RIS-Aided Kinematic Analysis for Remote Rehabilitation

TL;DR

This paper explores using reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) as passive sensors to estimate the position and orientation of impaired upper limbs for stroke rehabilitation, providing a novel approach to remote monitoring.

Contribution

It introduces the innovative concept of RIS-based passive sensing for tracking limb movement, analyzing estimation bounds under different propagation conditions, and applying it to stroke rehabilitation scenarios.

Findings

Fisher information matrix derived for orientation estimation

Near-field and far-field propagation effects analyzed

Potential for RIS-based remote limb monitoring demonstrated

Abstract

This paper is the first to introduce the idea of using reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) as passive devices that measure the position and orientation of certain human body parts over time. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of utilizing the available geometric information provided by on-body RISs that reflect signals from an off-body transmitter to an off-body receiver for stroke rehabilitation. More specifically, we investigate the possibility of using on-body RISs to estimate the location information over time of upper limbs that may have been impaired due to stroke. This location information can help medical professionals to estimate the possibly time varying pose and obtain progress on the rehabilitation of the upper limbs. Our analysis is focused on two scenarios: i) after assessment exercises for stroke rehabilitation when the upper limbs are resting at predefined points in the rehabilitation center, and ii) during the assessment exercises. In the first scenario, we explore the possibility of upper limb orientation estimation by deriving the Fisher information matrix (FIM) under near-field and far-field propagation conditions. It is noteworthy that the FIM quantifies how accurately we can estimate location information from a signal, and any subsequent algorithm is bounded by a function of the FIM. Coming to our propagation assumptions, the difference between the near-field and far-field regimes lies in the curvature of the wavefront. In the near-field, a receiver experiences a spherical wavefront, whereas in the far-field, the wavefront is approximately linear. The threshold to be within the near-field can be on the order of $10 \text{ m}.$