From: A review of e-textiles in neurological rehabilitation: How close are we?
Study | Study design | Aim | Type of e-textile | Participants | Intervention/device | Outcome measures | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tormene, 2012, [32] | Prototype design and validation | Trunk motion data from e-textile garment. | CE | 1 healthy subject | Trunk movts | CE and intertial sensor readings. | Same accuracy as inertial sensor in sagittal plane. |
Mattmann, et al., 2007, [41] | Feasibility/Pilot study | E- textile shirt to classify body postures | CE | 8 Healthy males | 1. Sensing shirt worn during 27 postures 2. Worn during trunk rotation exercise | 1. E- textile sensor data and observation. 2. E- textile sensor data. | 1. 25/27 postures classified with 97Â % accuracy after 6 reps. 80Â % accuracy when 3 reps and 65Â % for a new user. 2. Can distinguish 4 grades of speed and reps. |
Lorussi et al. 2004, [36] | Prototype design | E- textile sensor to monitor arm position | CE | Not reported | Subject wearing sensing sleeve pointing at targets | Comparison between calculated position of arm and true position | Relative error between true and calculated position 4-8Â % |
Tognetti, 2005, [30] | Prototype design and validation. | Sensing shirt to measure UL movement. | CE | Not reported | 1. Measuring UL posture. 2. Measuring UL movement. | 1. Avatar posture, expert opinion. 2. CE, electrogoniometer readings. | 1. 100Â % accuracy. 2. Divergence at some angles. Some loss of synchronisation. |
Giorgino, Tormene, Lorussi, et al. 2009, [37] | Intersubject and inter- exercise variability. | Wearing an e-textile shirt. 1. Intersubject variability. 2. Interexercise variability. | CE | 1. 3 healthy subjects 2. 1 healthy subject | 1. Shoulder flexion. 2. Three UL exercises. | 1. CE sensor readings 2. CE sensor readings. | 1. There was low intersubject variability. 2. Each exercise showed clear variability in the pattern of results. |
Giorgino, Tormene, Maggione, et al., 2009, [38] | 1. Sensitivity and specificity testing 2. Pilot rehab study | 1. Sensitivity and specificity of a sensorised shirt. 2. Acceptability of sensorised shirt. | CE | 1. 1 healthy subject 2. 13 sub acute stroke patients | 1. UL exercises performed. 2. Rehab device used on ward. | 1. CE sensor readings, expert opinion. 2. 10 Qualitative questions. | 1. Three shirts had adequate sensitivity & specificity. Refined sensor position had better results. 2. Good acceptability for users |
Giorgino, Tormene, Maggioni, Pistarini, et al., 2009, [39] | Sensitivity and specificity testing | Evaluate sensitivity and specificity of a sensorised shirt. | CE | 1 healthy subject | 7 UL exercises. | CE sensor readings, expert opinion. | Exercises that stretch a fabric can be reliably classified. |
Giorgino et al., 2007, [25] | Prototype design | 1. Develop e- textile system that classifies exercises for neuro rehab. 2. Between session variability of the sensorised shirt. | CE | 1. 1 healthy subject 2. 2 healthy subjects | 1. 11 UL rehab exercises. 2. 11 UL rehab tasks. Shirt doffed; donned after 1Â h. Exercises repeated. | CE sensor readings. | 1. Redesign resulted in greater differences between readings. 2. 7 of 11 exercises were classified incorrectly when shirt was reapplied. |
Lorussi et al., 2005, [26] | Prototype design and validation | 1. Develop sensing glove that recognizes hand positions. 2. Recognize novel hand posture. | CE | 20 healthy adults | 1. Calibrated glove 32 hand postures repeated randomly. 2. Novel posture of hand held. | 1. CE sensor 2. CE sensor, not stated. | 1. 100Â % recognition. 98Â % recognition if removed and worn again. 2. Average error measuring joint angle 4Â %. |
Cabonaro et al 2014, [24] | Prototype design and validation | Compare e-textile motion sensor glove with optical tracking. | KPF sensors | 5 healthy subjects | Repeated natural hand movts. | KPF sensor readings, optical tracking system. | Accuracy of glove slightly less than commercial electrogoniometer. |
Preece et al., 2011, [27] | Prototype design and validation | 1. Investigate output of KPF sensor in a sock, during walking. 2. Feasibility of predicting gait events using sock with KPF sensor. | KPF sensor | 20 healthy adults | Walking wearing instrumented sock; shod and unshod. | KPF strain sensor, 3D video gait analysis. | 1. Graphed sensor values and kinematic signals show similar characteristics. 2. Accurate HL & TO predicted offline HS prediction less accurate. |
Sung et al. 2009, [29] | Prototype design and validation | Identify human movement during walking and running using e-textile sensors. | Knitted stainless- steel yarn sensor | 5 healthy male adults. | Walking and running wearing e- textile suit. | e-textile sensor readings. | Similar results running & walking. Increased speed; individual habits insignificant. |
Yang et al., 2010, [33] | Prototype design and validation. | Develop e-textile sensor system to monitor movts and posture. | 20 Knitted sensors | Not specified. | Fast walking, slow walking & falling down. | E-textile sensor readings. | Sensor signal patterns differed for each condition. |
Shu, et al., 2010, [35] | Prototype design and validation | Design e- textile sensor to monitor plantar pressure during gait | Knitted conductive sensor coated in silicon | 8 healthy males | Subject wearing sensing innersole stepping and standing | Sensor CoP during standing, one leg stand, heel strike and push off compared to CoP on force plate. | CoP relative difference Standing 7.9Â %, One leg stand 9.9Â %, Heel strike 0.5Â %, Push off 2.2Â %. |
Tognetti et al. 2014, [31] | Prototype design and validation. | Compare KPF goniometers with electrogoniometers and inertial measurement units. | KPF sensors. | Not specified | KPF sensor over knee joint. One legged sit to stand at varied speeds. | KPF sensor, inertial measurement unit, electrogoniometer. | The KPF goniometer followed dynamic knee movts (maximum error 5°). |
Shyr et al., 2014, [28] | Prototype design and validation | Measure the flexion angle of elbow and knee movts. | Elastic conductive webbing | 1 healthy adult | Repetitive elbow and knee flexion/extension. | Protractor, e-textile sensor | Good relationship between e-textile sensor and joint angle. |
Munro, et al., 2008, [40] | Reliability and validity | E- textile sensor to control audible biofeedback of movement pattern. | CE | 5 female and 7 male athletes | Intelligent knee sleeve worn during hopping and stepping activities | Kinematic data, and audible feedback signal compared knee angle (goniometer) | Able to reliably distinguish between shallow and deep knee flexion. |
Helmer et al., 2011, [42] | Pilot study | E- textile sensor to 1. measure knee movement and 2. Trigger auditory biofeedback to change kick pattern | Not specified | Not specified | E- textile sensorised leggings worn during kicking. | E- textile sensor data compared to 3D video analysis | 1. Reliably measured max knee flexion during kicking < 10 % error 2. E- textile triggered audio signal. Change in kicking pattern post biofeedback training. |
Farina et al., 2010, [16] | Prototype design and validation | Design electrode grids for recording EMG. | Stainless steel yarn electrodes | 3 healthy subjects | Static postures of the hand and wrist. | EMG readings from e-textile. | Tasks classified with accuracy of 89.1Â % +/- 1.9Â % |
Yang et al., 2014, [34] | Prototype design and validation | Design screen- printed fabric electrode array to stimulate muscle. | Multi- layer screen printed electrodes. | 2 healthy individuals | E-textile/PCB array stimulated to produce hand postures. | Electrogoniometer | E-textile >90Â % of movt generated by PCB array. E-textile greater repeatability. |