Monitoring of training programs

• US 6,632,158 B1
• Filed: 02/16/2001
• Issued: 10/14/2003
• 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:
  US09/785,673
• Time in Patent Office: 970 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 system for determining whether one or more training tasks is appropriate relative to a subject'"'"'s ability and whether appropriate effort is being exerted by the subject to accomplish the one or more training tasks, the system comprising:

measuring means for measuring one or more quantities related to the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks;

calculating means for calculating one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject and to the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks; and

processor means for determining whether the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected quantity and determining whether the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected accuracy.

2. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

3. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as appropriately challenged when the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are achieved by the subject.

4. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

5. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by subject.

6. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

7. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by the subject.

8. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

9. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

10. A system according to claim 1, wherein the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

11. A system according to claim 1, wherein the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are derived from a previous assessment of the subject'"'"'s capabilities.

12. A system according to claim 1, wherein the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are derived from a norm associated with a reference population.

13. A system according to claim 1, wherein:

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as appropriately challenged when the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are achieved by the subject;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by subject;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by the subject;

the processor means identifies the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy; and

the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

16. A method according to claim 4, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as appropriately challenged when the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are achieved by the subject.

14. A method for determining whether one or more training tasks are appropriate relative to a subject'"'"'s ability and whether appropriate effort is being exerted by the subject to accomplish the one or more training tasks, the method comprising:

measuring one or more quantities related to the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks;

calculating one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject and to the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks; and

providing the calculated quantities to a processor means for determining whether the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected quantity and determining whether the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected accuracy.

15. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

17. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

18. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by subject.

19. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unmotivated when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

20. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by the subject.

21. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject'"'"'s performance as possibly unchallenged when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

22. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy.

23. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

identifying the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

24. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

deriving the expected quantity and the expected accuracy from a previous assessment of the subject'"'"'s capabilities.

25. A method according to claim 14, further comprising:

deriving the expected quantity and the expected accuracy from a norm associated with a reference population.

26. A method for remotely monitoring a subject'"'"'s performance of a training program, the training program including at least one training task to be performed at least once by the subject, the method comprising:

measuring the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the at least one training task;

comparing the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance with quality-benchmark data;

calculating at least one quality result from at least one comparison; and

providing analyzing means for categorizing the at least one quality result into a plurality of categories to determine the motivation of the subject and challenge to the subject with respect to the training program.

27. A method according to claim 26, further comprising:

measuring a number of performances by the subject of the at least one training task;

comparing the number of performances by the subject of the at least one training task with quantity-benchmark data;

calculating at least one quantity result from at least one comparison; and

providing analyzing means for categorizing the at least one quantity result into a plurality of categories to determine the motivation of the subject and challenge to the subject with respect to the training program.

28. A method according to either of claims 26 or 27, further comprising:

modifying the training program in accordance with the motivation of the subject and the challenge to the subject.

29. A system for determining whether one or more training tasks is appropriate relative to a subject'"'"'s ability and whether the one or more training tasks is appropriately difficult for the subject, the system comprising:

measuring means for measuring one or more quantities related to the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks;

calculating means for calculating one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject and to the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks; and

processor means for determining whether the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected quantity and determining whether the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is lower than, equal to, or higher than an expected accuracy.

30. A system according to claim 29, wherein:

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as too difficult when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as appropriately difficult when the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are achieved by the subject;

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as too easy when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as possibly too difficult when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by subject;

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as possibly too difficult when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the one or more training task as possibly too easy when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the expected accuracy is achieved by the subject;

the processor means identifies the one or more training tasks as possibly too easy when the expected quantity is achieved by the subject and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy;

the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be lower than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be higher than the expected accuracy; and

the processor means identifies the subject as in need of re-instruction when the one or more quantities related to the number of training tasks performed by the subject is determined to be higher than the expected quantity and the accuracy of the subject'"'"'s performance of the one or more training tasks is determined to be lower than the expected accuracy.

31. A system according to claim 29, wherein the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are derived from a previous assessment of the subject'"'"'s capabilities.

32. A system according to claim 29, wherein the expected quantity and the expected accuracy are derived from a norm associated with a reference population.