inertial sensor-based robust gait analysis in non-hospital settings for neurological disorders. Sensors (Switzerland). 2017;17:825.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou Y, Ur Rehman RZ, Hansen C, et al. Classification of neurological patients to identify fallers based on spatial-temporal gait characteristics measured by a wearable device. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelini L, Hodgkinson W, Smith C, et al. Wearable sensors can reliably quantify gait alterations associated with disability in people with progressive multiple sclerosis in a clinical setting. J Neurol. 2020;267:2897–2909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frechette ML, Meyer BM, Tulipani LJ, et al. Next steps in wearable technology and community ambulation in multiple sclerosis. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Current Medicine Group LLC. 2019;1:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Moon Y, McGinnis RS, Seagers K, et al. Monitoring gait in multiple sclerosis with novel wearable motion sensors PLoS One.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitnis T, Glanz BI, Gonzalez C, et al. Quantifying neurologic disease using biosensor measurements in-clinic and in free-living settings in multiple sclerosis. Npj Digit Med. 2019;2:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparaco M, Lavorgna L, Conforti R, et al. The role of wearable devices in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int. 2018;2018:1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Martín D, Pérez-López C, Samà A, et al. A waist-worn inertial measurement unit for long-term monitoring of Parkinson’s disease patients. Sensors (Switzerland). 2017;17
   Google Scholar
• Luis-Martínez R, Monje MHG, Antonini A, et al. Technology-enabled care: integrating multidisciplinary care in Parkinson’s disease through digital technology. Front Neurol. 2020;11:575975. Frontiers Media S.A
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva De Lima AL, Evers LJW, Hahn T, et al. Freezing of gait and fall detection in Parkinson’s disease using wearable sensors: a systematic review. J Neurol Dr. 2017;264:1642–1654. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag GmbH and Co. KG
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardoel S, Kofman J, Nantel J, et al. Wearable-sensor-based detection and prediction of freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease: a review. Sensors (Switzerland). 2019;19(23):5141. MDPI AG.
   Google Scholar
• Silva De Lima AL, Smits T, Darweesh SKL, et al. Home-based monitoring of falls using wearable sensors in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2020;35:109–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. 2010.WHO Press, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Int Med. 2015;162:123–132. American College of Physicians
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang CC, Hsu YL. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors. 2010;10:7772–7788. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung S, Michaud M, Oudre L, et al. The use of inertial measurement units for the study of free living environment activity assessment: a literature review. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020:;20::5625.
   Google Scholar
• Evenson KR, Goto MM, Furberg RD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feehan LM, Geldman J, Sayre EC, et al. Accuracy of fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018 ;6:e10527. JMIR Publications Inc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller D, Colwell E, Low J, et al. Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2020 ;8:e18694. JMIR Publications Inc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höchsmann C, Knaier R, Infanger D, et al. Validity of smartphones and activity trackers to measure steps in a free-living setting over three consecutive days. Physiol Meas. 2020;41:015001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartung V, Sarshar M, Karle V, et al. Validity of consumer activity monitors and an algorithm using smartphone data for measuring steps during different activity types. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorn D, Gorzelitz J, Gangnon R, et al. Automatic identification of physical activity type and duration by wearable activity trackers: a validation study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright SP, Hall Brown TS, Collier SR, et al. How consumer physical activity monitors could transform human physiology research. Am J Physiol - Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2017;312:R358–R367. American Physiological Society
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriksen A, Sand AS, Deraas T, et al. Succeeding with prolonged usage of consumer-based activity trackers in clinical studies: a mixed methods approach. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens ML, Gupta N, Inan Eroglu E, et al. Thigh-worn accelerometry for measuring movement and posture across the 24-hour cycle: a scoping review and expert statement. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med.
   Google Scholar
• Henriksen A, Mikalsen MH, Woldaregay AZ, et al. Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: analysis of consumer wrist-worn wearables. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straiton N, Alharbi M, Bauman A, et al. The validity and reliability of consumer-grade activity trackers in older, community-dwelling adults: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2018;112:85–93. Elsevier Ireland Ltd
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farina N, Lowry RG. The validity of consumer-level activity monitors in healthy older adults in free-living conditions. J Aging Phys Act. 2018;26:128–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton E, Hill KD, Lautenschlager NT, et al. Reliability and validity of two fitness tracker devices in the laboratory and home environment for older community-dwelling people. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18:103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tedesco S, Sica M, Ancillao A, et al. Accuracy of consumer-level and research-grade activity trackers in ambulatory settings in older adults. PLoS One. 2019;14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer K, Giangregorio L, Schneider E, et al. Acceptance of commercially available wearable activity trackers among adults aged over 50 and with chronic illness: a mixed-methods evaluation. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahon SK, Lewis B, Oakes M, et al. Older adults’ experiences using a commercially available monitor to self-track their physical activity. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016 ;4:e35. JMIR Publications Inc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer K, Li M, Giangregorio L, et al. Behavior change techniques present in wearable activity trackers: a critical analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2016;4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cajita MI, Kline CE, Burke LE, et al. Feasible but not yet efficacious: a scoping review of wearable activity monitors in interventions targeting physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep. Curr Epidemiol Reports. 2020;7:25–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tedesco S, Barton J, O’Flynn B. A review of activity trackers for senior citizens: research perspectives, commercial landscape and the role of the insurance industry. Sensors (Switzerland). 2017;6:1277. MDPI AG https://doi.org/10.3390/s17061277
   Google Scholar
• Cheng Chia GL, Anderson A, McLean LA. Behavior change techniques incorporated in fitness trackers: content analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Direito A, Carraça E, Rawstorn J, et al. mHealth technologies to influence physical activity and sedentary behaviors: behavior change techniques, systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51:226–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brickwood KJ, Watson G, O’brien J, et al. Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth.2019;7:e11819. JMIR Publications Inc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ringeval M, Wagner G, Denford J, et al. Fitbit-based interventions for healthy lifestyle outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020 ;22:e23954. JMIR Publications Inc
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poppe L, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Verloigne M, et al. Efficacy of a self-regulation-based electronic and mobile health intervention targeting an active lifestyle in adults having type 2 diabetes and in adults aged 50 years or older: two randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huh U, Tak YJ, Song S, et al. Feedback on physical activity through a wearable device connected to a mobile phone app in patients with metabolic syndrome: pilot study. JMIR mHealth uHealth.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freene N, McManus M, Mair T, et al. Objectively measured changes in physical activity and sedentary behavior in cardiac rehabilitation: a prospective cohort study. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2018;38:E5–E8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freene N, Borg S, McManus M, et al. Comparison of device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour following percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort from Sweden and Australia: a harmonised, exploratory study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davergne T, Pallot A, Dechartres A, et al. Use of wearable activity trackers to improve physical activity behavior in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2019;71:758–767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Rosario MB, Redmond SJ, Lovell NH. Tracking the evolution of smartphone sensing for monitoring human movement. Sensors (Switzerland). 2015;15:18901–18933. MDPI AG.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majumder S, Deen MJ. Smartphone sensors for health monitoring and diagnosis. Sensors (Switzerland). 2019; 19:2164. MDPI AG
   Google Scholar
• Islam M, Neom N, Imtiaz M, et al. A review on fall detection systems using data from smartphone sensors. Ingénierie des systèmes d Inf. 2019;24:569–576.
   Google Scholar
• Zhong R, Rau PLP. A mobile phone-based gait assessment app for the elderly: development and evaluation. JMIR mHealth uHealth.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soangra R, Lockhart TE. Inertial sensor-based variables are indicators of frailty and adverse post-operative outcomes in cardiovascular disease patients. Sensors (Switzerland).
   Google Scholar
• Galán-Mercant A, Cuesta-Vargas AI. Mobile Romberg test assessment (mRomberg). BMC Res Notes.
   Google Scholar
• Patterson K, Davey R, Keegan R, et al. A smartphone app for sedentary behaviour change in cardiac rehabilitation and the effect on hospital admissions: the ToDo-CR randomised controlled trial study protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e040479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Clarys P, et al. Effect and process evaluation of a smartphone app to promote an active lifestyle in lower educated working young adults: cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul L, Brewster S, Wyke S, et al. Increasing physical activity in older adults using STARFISH, an interactive smartphone application (app); a pilot study. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2017;4:205566831769623.
   Google Scholar
• Bort-Roig J, Gilson ND, Puig-Ribera A, et al. Measuring and influencing physical activity with smartphone technology: a systematic review. Sport Med. 2014;44:671–686. Springer International Publishing
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sousa Lima W, Souto E, El-Khatib K, et al. Human activity recognition using inertial sensors in a smartphone: an overview. Sensors. 2019;19:3213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höchsmann C, Knaier R, Eymann J, et al. Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:1818–1827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Incel OD, Kose M, Ersoy C, et al. Taxonomy of activity recognition on mobile phones. Bionanoscience. 2013;3:145–171.
   Google Scholar
• Dinesh Subramaniam EV, Krishnasamy V. Energy aware smartphone tasks offloading to the cloud using gray wolf optimization. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amiri D, Anzanpour A, Azimi I, et al. Optimizing energy efficiency of wearable sensors using fog‐assisted control. Fog Comput. 2020:245–268. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Watts P, Breedon P, Nduka C, et al. Cloud computing mobile application for remote monitoring of bell’s palsy. J Med Syst. 2020;44:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard B. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back; national institute for occupational safety and health, us dept. of health & human services: cincinnati, OH, 1997. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/ (accessed on 2020 Nov 10
   Google Scholar
• Radwin RG, Marras WS, Lavender SA. Biomechanical aspects of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2001;2:153–217.
   Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya A. Costs of occupational musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in the United States. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2014;44:448–454.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll T, Jacklyn G, Orchard J, et al. The global burden of occupationally related low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):975–981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan S. Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015;29(3):356–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkel J, Mathiassen SE. Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: concepts, issues and operational considerations. Ergonomics. 1994;37(6):979–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiassen SE. Diversity and variation in biomechanical exposure: what is it, and why would we like to know? Appl. Ergon. 2006;37(4):419–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathiassen SE, Winkel J. Quantifying variation in physical load using exposure- vs-time data. Ergonomics. 1991;34(12):1455–1468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim S, D’Souza C. A narrative review on contemporary and emerging uses of inertial sensing in occupational ergonomics. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2020;76:102937.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranavolo A, Draicchio F, Varrecchia T, et al. Wearable monitoring devices for biomechanical risk assessment at work: current status and future challenges—A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):2001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porta M, Pau M, Orrù PF, et al. Trunk flexion monitoring among warehouse workers using a single inertial sensor and the influence of different sampling durations. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estill CF, MacDonald LA, Wenzl TB, et al. Use of accelerometers as an ergonomic assessment method for arm acceleration a large-scale field trial. Ergonomics. 2000;43(9):1430–1445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert-Lachaine X, Larue C, Denis D, et al. Feasibility of quantifying the physical exposure of materials handlers in the workplace with magnetic and inertial measurement units. Ergonomics. 2020;63(3):283–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias OE, Umukoro PE, Stoffel SD, et al. Associations between trunk flexion and physical activity of patient care workers for a single shift: a pilot study. Work. 2017;56(2):247–255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karstad K, Jørgensen AF, Greiner BA, et al. Danish observational study of eldercare work and musculoskeletal disorderS (doses): a prospective study at 20 nursing homes in Denmark. BMJ Open. 2018;8:2.
   Google Scholar
• Douphrate DI, Fethke NB, Nonnenmann MW, et al. Full shift arm inclinometry among dairy parlor workers: a feasibility study in a challenging work environment. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(3):604–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fethke NB, Schall JMC, Chen H, et al. Biomechanical factors during common agricultural activities: results of on-farm exposure assessments using direct measurement methods. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2020;17(2–3):85–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu J, Seo J, Jebelli H, et al. Automated action recognition using an accelerometer-embedded wristband-type activity tracker. J Constr Eng Manage. 2019;145(1):04018114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valero E, Sivanathan A, Bosché F, et al. Musculoskeletal disorders in construction: a review and a novel system for activity tracking with body area network. Appl Ergon. 2016;54:120–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Yang K, Kim N, et al. Detecting excessive load-carrying tasks using a deep learning network with a gramian angular field. Autom Constr. 2020;120:103390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskimaki H, Huikari V, Siirtola P, et al. Activity recognition using a wrist-worn inertial measurement unit: a case study for industrial assembly lines. In 2009 17th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation. IEEE. 2009 (pp. 401–405).
   Google Scholar
• Heiden M, Garza J, Trask C, et al. Predicting directly measured trunk and upper arm postures in paper mill work from administrative data, workers’ ratings and posture observations. Ann Work Expo Health. 2017;61(2):207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peppoloni L, Filippeschi A, Ruffaldi E, et al. A novel wearable system for the online assessment of risk for biomechanical load in repetitive efforts. Inter J Ind Ergon. 2016;52:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang C, Kim W, Zhang Y, et al. Validation of a wearable inertial sensors-based automated system for assessing work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the workspace. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(17):6050.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt M, Madeleine P, Samani A, et al. Accuracy of identification of low or high risk lifting during standardised lifting situations. Ergonomics. 2018;61(5):710–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranavolo A, Varrecchia T, Rinaldi M, et al. Mechanical lifting energy consumption in work activities designed by means of the “revised NIOSH lifting equation.” Ind Health. 2017;55(5):444–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varrecchia T, De Marchis C, Draicchio F, et al. Lifting activity assessment using kinematic features and neural networks. Appl Sci. 2020;10(6):1989.
   Google Scholar
• Baghdadi A, Megahed FM, Esfahani ET, et al. A machine learning approach to detect changes in gait parameters following a fatiguing occupational task. Ergonomics. 2018;61(8):1116–1129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Lockhart TE, Soangra R. Classifying lower extremity muscle fatigue during walking using machine learning and inertial sensors. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42(3):600–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vignais N, Miezal M, Bleser G, et al. Innovative system for real-time ergonomic feedback in industrial manufacturing. Appl Ergon. 2013;44(4):566–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ailneni RC, Syamala KR, Kim IS, et al. Influence of the wearable posture correction sensor on head and neck posture: sitting and standing workstations. Work. 2019;62(1):27–35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim W, Lorenzini M, Kapıcıoğlu K, et al. A tactile feedback interface for improving human ergonomics in workplaces. IEEE Rob Autom Lett. 2018;3(4):4179–4186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamatakis E, Koster A, Hamer M, et al. Emerging collaborative research platforms for the next generation of physical activity, sleep and exercise medicine guidelines: the prospective physical activity, sitting, and sleep consortium (ProPASS). Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:435–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen MB, Gupta N, Korshøj M, et al. The DPhacto cohort: an overview of technically measured physical activity at work and leisure in blue-collar sectors for practitioners and researchers. Appl Ergon. 2019;77:29–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iosa M, Bini F, Marinozzi F, et al. Stability and harmony of gait in patients with Subacute Stroke. J Med Biol Eng. 2016;36(5):635–643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergamini E, Iosa M, Belluscio V, et al. Multi-sensor assessment of dynamic balance during gait in patients with subacute stroke. J Biomech. 2017 Aug;16(61):208–215.
   Google Scholar
• Maceira-Elvira P, Popa T, Schmid AC, et al. Wearable technology in stroke rehabilitation: towards improved diagnosis and treatment of upper-limb motor impairment. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16:142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang YP, Liu YY, Hsu WH, et al. Progress on range of motion after total knee replacement by sensor-based system. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20(6):1703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martino Cinnera A, Morone G, Marrano S, et al. Utility of wearable inertial sensors for gait assessment after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Ortop Traumatol.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Markopoulos P, Yu B, et al. Interactive wearable systems for upper body rehabilitation: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Mar 11;14(1):20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tramontano M, Morone G, De Angelis S, et al. Sensor-based technology for upper limb rehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2020;38(4):333–341.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tramontano M, Morone G, Palomba A, et al. Effectiveness of a sensor-based technology in upper limb motor recovery in post-acute stroke neurorehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020;34(5 Suppl. 3):165–174. Technology in Medicine.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lupo A, Cinnera AM, Pucello A, et al. Effects on balance skills and patient compliance of biofeedback training with inertial measurement units and exergaming in subacute stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Funct Neurol. 2018;33(3):131–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JY, Yi SH, Ao L, et al. Virtual reality rehabilitation in children with brain injury: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2021;63:480-487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman MA, Hirsch MA, Peindl RD, et al. Carolinas trauma network research group. use of an instrumented dual-task timed up and go test in children with traumatic brain injury. Gait Posture. 2020;76:193–197.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ding ZQ, Luo ZQ, Causo A, et al. Inertia sensor-based guidance system for upper limb posture correction. Med Eng Phys. 2013;35(2):269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittmann F, Lambercy O, Gassert R. Magnetometer-based drift correction during rest in IMU arm motion tracking. Sensors (Switzerland). 2019;19(6):13–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellomo RG, Paolucci T, Saggino A, et al. The wereha project for an innovative home-based exercise training in chronic stroke patients: a clinical study. J Cent Nerv Syst Dis. 2020 Dec;13(12):1179573520979866.
   Google Scholar
• Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Feb;51(1):S225–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin Y, Gu Z, Pan L, et al. How does the motor relearning program improve neurological function of brain ischemia monkeys? Neural Regen Res. 2013;8(16):1445–1454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghanbari Ghooshchy S, Iosa M, Ciancarelli I, et al. Sensorized assessment of bilateral hand movements in patients with stroke driven by rhythmic auditory or visual-auditory stimulation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020;34(5 Suppl. 3):53–58. Technology in Medicine.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Bartolo D, Spitoni GF, Iosa M, et al. From movement to thought and back: a review on the role of cognitive factors influencing technological neurorehabilitation. Funct Neurol. 2019;34(3):131–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morone G, Spitoni GF, De Bartolo D, et al. Rehabilitative devices for a top-down approach. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16(3):187–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(5):1382–1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuara A, Fabbri-Destro M, Scalona E, et al. Telerehabilitation in response to constrained physical distance: an opportunity to rethink neurorehabilitative routines. J Neurol. 2021;15:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Bartolo M, Intiso D, Lentino C, et al. Board of the Italian society of neurological rehabilitation (SIRN). urgent measures for the containment of the coronavirus (Covid-19) epidemic in the neurorehabilitation/rehabilitation departments in the phase of maximum expansion of the epidemic. Front Neurol. 2020 Apr;30(11):423.
   Google Scholar
• Winters JM, Wang Y, Winters JM. Wearable sensors and telerehabilitation. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2003 May-Jun;22(3):56–65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Link SW. History of psychophysical theory and laws. Int Encyclopedia Soc Behav Sci. 2001;470-476.
   Google Scholar
• Weber EH. Der Tastsinn. In: Ross HE, Murray DJ, editors. E.H. weber: the sense of touch. London: Academic Press; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Fechner GT. Elements of Psychophysics. Boring EG, Howes DH, eds. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1966.
   Google Scholar
• Algom D. Introduction to Psychophysical Approaches to Cognition. Adv Psychol. 1992;92:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kishimoto T, Takamiya A, Liang KC, et al. The project for objective measures using computational psychiatry technology (PROMPT): rationale, design, and methodology. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020;19:100649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zago M, Bosco G, Maffei V, et al. Internal models of target motion: expected dynamics overrides measured kinematics in timing manual interceptions. J Neurophysiol. 2004;91(4):1620–1634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zago M, Bosco G, Maffei V, et al. Fast adaptation of the internal model of gravity for manual interceptions: evidence for event-dependent learning. J Neurophysiol. 2005;93(2):1055–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tramontano M, Morone G, Curcio A, et al. Maintaining gait stability during dual walking task: effects of age and neurological disorders. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53(1):7–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivorra A, Daniels C, Rubinsky B. Minimally obtrusive wearable device for continuous interactive cognitive and neurological assessment. Physiol Meas. 2008;29(5):543–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romine WL, Schroeder NL, Graft J, et al. Using machine learning to train a wearable device for measuring students’ cognitive load during problem-solving activities based on electrodermal activity, body temperature, and heart rate: development of a cognitive load tracker for both personal and classroom use. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20(17):4833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bartolo D, Belluscio V, Vannozzi G, et al. Sensorized assessment of dynamic locomotor imagery in people with stroke and healthy subjects. Sensors (Basel). 2020a;20;20(16):4545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco A, Iasevoli L, Iosa M, et al. Dynamic motor imagery mentally simulates uncommon real locomotion better than static motor imagery both in young adults and elderly. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco A, Gallotta MC, Iosa M, et al. The dynamic motor imagery of locomotion is task-dependent in patients with stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34(2):247–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco A, Iosa M, Tucci L, et al. Dynamic locomotor imagery in athletes with severe visual impairments. New ideas in psychology.
   Google Scholar
• Iosa M, Morelli D, Nisi E, et al. Assessment of upper body accelerations in young adults with intellectual disabilities while walking, running, and dual-task running. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;34:187–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soangra R, Lockhart TE. Overground walking along with counting backwards influences movement variability in healthy young and older adults. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2017;53:134–141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morelli N, Heebner NR, Bergin RT, et al. The effect of cognitive dual-tasks on dynamic postural sway during gait using inertial measurement units. Physiol Meas. 2020;41(4):045002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iosa M, Fusco A, Morone G, et al. Walking there: environmental influence on walking-distance estimation. Behav Brain Res. 2012;226(1):124–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iosa M, Fusco A, Morone G, Paolucci S.Effects of visual deprivation on gait dynamic stability.Scientific World J.
   Google Scholar
• De Bartolo D, Morone G, Giordani G, et al. Effect of different music genres on gait patterns in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci. 2020;41(3):575–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulas I, Putzu V, Asoni G, et al. Clinical assessment of gait and functional mobility in Italian healthy and cognitively impaired older persons using wearable inertial sensors. Aging Clin Exp Res.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iosa M, de Sanctis M, Summa A, et al. Usefulness of magnetoinertial wearable devices in neurorehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2018;4:5405680.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett PM, White JP, Lewandowsky S, et al. The acceptability and uptake of smartphone tracking for COVID-19 in Australia. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0244827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang B, Kreps S, McMurry N, et al. Americans’ perceptions of privacy and surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett PM, Wang Y, White JP, et al. Young adults view smartphone tracking technologies for COVID-19 as acceptable: the case of Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maccari L, Valeria Cagno V. Do we need a contact tracing app? Comput Commun. 2021;166:9–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papavasileiou I, Qiao Z, Zhang C, et al. GaitCode: gait-based continuous authentication using multimodal learning and wearable sensors. Smart Health. 2021;19:100162.
   Google Scholar
• Chan KL, Leng X, Zhang W, et al. Early identification of high-risk TIA or minor stroke using artificial neural network. Front Neurol. 2019;10:171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iosa M, Capodaglio E, Pelà S, et al. Artificial neural network analyzing wearable device gait data for identifying patients with stroke unable to return to work. Front Neurol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.650542.
   Google Scholar
• Thakkar HK, Liao WW, Wu CY, et al. Predicting clinically significant motor function improvement after contemporary task-oriented interventions using machine learning approaches. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1):131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar