Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JMIR Hum Factors ; 11: e49316, 2024 Feb 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38329785

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices permit the continuous, unobtrusive collection of data from children in their natural environments and can transform our understanding of child development. Although the use of wearable devices has begun to emerge in research involving children, few studies have considered families' experiences and perspectives of participating in research of this kind. OBJECTIVE: Through a mixed methods approach, we assessed parents' and children's experiences of using a new wearable device in the home environment. The wearable device was designed specifically for use with infants and young children, and it integrates audio, electrocardiogram, and motion sensors. METHODS: In study 1, semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 42 parents of children aged 1 month to 9.5 years who completed 2 day-long recordings using the device, which the children wore on a specially designed shirt. In study 2, a total of 110 parents of children aged 2 months to 5.5 years responded to a questionnaire assessing their experience of completing 3 day-long device recordings in the home. Guided by the Digital Health Checklist, we assessed parental responses from both studies in relation to the following three key domains: (1) access and usability, (2) privacy, and (3) risks and benefits. RESULTS: In study 1, most parents viewed the device as easy to use and safe and remote visits as convenient. Parents' views on privacy related to the audio recordings were more varied. The use of machine learning algorithms (vs human annotators) in the analysis of the audio data, the ability to stop recordings at any time, and the view that the recordings reflected ordinary family life were some reasons cited by parents who expressed minimal, if any, privacy concerns. Varied risks and benefits were also reported, including perceived child comfort or discomfort, the need to adjust routines to accommodate the study, the understanding gained from the study procedures, and the parent's and child's enjoyment of study participation. In study 2, parents' ratings on 5 close-ended items yielded a similar pattern of findings. Compared with a "neutral" rating, parents were significantly more likely to agree that (1) device instructions were helpful and clear (t109=-45.98; P<.001), (2) they felt comfortable putting the device on their child (t109=-22.22; P<.001), and (3) they felt their child was safe while wearing the device (t109=-34.48; P<.001). They were also less likely to worry about the audio recordings gathered by the device (t108=6.14; P<.001), whereas parents' rating of the burden of the study procedures did not differ significantly from a "neutral" rating (t109=-0.16; P=.87). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of parents' feedback, several concrete changes can be implemented to improve this new wearable platform and, ultimately, parents' and children's experiences of using child wearable devices in the home setting.


Subject(s)
Wearable Electronic Devices , Humans , Child , Infant , Child, Preschool , Digital Health , Emotions , Algorithms , Checklist
2.
Sensors (Basel) ; 24(3)2024 Jan 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38339617

ABSTRACT

Across five studies, we present the preliminary technical validation of an infant-wearable platform, LittleBeats™, that integrates electrocardiogram (ECG), inertial measurement unit (IMU), and audio sensors. Each sensor modality is validated against data from gold-standard equipment using established algorithms and laboratory tasks. Interbeat interval (IBI) data obtained from the LittleBeats™ ECG sensor indicate acceptable mean absolute percent error rates for both adults (Study 1, N = 16) and infants (Study 2, N = 5) across low- and high-challenge sessions and expected patterns of change in respiratory sinus arrythmia (RSA). For automated activity recognition (upright vs. walk vs. glide vs. squat) using accelerometer data from the LittleBeats™ IMU (Study 3, N = 12 adults), performance was good to excellent, with smartphone (industry standard) data outperforming LittleBeats™ by less than 4 percentage points. Speech emotion recognition (Study 4, N = 8 adults) applied to LittleBeats™ versus smartphone audio data indicated a comparable performance, with no significant difference in error rates. On an automatic speech recognition task (Study 5, N = 12 adults), the best performing algorithm yielded relatively low word error rates, although LittleBeats™ (4.16%) versus smartphone (2.73%) error rates were somewhat higher. Together, these validation studies indicate that LittleBeats™ sensors yield a data quality that is largely comparable to those obtained from gold-standard devices and established protocols used in prior research.


Subject(s)
Posture , Walking , Adult , Humans , Motion , Walking/physiology , Posture/physiology , Standing Position , Algorithms , Biomechanical Phenomena
3.
Front Psychol ; 12: 734492, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35250686

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated innovations in data collection protocols, including use of virtual or remote visits. Although developmental scientists used virtual visits prior to COVID-19, validation of virtual assessments of infant socioemotional and language development are lacking. We aimed to fill this gap by validating a virtual visit protocol that assesses mother and infant behavior during the Still Face Paradigm (SFP) and infant receptive and expressive communication using the Bayley-III Screening Test. Validation was accomplished through comparisons of data (i.e., proportions of missing data for a given task; observed infant and maternal behaviors) collected during in-person laboratory visits and virtual visits conducted via Zoom. Of the 119 mother-infant dyads who participated, 73 participated in lab visits only, 13 participated in virtual visits only, and 33 dyads participated in a combination of lab and virtual visits across four time points (3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Maternal perspectives of, and preferences for, virtual visits were also assessed. Proportions of missing data were higher during virtual visits, particularly for assessments of infant receptive communication. Nonetheless, comparisons of virtual and laboratory visits within a given time point (3, 6, or 9 months) indicated that mothers and infants showed similar proportions of facial expressions, vocalizations and directions of gaze during the SFP and infants showed similar and expected patterns of behavioral change across SFP episodes. Infants also demonstrated comparable expressive and receptive communicative abilities across virtual and laboratory assessments. Maternal reports of ease and preference for virtual visits varied by infant age, with mothers of 12-month-old infants reporting, on average, less ease of virtual visits and a preference for in-person visits. Results are discussed in terms of feasibility and validity of virtual visits for assessing infant socioemotional and language development, and broader advantages and disadvantages of virtual visits are also considered.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...