Skip to main content
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) logoLink to Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
. 2018 Jul 30;18(8):2462. doi: 10.3390/s18082462

Correction: Rucco, R.; et al. Type and Location of Wearable Sensors for Monitoring Falls during Static and Dynamic Tasks in Healthy Elderly: A Review. Sensors 2018, 18, 1613

Rosaria Rucco 1,2,*, Antonietta Sorriso 3, Marianna Liparoti 1,2, Giampaolo Ferraioli 4, Pierpaolo Sorrentino 2,3, Michele Ambrosanio 3, Fabio Baselice 3
PMCID: PMC6111287  PMID: 30061491

The authors wish to make a correction to their paper [1]. The following Table 1 should be replaced with the table shown below it.

Table 1.

Summary of the wearable sensor-based systems for stability control in elderly people for the considered bibliographic research. Task types include the main activities proposed in the articles both for the dynamic as well as static analyses and reported in Tables 2 and 3. In some cases, both methodologies have been adopted. The manuscripts have been classified according to the main identified aims, i.e. fall risk assessment (FRA), fall detection (FD) and fall prevention (FP). Acronyms for the Validation column: ACC = accuracy, Sens = sensitivity, Spec = specificity, PFA = Probability of false alarm, Pc = Probability of correct decision. Acronyms for the Analysis column: Dyn = Dynamic.

Author (Year) Participants
(Number/Age)
Number of
Sensors
Sensor Type Sensor Position Task Type Goals Validation Analysis
Aloqlah (2010) [63] (3/n.a.) 1 A HD STN FP, FRA ACC ≈ 95% Both
Aminian (2011) [42] (10/26.1 ± 2.8)&(10/71 ± 4.6) 3 A, P, G FT SW FP Sens = 93%, Spec = 100% Dyn
Bertolotti (2016) [64] (18/n.a.) 4 A, P, G, M TR, AR SU, SD, B FD n.a. Dyn
Bounyong (2016) [43] (52/72 ± 6.1) 2 A LG SW FRA ACC = 65% Dyn
Caldara (2015) [65] (5/31 ± 6)&(4/70.8 ± 7) 4 A, P, G, M TR SW FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Chen (2010) [66] (1/n.a.) 1 A FT SW FP Pc = 86% Dyn
Cheng (2013) [67] (10/24 ± 2) 2 A, EMG LG SW, SU, SD FD Sens = 95.33%, Spec = 97.66% Dyn
Cola (2015) [68] (30/32.9 ± 12.2) 1 A TR SW FD, FRA ACC = 84% Dyn
Crispim-Junior (2013) [69] (29/65) 1 C EXT SW, DA FD Sens = 88.33% Dyn
Curone (2010) [70] (6/29.5) 1 A TR SU, SD, SW FD Pc ≥ 90% Both
De la Guia Solaz (2010) [71] (10/23.7 ± 2.2)&(10/77.2 ± 4.3) 2 A, P TR SU, SD, SW, F FD ACC = 100%, Pc = 93%, PFA = 29% Dyn
Deshmukh (2012) [40] (4/n.a.) 3 A, G, M LG STN FRA n.a. Static
Di Rosa (2017) [72] (29/71.1 ± 6.9) 2 A, P FT DA FRA ACC = 95% Dyn
Diraco (2014) [73] (18/38 ± 6) 1 T EXT STN FD Pc > 83% Static
Fernandez-Luque (2010) [74] (n.a./n.a.) 4 A, P, M, IR EXT DA FD, FRA n.a. Dyn
Ganea (2012) [75] (35/54.2 ± 5.7) 2 A, G TR, LG SU, SD FD, FP, FRA ACC = 95% Dyn
Gopalai (2011) [76] (12/23.45 ± 1.45) 2 A, G TR STN FP, FRA n.a. n.a.
Greene (2011) [77] (114/71 ± 6.6) 2 A, G LG SW FD n.a. Dyn
Hegde (2015) [78] (n.a./n.a.) 3 A, P, G FT n.a. FD, FRA n.a. Dyn
Howcroft (2017) [79] (100/75.5 ± 6.7) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW FP, FRA ACC = 78%, Sens = 26%, Spec = 95% Dyn
Howcroft (2017) [80] (76/75.2 ± 6.6) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW, DW FP, FRA ACC = 57%, Sens = 43%, Spec = 65% Dyn
Howcroft (2016) [81] (100/75.5 ± 6.7) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW, DW FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Jian (2015) [82] (8/33) 2 A, G TR F FD n.a. Dyn
Jiang (2011) [83] (48/40) 3 A, P, C n.a. SW, STN FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Karel (2010) [84] (41/24 ± 4)&(50/67 ± 5) 1 A TR SW FD Sens = 98.4%, Spec = 99.9% Dyn
Micó-Amigo (2016) [85] (20/73.7 ± 7.9) 2 A, G TR, LG SW FD, FP, FRA Sens = 92.6 ÷ 98.2% Dyn
Najafi (2002) [86] (11/79 ± 6) 1 G TR SU, SD FRA Sens ≥ 95%, Spec ≥ 95% Dyn
Ozcan (2016) [87] (n.a./n.a.) 2 A, G TR n.a. FD Sens = 6.36%, Spec = 92.45% Static
Paoli (2011) [88] (1/n.a.) >4 A, P, M, IR TR DA FD n.a. Both
Qu (2016) [89] (10/25) 1 A TR F FD ROC curve Dyn
Sazonov (2013) [90] (1/n.a.) 2 A, P FT STN, STT, SW FD, FRA n.a. Both
Simila (2017) [41] (42/74.17 ± 5.57) 1 A TR SW FP, FRA Sens = 80%, Spec = 73% Dyn
Stone (2013) [91] (15/67) 1 K n.a. SW FD n.a. Dyn
Szurley (2009) [92] (n.a./n.a.) 1 A TR n.a. FP n.a. Dyn
Tamura (2005) [93] (6/66.3 ± 5) 1 A TR SU, SD FD Pc = 86% Dyn
Tang (2016) [94] (1/n.a.) 1 R LG SW, STR FD, FP n.a. Dyn
Turcato (2010) [39] (5/26 ± 6) 2 A, W TR STN FP ACC = 55–70% Static
Van de Ven (2015) [95] (1 /n.a.) 2 A, P FT STN, STT FD n.a. Dyn
van Schooten (2016) [96] (319/75.5 ± 6.9) 1 A TR DA FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Vincenzo (2016) [97] (57/74.35 ± 6.53) 1 A TR STN FD n.a. Static
Yao (2015) [98] (9/25) 3 A, G, M TR SW, F, R FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Yuan (2015) [99] (n.a./n.a.) 2 A, G TR F, STT, L FD n.a. Both

The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers by these changes. The changes do not affect the scientific results. The manuscript will be updated and the original will remain online on the article webpage, with a reference to this Correction.

Table 1.

Summary of the wearable sensor-based systems for stability control in elderly people for the considered bibliographic research. Task types include the main activities proposed in the articles both for the dynamic as well as static analyses and reported in Tables 2 and 3. In some cases, both methodologies have been adopted. The manuscripts have been classified according to the main identified aims, i.e. fall risk assessment (FRA), fall detection (FD) and fall prevention (FP). Acronyms for the Validation column: ACC = accuracy, Sens = sensitivity, Spec = specificity, PFA = Probability of false alarm, Pc = Probability of correct decision. Acronyms for the Analysis column: Dyn = Dynamic.

Author (Year) Participants
(Number/Age)
Number of
Sensors
Sensor Type Sensor Position Task Type Goals Validation Analysis
Aloqlah (2010) [63] (3/n.a.) 1 A HD STN FP, FRA ACC ≈ 95% Both
Aminian (2011) [42] (10/26.1 ± 2.8)&(10/71 ± 4.6) 3 A, P, G FT SW FP Sens = 93%, Spec = 100% Dyn
Bertolotti (2016) [64] (18/n.a.) 4 A, P, G, M TR, AR SU, SD, B FD n.a. Dyn
Bounyong (2016) [43] (52/72 ± 6.1) 2 A LG SW FRA ACC = 65% Dyn
Caldara (2015) [65] (5/31 ± 6)&(4/70.8 ± 7) 4 A, P, G, M TR SW FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Chen (2010) [66] (1/n.a.) 1 A FT SW FP Pc = 86% Dyn
Cheng (2013) [67] (10/24 ± 2) 2 A, EMG LG SW, SU, SD FD Sens = 95.33%, Spec = 97.66% Dyn
Cola (2015) [68] (30/32.9 ± 12.2) 1 A TR SW FD, FRA ACC = 84% Dyn
Crispim-Junior (2013) [69] (29/65) 1 C EXT SW, DA FD Sens = 88.33% Dyn
Curone (2010) [70] (6/29.5) 1 A TR SU, SD, SW FD Pc ≥ 90% Both
De la Guia Solaz (2010) [71] (10/23.7 ± 2.2)&(10/77.2 ± 4.3) 2 A, P TR SU, SD, SW, F FD ACC 100%, Pc = 93%, PFA = 29% Dyn
Deshmukh (2012) [40] (4/n.a.) 3 A, G, M LG STN FRA n.a. Static
Di Rosa (2017) [72] (29/71.1 ± 6.9) 2 A, P FT DA FRA ACC = 95% Dyn
Diraco (2014) [73] (18/38 ± 6) 1 T EXT STN FD Pc > 83% Static
Fernandez-Luque (2010) [74] (n.a./n.a.) 4 A, P, M, IR EXT DA FD, FRA n.a. Dyn
Ganea (2012) [75] (35/54.2 ± 5.7) 2 A, G TR, LG SU, SD FD, FP, FRA ACC = 95% Dyn
Gopalai (2011) [76] (12/23.45 ± 1.45) 2 A, G TR STN FP, FRA n.a. n.a.
Greene (2011) [77] (114/71 ± 6.6) 2 A, G LG SW FD n.a. Dyn
Hegde (2015) [78] (n.a./n.a.) 3 A, P, G FT n.a. FD, FRA n.a. Dyn
Howcroft (2017) [79] (100/75.5 ± 6.7) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW FP, FRA ACC = 78%, Sens = 26%, Spec = 95% Dyn
Howcroft (2017) [80] (76/75.2 ± 6.6) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW, DW FP, FRA ACC = 57%, Sens = 43%, Spec = 65% Dyn
Howcroft (2016) [81] (100/75.5 ± 6.7) 2 A, P TR, HD, LG, FT SW, DW FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Jian (2015) [82] (8/33) 2 A, G TR F FD n.a. Dyn
Jiang (2011) [83] (48/40) 3 A, P, C n.a. SW, STN FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Karel (2010) [84] (41/24 ± 4)&(50/67 ± 5) 1 A TR SW FD Sens = 98.4%, Spec =99.9% Dyn
Micó-Amigo (2016) [85] (20/73.7 ± 7.9) 2 A, G TR, LG SW FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Najafi (2002) [86] (11/79 ± 6) 1 G TR SU, SD FRA Sens ≥ 95%, Spec ≥ 95% Dyn
Ozcan (2016) [87] (n.a./n.a.) 2 A, G TR n.a. FD Sens = 96.36%, Spec = 92.45% Static
Paoli (2011) [88] (1/n.a.) >4 A, P, M, IR TR DA FD n.a. Both
Qu (2016) [89] (10/25) 1 A TR F FD ROC curve Dyn
Sazonov (2013) [90] (1/n.a.) 2 A, P FT STN, STT, SW FD, FRA n.a. Both
Simila (2017) [41] (42/74.17 ± 5.57) 1 A TR SW FP, FRA Sens = 80%, Spec = 73% Dyn
Stone (2013) [91] (15/67) 1 K n.a. SW FD n.a. Dyn
Szurley (2009) [92] (n.a./n.a.) 1 A TR n.a. FP n.a. Dyn
Tamura (2005) [93] (6/66.3 ± 5) 1 A TR SU, SD FD Pc = 86% Dyn
Tang (2016) [94] (1/n.a.) 1 R LG SW, STR FD, FP n.a. Dyn
Turcato (2010) [39] (5/26 ± 6) 2 A, W TR STN FP ACC = 55–70% Static
Van de Ven (2015) [95] (1 /n.a.) 2 A, P FT STN, STT FD n.a. Dyn
van Schooten (2016) [96] (319/75.5 ± 6.9) 1 A TR DA FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Vincenzo (2016) [97] (57/74.35 ± 6.53) 1 A TR STN FD n.a. Static
Yao (2015) [98] (9/25) 3 A, G, M TR SW, F, R FD, FP, FRA n.a. Dyn
Yuan (2015) [99] (n.a./n.a.) 2 A, G TR F, STT, L FD n.a. Both

References

  • 1.Rucco R., Sorriso A., Liparoti M., Ferraioli G., Sorrentino P., Ambrosanio M., Baselice F. Type and Location of Wearable Sensors for Monitoring Falls during Static and Dynamic Tasks in Healthy Elderly: A Review. Sensors. 2018;18:1613. doi: 10.3390/s18051613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES