A Fall and Near-Fall Assessment and Evaluation System

The FANFARE (Falls And Near Falls Assessment Research and Evaluation) project has developed a system to fulfill the need for a wearable device to collect data for fall and near-falls analysis. The system consists of a computer and a wireless sensor network to measure, display, and store fall related parameters such as postural activities and heart rate variability. Ease of use and low power are considered in the design. The system was built and tested successfully. Different machine learning algorithms were applied to the stored data for fall and near-fall evaluation. Results indicate that the Naïve Bayes algorithm is the best choice, due to its fast model building and high accuracy in fall detection

Monitoring Functional Capability of Individuals with Lower Limb Amputations Using Mobile Phones

To be effective, a prescribed prosthetic device must match the functional requirements and capabilities of each patient. These capabilities are usually assessed by a clinician and reported by the Medicare K-level designation of mobility. However, it is not clear how the K-level designation objectively relates to the use of prostheses outside of a clinical environment. Here, we quantify participant activity using mobile phones and relate activity measured during real world activity to the assigned K-levels. We observe a correlation between K-level and the proportion of moderate to high activity over the course of a week. This relationship suggests that accelerometry-based technologies such as mobile phones can be used to evaluate real world activity for mobility assessment. Quantifying everyday activity promises to improve assessment of real world prosthesis use, leading to a better matching of prostheses to individuals and enabling better evaluations of future prosthetic devices.Max Nader Center for Rehabilitation Technologies and Outcome

The reliability of side to side measurements of upper extremity activity levels in healthy subjects

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In both clinical and occupational settings, ambulatory sensors are becoming common for assessing all day measurements of arm motion. In order for the motion of a healthy, contralateral side to be used as a control for the involved side, the inherent side to side differences in arm usage must be minimal. The goal of the present study was to determine the reliability of side to side measurements of upper extremity activity levels in healthy subjects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty two subjects with no upper extremity pathologies were studied. Each subject wore a triaxial accelerometer on both arms for three and a half hours. Motion was assessed using parameters previously reported in the literature. Side to side differences were compared with the intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of the mean, minimal detectable change scores and a projected sample size analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The variables were ranked based on their percentage of minimal detectable change scores and sample sizes needed for paired t-tests. The order of these rankings was found to be identical and the top ranked parameters were activity counts per hour (MDC% = 9.5, n = 5), jerk time (MDC% = 15.8, n = 8) and percent time above 30 degrees (MDC% = 34.7, n = 9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In general, the mean activity levels during daily activities were very similar between dominant and non-dominant arms. Specifically, activity counts per hour, jerk time, and percent time above 30 degrees were found to be the variables most likely to reveal significant difference or changes in both individuals and groups of subjects. The use of ambulatory measurements of upper extremity activity has very broad uses for occupational assessments, musculoskeletal injuries of the shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand as well as neurological pathologies.</p

Does physical activity change predict functional recovery in low back pain? Protocol for a prospective cohort study

Background: Activity advice and prescription are commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP). Although there is evidence for advising patients with LBP to remain active, facilitating both recovery and return to work, to date no research has assessed whether objective measurements of free living physical activity (PA) can predict outcome, recovery and course of LBP. Methods: An observational longitudinal study will investigate PA levels in a cohort of community-dwelling working age adults with acute and sub-acute LBP. Each participant's PA level, functional status, mood, fear avoidance behaviours, and levels of pain, psychological distress and occupational activity will be measured on three occasions during for 1 week periods at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Physical activity levels will be measured by self report, RT3 triaxial accelerometer, and activity recall questionnaires. The primary outcome measure of functional recovery will be the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Free living PA levels and changes in functional status will be quantified in order to look at predictive relationships between levels and changes in free living PA and functional recovery in a LBP population. Discussion: This research will investigate levels and changes in activity levels of an acute LBP cohort and the predictive relationship to LBP recovery. The results will assess whether occupational, psychological and behavioural factors affect the relationship between free living PA and LBP recovery. Results from this research will help to determine the strength of evidence supporting international guidelines that recommend restoration of normal activity in managing LBP. Trial registration. [Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12609000282280]. © 2009 Hendrick et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Precise Measurement of the Neutrino Mixing Parameter theta(23) from Muon Neutrino Disappearance in an Off-Axis Beam

New data from the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment produce the most precise measurement of the neutrino mixing parameter theta_{23}. Using an off-axis neutrino beam with a peak energy of 0.6 GeV and a data set corresponding to 6.57 x 10^{20} protons on target, T2K has fit the energy-dependent nu_mu oscillation probability to determine oscillation parameters. Marginalizing over the values of other oscillation parameters yields sin^2 (theta_{23}) = 0.514 +0.055/-0.056 (0.511 +- 0.055), assuming normal (inverted) mass hierarchy. The best-fit mass-squared splitting for normal hierarchy is Delta m^2_{32} = (2.51 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4 (inverted hierarchy: Delta m^2_{13} = (2.48 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4). Adding a model of multinucleon interactions that affect neutrino energy reconstruction is found to produce only small biases in neutrino oscillation parameter extraction at current levels of statistical uncertainty

Measurement of the intrinsic electron neutrino component in the T2K neutrino beam with the ND280 detector

The T2K experiment has reported the first observation of the appearance of electron neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam. The main and irreducible background to the appearance signal comes from the presence in the neutrino beam of a small intrinsic component of electron neutrinos originating from muon and kaon decays. In T2K, this component is expected to represent 1.2% of the total neutrino flux. A measurement of this component using the near detector (ND280), located 280 m from the target, is presented. The charged current interactions of electron neutrinos are selected by combining the particle identification capabilities of both the time projection chambers and electromagnetic calorimeters of ND280. The measured ratio between the observed electron neutrino beam component and the prediction is 1.01 +/- 0.10 providing a direct confirmation of the neutrino fluxes and neutrino cross section modeling used for T2K neutrino oscillation analyses. Electron neutrinos coming from muons and kaons decay are also separately measured, resulting in a ratio with respect to the prediction of 0.68 +/- 0.30 and 1.10 +/- 0.14, respectively

T2K neutrino flux prediction

cited By 15 art_number: 012001 affiliation: Centre for Particle Physics, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics (LHEP), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States; IRFU, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea; Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Dongshin University, Naju, South Korea; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Section de Physique, DPNC, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; IFIC (CSIC and University of Valencia), Valencia, Spain; Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; INFN Sezione di Bari, Dipartimento Interuniversitario di Fisica, Università e Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy; INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; INFN Sezione di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy; INFN Sezione di Roma, Università di Roma la Sapienza, Roma, Italy; Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation; Kobe University, Kobe, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States; Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IPN Lyon (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France; Department of Physics, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai, Japan; National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Osaka City University, Department of Physics, Osaka, Japan; Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; UPMC, Université Paris Diderot, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), Paris, France; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; School of Physics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Silesia, Institute of Physics, Katowice, Poland; STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Warrington, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Research Center for Cosmic Neutrinos, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan; Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Radioelectronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada references: Astier, P., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 515, p. 800. , (NOMAD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.054; Ahn, M., (2006) Phys. Rev. D, 74, p. 072003. , (K2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003; Adamson, P., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 77, p. 072002. , (MINOS Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.072002; Aguilar-Arevalo, A., (2009) Phys. Rev. D, 79, p. 072002. , (MiniBooNE Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002; (2003) Letter of Intent: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment at JHF, , http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/loi/loi_JHFcor.pdf, T2K Collaboration; Abe, K., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 659, p. 106. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067; Abe, K., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 041801. , (T2K Collaboration), PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801; Abe, K., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 85, p. 031103. , (T2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031103; Fukuda, Y., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 501, p. 418. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X; Beavis, D., Carroll, A., Chiang, I., (1995), Physics Design Report, BNL 52459Abgrall, N., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 034604. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034604; Abgrall, N., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 035210. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035210; Bhadra, S., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 703, p. 45. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.044; Van Der Meer, S., Report No. CERN-61-07Palmer, R., Report No. CERN-65-32, 141Ichikawa, A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 690, p. 27. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.045; Matsuoka, K., (2010) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 624, p. 591. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.074; Abe, K., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 694, p. 211. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.03.023; Abgrall, N., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 637, p. 25. , (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.02. 036; Amaudruz, P.-A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 696, p. 1. , (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08. 020; Battistoni, G., Cerutti, F., Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Muraro, S., Ranft, J., Roesler, S., Sala, P.R., (2007) AIP Conf. Proc., 896, p. 31. , APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2720455; A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. SLAC-R-773A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. INFN-TC-05-11R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN-W5013Zeitnitz, C., Gabriel, T.A., (1993) Proceedings of International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, , in Elsevier Science B.V., Tallahassee, FL; Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., Sala, P.R., Proceedings of the International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, 1994, , in; Beringer, J., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 86, p. 010001. , (Particle Data Group), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001; Eichten, T., (1972) Nucl. Phys. B, 44, p. 333. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90120-4; Allaby, J.V., Tech. Rep. 70-12 (CERN, 1970)Chemakin, I., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 015209. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015209; Abrams, R.J., Cool, R., Giacomelli, G., Kycia, T., Leontic, B., Li, K., Michael, D., (1970) Phys. Rev. D, 1, p. 1917. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1917; Allaby, J.V., (1970) Yad. Fiz., 12, p. 538. , IDFZA7 0044-0027; Allaby, J.V., (1969) Phys. Lett. B, 30, p. 500. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(69)90184-1; Allardyce, B.W., (1973) Nucl. Phys. A, 209, p. 1. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90049-3; Bellettini, G., Cocconi, G., Diddens, A.N., Lillethun, E., Matthiae, G., Scanlon, J.P., Wetherell, A.M., (1966) Nucl. Phys., 79, p. 609. , NUPHA7 0029-5582 10.1016/0029-5582(66)90267-7; Bobchenko, B.M., (1979) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, p. 805. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Carroll, A.S., (1979) Phys. Lett. B, 80, p. 319. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90226-0; Cronin, J.W., Cool, R., Abashian, A., (1957) Phys. Rev., 107, p. 1121. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121; Chen, F.F., Leavitt, C., Shapiro, A., (1955) Phys. Rev., 99, p. 857. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.99.857; Denisov, S.P., Donskov, S.V., Gorin, Yu.P., Krasnokutsky, R.N., Petrukhin, A.I., Prokoshkin, Yu.D., Stoyanova, D.A., (1973) Nucl. Phys. B, 61, p. 62. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90351-9; Longo, M.J., Moyer, B.J., (1962) Phys. Rev., 125, p. 701. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701; Vlasov, A.V., (1978) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27, p. 222. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Feynman, R., (1969) Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, p. 1415. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415; Bonesini, M., Marchionni, A., Pietropaolo, F., Tabarelli De Fatis, T., (2001) Eur. Phys. J. C, 20, p. 13. , EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1007/s100520100656; Barton, D.S., (1983) Phys. Rev. D, 27, p. 2580. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2580; Skubic, P., (1978) Phys. Rev. D, 18, p. 3115. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3115; Feynman, R.P., (1972) Photon-Hadron Interactions, , Benjamin, New York; Bjorken, J.D., Paschos, E.A., (1969) Phys. Rev., 185, p. 1975. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.185.1975; Taylor, F.E., Carey, D., Johnson, J., Kammerud, R., Ritchie, D., Roberts, A., Sauer, J., Walker, J., (1976) Phys. Rev. D, 14, p. 1217. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1217; Abgrall, N., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 701, p. 99. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.079; Hayato, Y., (2002) Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 112, p. 171. , NPBSE7 0920-5632 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01759-0 correspondence_address1: Abe, K.; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan coden: PRVDA abbrev_source_title: Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol document_type: Article source: Scopu

Measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current interaction cross section by observing nuclear deexcitation gamma rays

We report the first measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current quasielastic (NCQE) cross section gamma It is obtained by observing nuclear deexcitation. rays which follow neutrino-oxygen interactions at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector. We use T2K data corresponding to 3.01 x 10(20) protons on target. By selecting only events during the T2K beam window and with well-reconstructed vertices in the fiducial volume, the large background rate from natural radioactivity is dramatically reduced. We observe 43 events in the 4-30 MeV reconstructed energy window, compared with an expectation of 51.0, which includes an estimated 16.2 background events. The background is primarily nonquasielastic neutral-current interactions and has only 1.2 events from natural radioactivity. The flux-averaged NCQE cross section we measure is 1.55 x 10(-38) cm(2) with a 68% confidence interval of (1.22, 2.20) x 10(-38) cm(2) at a median neutrino energy of 630 MeV, compared with the theoretical prediction of 2.01 x 10(-38) cm(2)