Living Labs: Overview of ecological approaches for health promotion and rehabilitation

Disability and Rehabilitation

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 613-619

  Korman, M ^a   Weiss, P L ^a   Kizony, R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^b SHEBA MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; ambient sensors; ecological validity; information and communication technology; Living Lab; monitoring; user centered experience

Indexed keywords

AGING; DISABLED PERSON; ECOSYSTEM MONITORING; ENVIRONMENT; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION; RESEARCH; TRENDS;

AGING; DISABLED PERSONS; ECOLOGICAL PARAMETER MONITORING; ENVIRONMENT; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; QUALITY OF LIFE; RESEARCH;

EID: 84954474870     PISSN: 09638288     EISSN: 14645165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1059494     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Keith RA. Conceptual basis of outcome measures. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:73-80.
2. Granger CV. The emerging science of functional assessment: our tool for outcomes analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:235-40.
3. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process. 2nd ed. Am J Occup Ther 2008;62:625-83.
4. Rizzo A, Parsons T, Kenny P, Buckwalter JG. Using virtual reality for clinical assessment and intervention. In: L'Abate L, Kaiser DA, eds. Handbook of technology in psychology, psychiatry and neurology: theory, research, and practice. New York: Nova Science publishers; 2012:279-318.
5. Mitchell WJ. Me: the cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press ebooks; 2003.
6. Weiss PL, Keshner EA, Levin MF. Applying virtual reality technologies to motor rehabilitation. In:Sharkey P, ed. Virtual reality technologies for health and clinical applications. New York (NY): Springer. 2014:1-227.
7. Feil-seifer D, Matarić MJ. Ethical principles for socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 2011;18:24-31.
8. Niitamo V, Kulkki S, Eriksson M, Hribernik KA. State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks. Milan, Italy; June 2006:26-8.
9. Schumacher A, Feurstein B. Living labs - a new multi-stakeholder approach to user integration. In: Gonçalves RJ, Müller JP, Mertins K, Zelm M, eds. Enterprise interoperability II. London: Springer; 2007:281-5.
10. Følstad A. Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electron J Virtrual Organ Netw 2008;10:100-31.
11. Rizzo AA, Schultheis M, Kerns KA, Mateer C. Analysis of assets for virtual reality applications in neuropsychology. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2004;14:207-39.
12. Shallice T, Burgess PW. Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain 1991;114:727-41.
13. Littner MR. Portable monitoring in the diagnosis of the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2005;26:56-67.
14. Behar J, Roebuck A, Domingos JS, et al. A review of current sleep screening applications for smartphones. Physiol Meas 2013;34:R29.
15. Eriksson M, Niitamo V, Kulkki S. State-of-the-art in utilizing living labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation - a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-Spanning Technology/Lulea University of Technology Sweden; 2005.
16. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 2008;299:211-13.
17. Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol 2006;19:84-90.
18. Danial-Saad A, Weiss PL, Schreuer N. Assessment of computer task performance (ACTP) of children and youth with intellectual and developmental disability. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol 2012;7:450-8.
19. Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 2003;37:197-206; discussion 206.
20. Yang C, Hsu Y. A review of accelerometry-based wearable motion detectors for physical activity monitoring. Sensors 2010;10:7772-88.
21. Bonato P. Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2005;2:2. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-2-2.
22. Axisa F, Schmitt PM, Gehin C, et al. Flexible technologies and smart clothing for citizen medicine, home healthcare, and disease prevention. IEEE Trans Inform Technol Biomed 2005;9:325-36.
23. Pol MC, Poerbodipoero S, Robben S, et al. Sensor monitoring to measure and support daily functioning for independently living older people: a systematic review and road map for further development. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:2219-27.
24. Ancoli-Israel S, Cole R, Alessi C, et al. The role of actigraphy in the study of sleep and circadian rhythms. American academy of sleep medicine review paper. Sleep 2003;26:342-92.
25. Lowe SA, ÓLaighin G. Monitoring human health behaviour in one's living environment: a technological review. Med Eng Phys 2014;36:147-68.
26. Gövercin M, Költzsch Y, Meis M, et al. Defining the user requirements for wearable and optical fall prediction and fall detection devices for home use. Inform Health Soc Care 2010;35:177-87.
27. Jovanov E, Milenkovic A, Otto C, De Groen PC. A wireless body area network of intelligent motion sensors for computer assisted physical rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehabil 2005;2:6. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-2-6.
28. Collewijn H. Eye movement recording. In: Carpenter RHS, Robson JG, eds., Vision research: a practical guide to laboratory methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999:245-85.
29. Ward JA, Lukowicz P, Tröster G. Gesture spotting using wrist worn microphone and 3-axis accelerometer. In: Proceedings of the 2005 joint conference on Smart objects and ambient intelligence: innovative context-aware services: usages and technologies. ACM; 2005:99-104.
30. Lieberman HR, Kramer FM, Montain SJ, Niro P. Field assessment and enhancement of cognitive performance: development of an ambulatory vigilance monitor. Aviat Space Environ Med 2007;78:B268-75.
31. Egbogah EE, Fapojuwo AO. A survey of system architecture requirements for health care-based wireless sensor networks. Sensors 2011;11:4875-98.
32. Darwish A, Hassanien AE. Wearable and implantable wireless sensor network solutions for healthcare monitoring. Sensors 2011;11:5561-95.
33. Sherrill DM, Moy ML, Reilly JJ, Bonato P. Using hierarchical clustering methods to classify motor activities of COPD patients from wearable sensor data. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2005;2:16. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-2-16.
34. Mathie MJ, Coster AC, Lovell NH, Celler BG. Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement. Physiol Meas 2004;25:R1-20.
35. Winters JM, Wang Y. Wearable sensors and telerehabilitation. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2003;22:56-65.
36. Allet L, Knols RH, Shirato K, Bruin EDd. Wearable systems for monitoring mobility-related activities in chronic disease: a systematic review. Sensors 2010;10:9026-52.
37. Vanroy C, Vissers D, Cras P, et al. Physical activity monitoring in stroke: SenseWear Pro2 activity accelerometer versus Yamax Digi-Walker SW-200 pedometer. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:1695-703.
38. Strømmen AM, Christensen T, Jensen K. Quantitative measurement of physical activity in acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2014;45:3649-55.
39. Corder K, Brage S, Ekelund U. Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007;10:597-603.
40. Welk GJ. Use of accelerometry-based activity monitors to assess physical activity. In: Welk GJ, ed. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics Publishers; 2002:125-41.
41. Hodges S, Williams L, Berry E, et al. SenseCam: a retrospective memory aid. In: Dourish P, Friday A, eds. UbiComp 2006: ubiquitous computing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006:177-93.
42. Milton F, Muhlert N, Butler C, et al. An fMRI study of long-term everyday memory using SenseCam. Memory 2011;19:733-44.
43. Pauly-Takacs K, Moulin CJ, Estlin EJ. SenseCam as a rehabilitation tool in a child with anterograde amnesia. Memory 2011;19:705-12.
44. Kelly P, Doherty A, Berry E, et al. Can we use digital life-log images to investigate active and sedentary travel behaviour? results from a pilot study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011;8:44.
45. Kleinberger T, Becker M, Ras E, et al. Ambient intelligence in assisted living: enable elderly people to handle future interfaces. In: Stephanidis C, ed. Universal access in human-computer interaction. Ambient interaction. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007:103-12.
46. Milgram P, Kishino F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 1994;77:1321-9.
47. Zelkha E, Epstein B, Birrell S, Dodsworth C. From devices to ambient intelligence. Digital living room conference. Vol. 6; 1998.
48. Aarts E, Harwig R, Schuurmans M. Ambient intelligence. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill Companies; 2001.
49. Bellazzi R, Montani S, Riva A, Stefanelli M. Web-based telemedicine systems for home-care: technical issues and experiences. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2001;64:175-87.
50. Wang R, Korotchenko A, Clarke H, et al. Power mobility with collision avoidance for older adults: user, caregiver and prescriber perspectives. J Rehabil Res Dev 2014;50:1287-300.
51. Chan M, Estève D, Escriba C, Campo E. A review of smart homes - present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2008;91:55-81.
52. Milenković A, Otto C, Jovanov E. Wireless sensor networks for personal health monitoring: issues and an implementation. Comput Commun 2006;29:2521-33.
53. Ordóñez FJ, de Toledo P, Sanchis A. Sensor-based Bayesian detection of anomalous living patterns in a home setting. Pers Ubiquit Comput 2015;19:259-70.
54. Dawadi C, Schmitter-Edgecombe M. Automated cognitive health assessment using smart home smart monitoring of complex tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Syst 2013 2013;43:1302-13.
55. Kumar P, Lee H. Security issues in healthcare applications using wireless medical sensor networks: a survey. Sensors 2011;12:55-91.
56. Sharkey N, Sharkey A. The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Stud 2010;11:161-90.
57. Phelan SK, Wright V, Gibson BE. Representations of disability and normality in rehabilitation technology promotional materials. Disabil Rehabil 2014;36:2072-9.
58. Bohn J, Coroamǎ V, Langheinrich M, et al. Social, economic, and ethical implications of ambient intelligence and ubiquitous computing. In: Weber W, Rabaey JM, Aarts E, eds. Ambient intelligence. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005:5-29.