Background
Wearable sensors are rapidly spreading in many application fields, such as sport, medicine, telemedicine, Ambient Assisted Living (AAL), and well-being assessment. A plethora of sensors, with different market, cost, and performance related characteristics is available and researchers are constantly developing new laboratory prototypes, fine-tuning their design according to specific needs. Indeed, they have a huge potential for the remote monitoring of physiological signals; this capability is enhanced by Internet-of-Things (IoT) technologies, which allow to share the gathered data with all the stakeholders (from doctors and caregivers in the medical field, to coaches in sport applications). The supplied information is exploitable also for diagnostic purposes, provided that the measurement accuracy is adequate. Each target application has its own requirements in terms of accuracy and precision and all the results should be provided together with proper information on the sensors measurement uncertainty.
Goal
The investigation of the metrological performance of wearable sensors is scarcely considered, both in literature and by the sensors manufacturers. Hence, the measurement results are provided without the related values of uncertainty, so that they cannot be properly interpreted and analyzed. This is one of the main reasons why wearable sensors cannot be widely and reliably employed in clinical fields, together with the numerous interfering factors making the results not adequate for medical purposes. Moreover, in literature there is a bit of confusion on the terminology used to express the sensors performance (e.g. accuracy is often mistaken with precision and/or uncertainty). Hence, both the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) should be carefully considered in studies dealing with the validation of wearable sensors, along with the consideration of the intrinsic physiological variability of the human measurands.
Scope and Information for authors
The aim of this Research Topic is to collect recent advances in both original research and review articles dealing with the metrological characterization and the validation of wearable sensors, paying particular attention to both GUM and VIM. Both commercial sensors and laboratory prototypes are of interest. Particular attention should be paid to the methods used to characterize the measurement accuracy and precision (e.g. analysis of measurement differences between test and reference sensors, analysis of agreement according to the Bland-Altman plot, etc.); the analysis of the uncertainty propagation and its expression according to the GUM are welcome.
Topics:
• Wearable sensors
• Measurement uncertainty
• Sensors validation
• Metrological characterization
• Test protocols
• Applications of wearable sensors
Background
Wearable sensors are rapidly spreading in many application fields, such as sport, medicine, telemedicine, Ambient Assisted Living (AAL), and well-being assessment. A plethora of sensors, with different market, cost, and performance related characteristics is available and researchers are constantly developing new laboratory prototypes, fine-tuning their design according to specific needs. Indeed, they have a huge potential for the remote monitoring of physiological signals; this capability is enhanced by Internet-of-Things (IoT) technologies, which allow to share the gathered data with all the stakeholders (from doctors and caregivers in the medical field, to coaches in sport applications). The supplied information is exploitable also for diagnostic purposes, provided that the measurement accuracy is adequate. Each target application has its own requirements in terms of accuracy and precision and all the results should be provided together with proper information on the sensors measurement uncertainty.
Goal
The investigation of the metrological performance of wearable sensors is scarcely considered, both in literature and by the sensors manufacturers. Hence, the measurement results are provided without the related values of uncertainty, so that they cannot be properly interpreted and analyzed. This is one of the main reasons why wearable sensors cannot be widely and reliably employed in clinical fields, together with the numerous interfering factors making the results not adequate for medical purposes. Moreover, in literature there is a bit of confusion on the terminology used to express the sensors performance (e.g. accuracy is often mistaken with precision and/or uncertainty). Hence, both the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM) should be carefully considered in studies dealing with the validation of wearable sensors, along with the consideration of the intrinsic physiological variability of the human measurands.
Scope and Information for authors
The aim of this Research Topic is to collect recent advances in both original research and review articles dealing with the metrological characterization and the validation of wearable sensors, paying particular attention to both GUM and VIM. Both commercial sensors and laboratory prototypes are of interest. Particular attention should be paid to the methods used to characterize the measurement accuracy and precision (e.g. analysis of measurement differences between test and reference sensors, analysis of agreement according to the Bland-Altman plot, etc.); the analysis of the uncertainty propagation and its expression according to the GUM are welcome.
Topics:
• Wearable sensors
• Measurement uncertainty
• Sensors validation
• Metrological characterization
• Test protocols
• Applications of wearable sensors
