Method for monitoring training programs

• US 6,190,287 B1
• Filed: 07/16/1999
• Issued: 02/20/2001
• Est. Priority Date: 03/12/1997
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: Natus Medical Incorporated
• Original Assignee: Neurocom International Inc. (Natus Medical Incorporated)
• Inventors: Nashner, Lewis M.
• Primary Examiner(s): Richman, Glenn E.
• Application Number:
  US09/354,488
• Time in Patent Office: 585 Days
• Field of Search: 482/1-9, 482/900-902, 434/247, 600/595
• US Class Current: 482/8
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/1036 Measuring load distribution, e.g. podologic studies
• CPC Class Codes: A61B 5/486 Bio-feedback A61B5/375 takes precedence
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 2024/0068 Comparison to target or threshold, previous performance or not real time comparison to other individuals
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 2208/12 specially adapted for children
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 2220/17 Counting, e.g. counting periodical movements, revolutions or cycles, or including further data processing to determine distances or speed
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 2225/15 with identification means that can be read by electronic means
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 2225/20 with means for remote communication, e.g. internet or the like
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 23/0458 Step exercisers without moving parts with movable steps A63B22/04
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 24/00 Electric or electronic controls for exercising apparatus of preceding groups; Controlling or monitoring of exercises, sportive games, training or athletic performances
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 24/0003 Analysing the course of a movement or motion sequences during an exercise or trainings sequence, e.g. swing for golf or tennis
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 24/0062 Monitoring athletic performances, e.g. for determining the work of a user on an exercise apparatus, the completed jogging or cycling distance
• CPC Class Codes: A63B 71/06 Indicating or scoring devices for games or players , or for other sports activities

Abstract

A system and method for monitoring training programs prescribed to benefit a subject. A training program prescriber may evaluate training effectiveness from a separate location from where a subject performs training tasks. Accuracy of actual task performances is measured and is compared with quality-benchmark data. The number of tasks actually performed is recorded and is compared with quantity-benchmark data. Benchmark-data may be obtained from previous subject performances or from performance by a defined reference population. Categorized results are calculated and assessments regarding program difficulty and motivation of the subject may be formulated. Compliance with expected program goals is analyzed and monitored.

Claims

1. A method for monitoring the effectiveness of a training program, prescribed to a subject by a prescriber, the training program including at least one task to be performed a plurality of times during a defined time period by the subject, the method comprising the following steps:

measuring accuracy of actual performances by the subject of the at least one task, the step performed at a first site,

comparing the accuracy with quality-benchmark data,

calculating at least one quality result calculated from at least one comparison, and

displaying to the prescriber, at a second site, the at least one quality result.

2. A method as in claim 1, further comprising the additional steps:

measuring a number of actual performances by the subject of the at least one task, the step performed at the first site,

comparing the number with quality-benchmark data,

calculating at least one quantity result calculated from at least one comparison, and

displaying to the prescriber, at the second site, the at least one quantity result.

3. A method as in claim 2, further comprising the additional step:

displaying at least one goal of the at least one task to the subject, the step performed at the first site.

4. A method as in claim 3, further comprising the additional steps:

categorizing the at least one quantity result and the at least one quality result into a plurality of categories, and

displaying to the prescriber, at the second site, the obtained categorizing information.

5. A method as in claim 4, wherein the quantity-benchmark data includes the expected number of times the subject is expected to perform the task, and wherein the quality-benchmark data includes the expected accuracy with which the subject is expected to perform the task.

6. A method as in claim 4, wherein the quantity-benchmark data and the quality-benchmark data are derived from a reference population.

7. A method as in claim 4, wherein:

the at least one quantity result is categorized in a first quantity category when the quantity-measurement data is substantially below the quantity-benchmark data,

the at least one quantity result is categorized in a second quantity category when the quantity-measurement data is substantially equivalent to the quantity-benchmark data,

the at least one quantity result is categorized in a third quantity category when the quantity-measurement data is substantially above the quantity-benchmark data,

the at least one quality result is categorized in a first quality category when the quality-measurement data is substantially below the quality-benchmark data,

the at least one quality result is categorized in a second quality category when the quality-measurement data is substantially equivalent to the quality-benchmark data, and

the at least one quality result is categorized in a third quality category when the quality-measurement data is substantially above the quality-benchmark data.

8. A method as in claim 4, wherein the proscriber includes a group of trainers.

9. A method as in claim 4, wherein the prescriber includes a group of health care professionals.

10. A method for determining whether a prescribed training task is appropriately difficult relative to a subject'"'"'s ability and whether best effort is being exerted by the subject to accomplish the prescribed training task, the method consisting of the following steps:

(1) performing an evaluation of the subject'"'"'s functional performance capabilities relative to a specified activity,

(2) selecting at least one task from the specified activity, the level of challenge of the at least one task matched to the functional performance capabilities determined in step (1),

(3) establishing goals relative to the quantity of the at least one task to be completed by the subject over a defined time period and relative to the accuracy of performance of the at least one task, based on the information gained in the evaluation of step (1),

(4) instructing a subject to perform the at least one task,

(5) displaying at least one goal to the subject relative to the at least one task,

(6) displaying information to the subject related to actual performance relative to the at least one displayed task goal,

(7) measuring one or more quantities related to the subject'"'"'s training compliance relative to the at least one task,

(8) calculating one or more quantities related to the number of tasks attempted and to the accuracy of performance relative to the at least one task goal, and

(9) comparing quantities related to the numbers of task performed and quantities related to the accuracy of performance specified in step (8) in accordance with a specified algorithm.

11. A method as in claim 10, wherein step (9) includes the additional steps of:

(A) determining, in accordance with a defined algorithm, whether the quantity of tasks performed by the subject is lower, equal to, or higher than the expected quantity determined in step (3),

(B) determining, in accordance with a defined algorithm, whether the accuracy of actual task performance is lower, equal to, or higher than the expected accuracy determined in step (3),

(C) identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as unmotivated when both the quantity of tasks performed is determined lower than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is lower than expected, in accordance with step (B),

(D) identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as appropriate when both the quantity of tasks performed is determined equal to expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is equal to expected, in accordance with step (B),

(E) identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as unchallenged when both the quantity of tasks performed is determined higher than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is higher than expected, in accordance with step (B),

(F) identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the quantity of tasks performed is determined lower than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is equal to expected, in accordance with step (B),

(G) identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the quantity of tasks performed is determined equal to expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is lower than expected, in accordance with step (B),

(H) identifying the trainee'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the quantity of tasks performed is determined higher than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is equal to expected, in accordance with step (B),

(I) identifying the trainee'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the quantity of tasks performed is determined equal to expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is higher than expected, in accordance with step (B),

(J) identifying the trainee'"'"'s performance as in need of re-instruction when the quantity of tasks performed is determined lower than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is higher than expected, in accordance with step (B), and

(K) identifying the trainee'"'"'s performance as in need of re-instruction when the quantity of tasks performed is determined higher than expected, in accordance with step (A) and the accuracy of actual task performance is lower than expected, in accordance with step (B).