Next Article in Journal
Wearable Sensor-Based Prediction Model of Timed up and Go Test in Older Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Validation of Soft Multipin Dry EEG Electrodes
Previous Article in Special Issue
State-of-the-Art Software-Based Remote Attestation: Opportunities and Open Issues for Internet of Things
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Recent Advances in Wearable Sensing Technologies

by
Alfredo J. Perez
1,*,† and
Sherali Zeadally
2,*,†
1
TSYS School of Computer Science, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA 31909, USA
2
College of Communication and Information, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sensors 2021, 21(20), 6828; https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206828
Submission received: 19 September 2021 / Revised: 6 October 2021 / Accepted: 6 October 2021 / Published: 14 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Sensing and IoT Technologies)

Abstract

:
Wearable sensing technologies are having a worldwide impact on the creation of novel business opportunities and application services that are benefiting the common citizen. By using these technologies, people have transformed the way they live, interact with each other and their surroundings, their daily routines, and how they monitor their health conditions. We review recent advances in the area of wearable sensing technologies, focusing on aspects such as sensor technologies, communication infrastructures, service infrastructures, security, and privacy. We also review the use of consumer wearables during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and we discuss open challenges that must be addressed to further improve the efficacy of wearable sensing systems in the future.

1. Introduction

Wearable sensing technologies continue to improve rapidly with advances in sensors, communication technologies, and artificial intelligence (AI) in the past decade. Research and development in wearable sensing technologies are fueling a revolution in the creation of novel services in gaming, fitness, entertainment, and specialized applications in industries such as healthcare, security, and defense, among others. In 2020, the market for wearable devices was USD 80 billion, which has tripled in terms of annual revenue since 2014 and it is expected to reach USD138 billion by 2025 [1]. In the consumer wearables market, in 2019, smartwatches and wristbands dominated the market with a combined market share of 51%; as of 2021, the leading wearables are ear-worn wearables with a market share of 48%, followed by a 37% combined market share of smartwatches and wristbands [2]. Figure 1 presents the consumer wearable devices’ market share by device type (2019–2022).
Ear-worn wearables, in special hearables such as true wireless stereo (TWS) wearables, have surged from almost zero market share to a significant share of the wearable device market [1] since the introduction of Apple AirPods in 2016, and have significantly increased during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic [3], caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as many people have worked and studied from their homes worldwide. During the pandemic, smart reusable masks that can detect SARS-CoV-2 and self-sterilize have become an active area of research and development [4,5,6,7,8]. The COVID-19 pandemic has also positively impacted the adoption of other consumer wearable technologies for mobile payment systems, patient tracking, contact tracing, and remote patient monitoring and treatment [9,10,11,12]. Combined fitness/medical-connected services was the leading market for wearable sensing technologies as of 2020 [13,14,15]. Other markets such as industrial wearables services, entertainment/gaming (i.e., augmented reality (AR) games and devices), and wearables for defense and security are also surging in popularity with recent technological advances in wearable technologies.
According to latest market research analysis, by 2025, the wearable payments services market (around USD 72 billion by 2025) is expected to be larger than the combined fitness/medical wearables services market by approximately USD10 billion [13,14,15]. The wearable payments market has grown due to the adoption of near-field communication (NFC) in smartphones by manufacturers supporting financial payment standards [16,17,18], and the incorporation in the near future of NFC in new generations of smartwatches, fitness trackers, and other wearables such as smart rings [19]. However, by 2028, it is forecasted that the wearable fitness market will be approximately USD 138.7 billion [20], while the wearable payment services will remain around USD 80 billion [21]. Figure 2 presents the market value of wearable services for the years 2018–2020, and a projection for 2025 based on available market research data [13,14,15,22].
Consumer wearable sensing systems were initially researched with cellphones and smartphones during the second half of the 2000s. During that time, the widespread adoption of cellular communication in the world, the mobile Internet, and the embedding of sensors in cellphones such as location sensors, accelerometers, and cameras paved the way to the development of sensing applications (in particular applications related to human-centric activities) in urban environments at a low cost compared with the deployment of static wireless sensor networks (WSNs) to achieve the same human-centric sensing goals [23]. The research in this area led to the development of many applications in the context of participatory and crowdsensing systems [24,25] using not only embedded cellphone sensors, but using external sensors connected via Bluetooth. Table 1 presents a summary of related works in mobile and wearable sensing during the past decade.
Most of the works cited in Table 1 addressed specific aspects of mobile and wearable sensing systems, with many works focusing on smartphone-based sensing/crowdsensing systems in the past decade. In this work, we present a comprehensive review to provide the reader with not only a summary of past works but also new opportunities in wearables. Moreover, the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the spotlight the use of wearable sensing technologies, and has positively shifted the perception and adoption of wearable technologies despite their privacy and security issues. Thus, while recent advancements in wearable sensing technologies have paved the way for the emergence of a plethora of services we are currently using in our lives, there are several areas still in need of further research. In this work, we describe current advances in wearable sensing technologies and services, and their use and opportunities to continue moving the field forward. The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
  • We present a comprehensive review of current advances in wearable sensing technologies;
  • We describe recent developments in communication, services, security, and privacy technologies for wearables;
  • We discuss some research opportunities and challenges that we need to address in the future for wearable sensing technologies.
We organize the rest of the paper as follows: In Section 2, we review the hardware architecture of wearable sensing devices. Section 3 presents communication technologies for wearable sensing. In Section 4, we discuss remote services for wearable sensing. Section 5 reviews security and privacy challenges and solutions for wearable sensing devices. In Section 6, we present challenges and opportunities in wearable sensing. Finally, Section 7 presents concluding remarks. Figure 3 presents the organization of this work.

2. Wearable Sensing Technologies

A wearable sensing device is a device that consists of sensors, actuators/output devices, a power generating unit, and an embedded computer, which may be implanted, worn, or carried around by a user [29,38]. This user may be a person or, in the case of some wearables, worn by animals. Depending on the characteristics and sensing goals of a wearable sensing device, it may be connected to external systems using the Internet either through a cellular network and/or wireless local area network (WLAN). External systems can store and conduct analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and may provide feedback to the user of the device. While the ubiquity of wireless sensing technologies has dramatically increased in recent years, early utilization of wearable sensing devices dates back decades ago [29,48]. As of 2021, there are at least 266 companies producing at least 430 wearable sensing devices [49] that can be categorized in a taxonomy based on three layers that include: market type, intrusiveness, and body location.
The first layer (market type) determines the ease with which a general user can typically access a wearable sensor device. Based on the market, devices can be grouped into consumer wearable sensing devices/systems and specialized wearables. Consumer wearable sensing devices can be further categorized into fitness, entertainment/gaming, security, or pet use [42,50]. Specialized wearables can only be acquired through specialized vendors, and they comply with special standards or may be regulated by laws that specify who may acquire and/or use them and the specific purposes for which each is designed. Thus, we can categorize specialized wearable sensing devices into industrial, healthcare/medical, security/defense, and research fields.
The second layer (intrusiveness level) determines whether the wearable can be implanted/placed into the body of a living organism (implantable), placed on/worn by a living organism (non-implantable), or carried by a user, for example, on a backpack (external). Under this classification, ingestibles would be classified as an implantable device [51]. The difference between a nonimplantable and an external wearable is whether the device is directly in contact with the body of the user (nonimplantable) or not (external). Figure 4 illustrates sensors based on intrusiveness level.
The third layer (body location) determines the placement of the wearable sensing device, which can be the head, trunk, arm, or leg. It is worth noting that these are general positions on the body of a user, so when we refer to the head, this location may include the neck, ears, or eyes. Thus, an example is a consumer, nonimplantable wearable device that can be worn on a wrist (e.g., a fitness wristband).
A wearable sensor device may be composed of the following components depending on its objectives and functionalities (as shown in Figure 5):
  • A power unit. This component of the wearable sensor device provides the energy used by the wearable sensor device to operate. Some wearable devices may include rechargeable or nonrechargeable batteries and energy-harvesting technologies [43]. Table 2 presents different types of power-generating units that can be used.
  • Sensors. These are electronic and microelectro-mechanical systems (MEMS) components that measure a physical quantity on the user (human-centric) or their surrounding environment (environmental). These sensors may be intrusive to the user (e.g., implanted in the body), with part of the wearable device worn by the user (e.g., smart fabrics [52] and photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors [53]), or carried around/worn by the user (e.g., location trackers [54]). Figure 6 shows a Venn diagram with wearable sensors grouped by type, and Table 3 describes each sensor.
  • Processing/control unit. Based on the capabilities and/or design/objectives of the wearable, this component may perform basic calculations, filter data, or execute AI algorithms or control algorithms.
  • Embedded storage media. Some wearable sensing devices have a flash-type storage media that stores sensor data for further analysis.
  • Network interfaces. Using communication interfaces, a wearable sensor device may create a personal area network (PAN) with other wearable sensors, to communicate with a more powerful device such as a smart phone, or to directly forward data to a remote service.
  • Actuators. Actuator components produce vibrations, sound, and visual cues (e.g., lights, screens, or heads-up displays) to notify the user about the device’s status. Some wearable sensing devices may not send data to a remote server/service, but they may provide automated feedback or execute an intrusive action on the user (e.g., an automatic defibrillator [55] and wearables for automated medication delivery [56,57] using microneedles) without the need for external systems, and some wearables provide information on a smartphone screen.
If smartphones are classified as external wearable sensing devices based on intrusiveness, as of 2021, the most-used wearable sensors (from those presented in Table 3) were the sensors embedded in most smartphones. These sensors are the microphone, location sensors, CMOS/CCD camera sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, and, to a lesser extent, the NFC interface as a contactless payment sensor. According to the 2021 Ericsson mobility report [58], as there are 5.5 billion smartphones in the world, there are 5.5 billion microphones, 5.5 billion location sensors, 5.5 billion CMOS/CCD cameras, and 5.5 billion accelerometers and gyroscopes collecting data in the world. If considered a wearable, the smartphone would be the most-used wearable during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. As these sensors are commonly available in most if not all smartphones, the NFC interface with 2.2 billion NFC-enabled smartphones/smartphone-like devices (e.g., tablets) [59] is next.
If the smartphone is not considered a wearable, then the most-available wearable sensors are accelerometers embedded in 708 million smartwatches and activity tracker units shipped between 2018 and 2021 (projection) [60]. However, if it is assumed that all true wireless stereo (TWS) hearables have microphones, then there would be 709 million microphones shipped as part of the TWSs sold between 2018 and 2021 (projection) [61]. After these sensors, the most commonly used sensor is the photoplethysmography(PPG) sensor available in many smartwatches, activity trackers, and pulse oximeters [62].
Table 2. Energy sources for wearable sensing devices.
Table 2. Energy sources for wearable sensing devices.
Energy SourceDescriptionExamples of Wearable
Sensing Devices
Nonrechargeable batteriesUse of standard-size small or specialized-size batteries that power a wearable sensing deviceInsulin pumps, cochlear implants/devices, implantable cardioverter defibrillators
Rechargeable batteriesLithium ion batteries that may be connected to an external power source to be rechargedSmart watches, smart phones, heart trackers, insulin pumps, digital stethoscopes [63], portable handheld ultrasound diagnostic devices [64]
Solar-poweredUse of photovoltaic (PV) cells to recharge a battery that powers a wearableSmart bracelets [65], smart watches, external wearables such as tracking devices, smart fabrics
Radiofrequency (RF)Use of antennas that extract energy from radio signals to recharge a battery or to power directly a wearable sensorRadiofrequency identification (RFID) implants [66], bioelectronic stickers/tattoos [67]
Movement and mechanical wavesUse of piezoelectric devices to extract energy from human movements [68] or mechanical waves such as wind or ultrasound to recharge a battery or to power a device [69]Implantable medical devices [69], wrist wearables [70]
Thermoelectric generatorsUse of body heat to generate power to recharge a battery or to power directly a wearable sensor [71]Biometric wearables and smart t-shirts for electrocardiogram monitoring [72]
Table 3. Sensor technologies for wearable sensing devices.
Table 3. Sensor technologies for wearable sensing devices.
Sensor TypeDescription/ApplicationWearable Device
Examples
Type of Collected
Data
Smart fabrics (e-textiles)Fabrics developed from traditional materials (e.g., cotton, polyester, nylon) combined with materials possessing electrical conductivity, or that can be embedded/uses to carry other sensors/electronic components. Some smart fabrics can detect the presence of chemical substances [73]Zephyr compression shirt, Nadi X smart yoga pantsHuman-centric
Electrocardiogram (ECG) sensorMeasures the electrical impulses of the heart muscle. Usually placed in contact with the skin. May be used in conjunction with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Provides heart pulse dataShimmer3 ECG chest unit, Apple Watch Series 6Human-centric
Near-field communication (NFC)Enables communication at short distances (less than 10 cm). Used as a wearable payment sensor [74,75]. Can be used to detect proximity and infer location, and for multiple-factor authentication methods [76].NFC Ring, many smartphones, smartwachesHuman-centric
Galvanic skin response (GSR) sensorMeasures skin conductivity. Used in wearables to recognize stress levels/emotional state of an individual [77].Empatica E4 wristbandHuman-centric
Photoplethysmography (PPG) sensorMeasures blood volume changes. These sensors illuminate the skin of a wearer and measure light absorption to determine human body variables including heart rate [78,79], blood oxygenation levels [80], and blood pressure when used in conjunction with an ECG sensor  [81].Wellvue O2 Ring, pulse oximeters, most fitness bands and smart watchesHuman-centric
Electroencephalography (EEG) sensorsMeasure electrical activity in the scalp of a user. These devices can be used to diagnose abnormal brain activity when used in healthcare applications [82] or to control devices through brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) [83].Emotiv EpocXHuman-centric
Glucose monitorsMonitor blood glucose levels for people with diabetes. Devices can monitor glucose levels continuously or at a single moment in time [84].Dexcom G6 CGMHuman-centric
Infrared (IR) sensorMeasures skin or ambient temperature. Temperature can be used to predict ovulation in female mammals.Ava fertility trackerHuman-centric/environmental
Accelerometer/gyroscopeDetects sudden accelerationmovement. Accelerometers can be used to detect and characterize human activities [85].Shimmer3 IMU, Samsung Galaxy Watch 3, activity trackers, smartphonesHuman-centric/ Environmental
MicrophoneDetects sound. They can be used to detect health conditions, ambient sounds, activity, location contexts (e.g., being in a restaurant, hospital, home) [86].Eko CORE family of stethoscopes/stethoscope attachmentsHuman-centric/Environmental
Location sensorTracks the locations/places where a user carrying a device with location may be [87]. Location sensors may be outdoor location or indoor location sensors and include technologies such as a global positioning system (GPS; United States), Galileo (European Space Agency), GLONASS (Russia), BeiDou (China) receivers, or the Navigation with Indian Constellation (India) systems. Indoor location technologies/sensors may include sonar-based, dead reckoning, Bluetooth low energy (BLE) beacons, among others [88].Game Golf GPS receiver, Jiobit, Pet tracker, smartphones, most smartwatchesHuman-centric/Environmental
Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS)/CCD imaging sensorTakes photographs. When combined with AI, it may be used to detect objects and possibly recognize people’s identities without consent [89]. May be used to detect emotions in humans.Iristick, Ray-Ban/Facebook Stories smart glasses, H1 head-mounted smart glasses, Microsoft HoloLens, Axon Body 2 body cameras, smartphones,Human-centric/Environmental
Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tagsStore information about its wearer. RFID can be active or passive and can be used to track assets [90]. RFID can be used for location-based systems and to estimate crowd size in crowd-management systems [91].3M RFID tags, ARDES Injection needle with RFID chip for cats and dogs, smartphonesHuman-centric/Environmental
Laser emitterLaser emitters are used to measure distances through light detection and ranging (LiDAR) and there are plans to be integrate them in future augmented reality (AR) glasses and smartphones [92]. A laser emitter can also be used for both acute and chronic pain management [93].CuraviPlus Laser Therapy Belt for Lower Back Pain, future smart AR glasses and smartphonesHuman-centric/Environmental
Ultrasound sensorDetects objects in the proximity of a user/device [94]. Used also as an imaging sensor in handheld healthcare medical devices [64].WeWALK smart cane, UltraCane, SonoQue, and Clarius portable handheld ultrasound devicesHuman-centric/Environmental
Air quality sensorDetects harmful gas concentrations/volatile components [95].Atmotube PRO, TZOA, Flow 2 by plume labsEnvironmental
SpectrometerSeparates and measures the spectral components reflected by a material. The light spectrum can be used to determine the components of the material [96].GoyaLab IndiGo modular visible spectrometerEnvironmental
Radiation sensorTracks ionizing [97] and nonionizing [98] radiation in the proximity of its wearer.Instadose 2 Personal Radiation (X-ray) badge, Landauer RaySafe i3 Real-time Personal, Radiation Dosimetry, Landauee Tactical RadWatchEnvironmental
Barometric pressure sensorDetects barometric (atmospheric) pressure. Can be used to detect movement, activity [99,100], and altitude.Garmin Fenix 5XEnvironmental
CompassDetermines orientation and used for navigationMost smartwatchesEnvironmental

3. Communication Technologies for Wearable Sensing

Advances in communication technologies support the current generation of wearable sensing services. From improvements in intrabody, body area networks (BANs), and personal area networks (PANs) to worldwide deployments of broadband wireless network connectivity, and computing paradigms such as cloud computing and blockchain, communication technologies are supporting many services that use wearable sensing technologies to deliver and provide value-added services to their users.
Figure 7 shows a general architecture for a wearable sensing system. In this architecture, wearable sensor devices collect data and conduct filtering or execute basic data analysis and/or models trained using machine learning (ML) algorithms [23]. Some wearable sensing devices may connect to other sensors (intrabody area networks) or to a smartphone using BANs or PANs. At some point, and based on the design or features of the wearable sensing device, the latter may forward the data collected to a remote service using a cellular network or WLAN either directly connected to the Internet or via a smartphone or communication hub that serves as a gateway device for the wearable device. Depending of the application, specialized networks such as tactical communication networks and satellite communication may be used.
Today, technological advances in communication technologies are found in intrabody networks, BANs, and PANs. These networking technologies are used in wearable sensing to connect wearable sensor devices amongst themselves and to other devices such as a smartphone, a communication hub, or actuator devices over a short distance [101]. Wireless technologies used in these networks can be of two types: radiofrequency-based wireless body area network (RF-WBAN), and nonradiofrequency-based wireless body area networks (non-RF-WBAN). In the first group (RF-WBAN), technologies include Bluetooth and Bluetooth low energy [102,103], Zigbee [104], IEEE 802.15.6 WBAN [105], near-field communication (NFC) [106], as well as proprietary protocols such as Sensium [107] and ANT [108]. NFC is most used as a contactless payment sensor [109] over short distances (less than 10 cm). The drawbacks of RF protocols for wireless sensing devices and intrabody communications include radio signal degradation due to the composition of body tissues (signal attenuation) [110], broadcast of signals at low power to avoid damaging tissues due to heat dissipation, and power consumption issues related to continuous operation. In the second group (Non-RF-WBAN), the use of molecular communication [111,112,113], ultrasonic communication [114], and wired networks (e.g., the USB personal healthcare device) [115,116] have been proposed as alternatives to wireless communications for PANs and BANs.
Wireless sensing devices use wireless local area networks (WLANs) to connect to the Internet, to other sensing devices, or to local hubs that serve as gateways to other systems and networks using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) network stack or dedicated protocols such as Continua [115] and ISO/IEEE 11073 [116]. While most wearables connect to WLANs, local hubs, or PANs (i.e., smartphones) to send data to remote services, newer wearables, especially in the consumer market, access remote services using mobile broadband [117].
Advances in mobile Internet broadband and cellular networks (4G/5G) along with decreasing costs have fueled the mass adoption and utilization of wearable sensing technologies and services. As of 2021 [58], there were more than 8 billion cellular subscriptions in the world. More than 80% of these subscriptions are mobile broadband connections and 5.5 billion are smartphone connections. According to Ericsson [58], part of the future improvements in network capacity provided by 5G cellular networks by 2024 will satisfy the growing demand for services including services making use of consumer wearable sensing devices. Other networking solutions exist for wearable sensing technologies in specific markets. These include Mobile Adhoc NETworks (MANETs), intranets, and satellite networks with proprietary protocols [118].

4. Remote Service Technologies for Wearable Sensing

In the previous section, we described computer network technologies enabling communication infrastructures for wearable sensing. While these technologies are responsible for transporting data between two entities (i.e., wearable sensors and a service provider), they do not implement a service on their own. The kind of data collected and why the data are being collected, used, and shared create value for stakeholders through the implementation of services. These services may fall into four major system categories [23]: location-based services (LBSs), human-centric sensing (HCS), participatory/crowdsensing systems (PS/CSs), and hybrids or combinations of these categories. Table 4 describes examples of these systems.
Wearable sensing services can be implemented using private servers [23], servers deployed in the cloud [119], and more recently as distributed apps (DApps) using blockchain and smart contract technology [120,121,122]. Remote service implementations making use of hybrid architectures between servers/the cloud and blockchain technology have recently been proposed for participatory/crowdsensing and human-centric systems [123,124,125,126]. A drawback of using public blockchains to store sensor data is the high monetary cost when data are uploaded to a public blockchain [127].
For services implemented using private servers and cloud services, remote services use technologies such as Structured Query Language (SQL) relational databases (e.g., Postgres, MySQL, MS SQL Server, and Oracle) and nonrelational (NoSQL) databases (e.g., Apache Ignite, Memcached, Cassandra, Hadoop/Hbase/HDFS, Azure Cosmos, Amazon S3, and Google Cloud Storage). Nonrelational databases are chosen by many of these services because they are useful for storing large amounts of data (big data) in real time. For example, data collected by Uber can be in the order of petabytes (PB) per day [128].
Table 4. Types of wearable sensing systems.
Table 4. Types of wearable sensing systems.
Type of SystemDescriptionExamples of
Systems
Location-based systemsUse location data to track, query, or provide a service based on location only [129].Smart Caddie, OneBusAway [130], Jiobit pet tracking system, Uber, Lyft
Human-centric systemsUse sensors to monitor human-related physiological variables, activities and behaviors. Personal monitoring systems (e.g., fitness systems) and intelligent medical/healthcare systems fall into this category [131,132]Fitbit Premium + Health, Garmin Connect, Samsung Health, Apple Healthkit
Participatory/ crowdsensing systemsUse collaborative data collected from a crowd to estimate communal parameters of interest [133,134] such as traffic, pollution, noise levels and others [135]. Participatory/crowdsensing systems include systems for crowd management [91,136,137], emergency management [138], and recently COVID-19 epidemiological systems based on mobile phones and sensors [10,11].Crowdsync, COVIDNearby, CovidSens [139], MetroSense [140]
Hybrid systemsSystems making use of the characteristics of more than one class/kind of system above.PokemonGo
Many of these systems are implemented in clouds using software engineering architectures based on microservices [141]. Microservices implement a remote service using a collection of small, independent services potentially deployed on different platforms or technology stacks [141]. Some of their advantages over monolithic architectures for software [142] include adaptability to changes in technology, reduced time-to-market (new features for a given remote service may be released as a microservice on its own), scalability, and flexible software engineering development practices (e.g., DevOps [143]) which suit many startup companies designing wearable systems and services. Data collected by remote systems can be analyzed using AI and ML techniques [26,45] such as deep learning (DL) [34], and feedback may be provided to users or to external third parties based on privacy policies or terms of use and commercial agreements [144].

5. Security and Privacy for Wearable Sensing

Security and privacy are two of the most significant aspects in the adoption of wearable sensing technology and systems in many application areas. For example, in mobile health (m-Health), if a wearable system that delivers medications or provides intrusive actions in the body of its user (e.g., implantable cardioverter defibrilators (ICD) with remote connectivity) has exploitable security flaws, the consequences could be catastrophic. From the privacy perspective, past research on smartphone-based sensing systems [25] demonstrated that certain kinds of data collected (e.g., location data) could be exploited to reveal aspects considered private for a user or a participant in a crowdsensing system. In this section, we first review security issues in wearable systems, and then review privacy aspects in wearables.

5.1. Security

Wearable sensing systems are susceptible to similar vulnerabilities and attacks found in other Internet of Thing (IoT) devices and systems. Security attacks, for wearable sensing technologies, can occur in a wearable sensing device, during data transport, or in the remote services collecting and analyzing data by exploiting vulnerabilities not considered at the design phase of a system. Table 5 summarizes vulnerabilities in wearable sensing devices.
In contrast to other IoT devices or computer systems that may be physically isolated or protected, the lack of physical security in wearable devices can be easily exploited by adversaries launching spoofing attacks to submit incorrect/fake data to a remote service [145,146]. A second type of spoofing attack (called mule attack [147]) may attempt to tamper with a wearable’s context or environment to make the wearable submit incorrect data [148,149]. For example, a mule attack on a fitness band or smartwatch to detect or register activity levels could be easily manipulated by an adversary by waving their arm or tying the wearable to a rope and make the fitness band or smartwatch rotate while standing at the same location [147]. Solutions proposed in the literature for spoofing attacks include the utilization of AI to recognize correct patterns/context [150] and the utilization of multiple sensors worn by a user to test the data collection context or to verify the data during collection phase [79,151,152,153].
When wearables are used in remote services collecting data from users to estimate environmental variables of interest (e.g., pollution, noise, or road traffic levels) through participatory or crowdsensing systems, spoofing attacks can be mitigated at the remote service by taking advantage of the redundant data collected by multiple users to estimate and filter out incorrect, erroneous, or fake data. Methods to filter out data in remote services include kriging, principal component analysis (PCA), Markov random fields (MRFs), Gaussian mixture models (GMMs), stochastic processes [154,155,156,157,158], and anomaly detection algorithms based on ML methods such as support vector machines (SVMs), neural networks (NNs) [159], and recent methods based on DL (i.e., convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks [160,161,162]).
A second vulnerability that can be exploited in wearable devices is the limited energy management and harvesting, which an adversary could exploit to perform battery exhaustion attacks and render a wearable ineffective in executing its tasks. In contrast to other IoT devices and computer systems, such as desktops, in which energy/power is not an issue because they are always connected to a reliable power source (i.e., a city’s power grid), most wearables use nonrechargeable or rechargeable batteries and/or energy-harvesting techniques (as we described in Section 1). Techniques available to mitigate this kind of attack include the development of power-aware frameworks and operating systems that continuously monitor the power consumption of the device [163,164], assessing the software’s power consumption before being implemented into a battery-powered device [165,166,167], and runtime anomaly detection methods that detect abnormal power patterns [168,169,170]. While most of these methods have been developed for smartphones, they can be adapted for wearables and used to detect and mitigate battery exhaustion attacks.
Table 5. Vulnerabilities in wearable sensing devices (adapted from [41]).
Table 5. Vulnerabilities in wearable sensing devices (adapted from [41]).
VulnerabilityDescriptionExamples of Attacks
Limited physical securityUnauthorized physical access to a wearable device by an adversary without difficultyPhysically damaging a device, spoofing attacks [145,146], manipulation of a device’s context/environment to make the device malfunction or incorrectly collect/register data [148,149]
Limited powerWearable devices use batteries or energy harvesting techniques; attacks may drain their batteries and render them unusableBattery exhaustion attacks [171]
Weak encryptionUse of encryption protocols that may not sufficiently protect data sent by a wearable due to energy limitations, processing power limitations, and bad software engineering practicesEavesdropping, injection, and denial of service (DoS) attacks in health monitoring devices [172]
Weak authenticationFailure to authenticate a user, a wearable device, or data generated by a wearable due to energy, computational power, poor design, mode of use, or user interface constraints that may not allow the implementation of strong authentication protocols on a wearable deviceStealing, losing, or duplicating a physical token for a wearable device [173]
Unnecessary open portsDevices may keep operating system (OS) ports/network addresses that may be exploited in security attacks or privacy violationsTracking of users using botnets and Bluetooth low energy (BLE) [174]
Software vulnerabilitiesSoftware may be implemented with errors or weak programming practices that make wearables vulnerable to security attacks; some of these weak practices include backdoors and errors during firmware updatesAttacks on fitness trackers during firmware updates  [151]
Logic bombs [175]
The use of encryption protocols that can be broken by an adversary with enough computational resources occurs when manufacturers use weak encryption in their devices (either in software and/or hardware). Weak encryption may enable attackers to eavesdrop on data in transit either to another wearable or to a remote service on the Internet. Weak encryption may occur due to limitations in the software, hardware, power availability, or weak programming practices, which may expose a wearable to attacks. In the past, research has shown that manufacturers sell consumer wearables with a lack of encryption, so can be attacked either through passively eavesdropping Bluetooth connections, through man in the middle (MITM) attacks, or by failing to encrypt data stored locally [172,176,177,178,179]. These attacks can violate user privacy, impersonate a user, or fabricate data submitted to a remote service. To mitigate this vulnerability, manufacturers should use hardware that supports strong encryption (e.g., ARM and Intel processors have hardware-specific extensions implementing Advance Encryption Standard (AES) algorithms), strong end-to-end encryption protocols (when supported by hardware/software),and good software engineering practices.
Weak authentication vulnerabilities arise when a wearable device, a wearable’s user, or data sent by a wearable cannot be authenticated due to due to energy, computational power, poor design, mode of use, or user interface constraints in the device or the system. Cryptographic authentication mechanisms available for other types of computers may not be enough to authenticate users, data, or wearable devices. For example, usually, login identifiers and passwords are used to authenticate a user in a laptop or desktop environment. However, because many wearable devices can be easily removed by users and worn by somebody else, the use of single-time authentication methods such as passwords are not enough to guarantee who is using a wearable device. To enforce authentication, various user authentication methods have been proposed based on biometrics [180], multifactor authentication mechanisms [76,181], and multiple wearable devices [182,183].
Unnecessary open ports make wearables susceptible to security and privacy attacks. While these attacks, so far, are less common than in other IoTs and computer systems, they are still present in wearables. For example, Issoufaly and Tournoux [174] highlighted how fingerprinting of wearables’ BLE medium access control (MAC) addresses can be easily exploited to track users via these addresses. In their research, they found that even though security and privacy features exist in BLE specifications, these features are rarely used. Robles-Cordero et al. [184] arrived at similar conclusions. Becker et al. [185] showed that even with BLE address randomization, passive tracking is possible. Knackmuß et al. [186] also explored unnecessary open port attacks, in which they used a packet sniffer tool to find an open port on a popular infusion pump. While open port vulnerabilities can be easily solved by having good product development practices, they pose a significant threat to wearables.
Other vulnerabilities of wearable devices that can be exploited are those arising from weak software development practices [187]. Software vulnerabilities can lead to malfunctioning, leaks in privacy, manipulation of data, or causing a wearable to execute attacks on other devices over a network (or the Internet). Software vulnerabilities may be caused by weak programming practices that can be present as part of the original software (firmware) with which a wearable is manufactured, or as part of firmware updates. Some of the vulnerabilities, such as inadequate encryption, inadequate authentication, and the unnecessary open ports previously discussed in this section, may be the result of weak programming practices. Weak programming practices can generate significant technical debt [188,189] in wearable sensing systems. Examples in the literature of possible attacks include remotely accessing implantable cardiac devices to make them fail [190] or to violate users’ privacy [191]. After Corbin [192] reported that former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s pacemaker had software vulnerabilities that could enable hackers to cause heart attacks remotely, the former Vice President disabled the remote access capabilities of his pacemaker.

5.2. Privacy

Wearable sensing services may expose users to various privacy threats because the data collected by these services can be potentially linked back to users [193]. Research on user privacy perceptions on the utilization of consumer wearables has identified privacy concerns related to social implications, criminal abuse, facial recognition, access control, social media sync, right to forget, surveillance and sousveillance, speech disclosure, and surreptitious audio/video (A/V) recordings when using a device, which may continuously register users’ actions [194]. Table 6 summarizes these privacy concerns.
These concerns can be classified into three main privacy issues categories, which include context privacy, bystanders’ privacy, and external data sharing privacy [38]. Table 7 presents each privacy concern with a privacy issue and the related solutions found in the literature.
The first privacy issue we present is context privacy. Context privacy comprises the context/actions deemed private by a wearable user that can be inferred based on the data or metadata collected through a wearable. Many wearables are used continuously, and users may not remember that the utilization of a wearable may possibly register all users’ actions (and data about users’ surroundings), and private information could be inferred [195]. Solutions to solve this issue include methods that only collect data when the user desires it [196,197,198], and methods to avoid or deny data collection when the user wishes [199]. For both types of solutions, the idea is for the user to create rules at different levels that may be based on raw sensor data readings, or more complex rules that may involve activity recognition at the wearable device.
Table 7. Privacy concerns and issues for wearables (adapted from [38]).
Table 7. Privacy concerns and issues for wearables (adapted from [38]).
User Privacy ConcernPrivacy IssueRecently Proposed Solutions
Access control
Location disclosure
Social implications
Discrete display and visual occlusion
User’s fear
Speech disclosure
Right to forget
Context
privacy
Virtual trip lines [196]
Bubble sensing [197]
Privacy bubbles [198]
Virtual walls [199]
Speech disclosure
Social implications
Facial recognition (identification)
Surreptitious A/V recording
User’s fears
Location disclosure
Bystanders’ privacyBlindSpot [200]
Using IR to disable devices [201]
Using Bluetooth to disable capturing device [202]
Virtual Walls [199]
Privacy-aware restricted areas [203]
PrivacyEye [204]
PrivacyVisor [205]
PrivacyVisor III [206]
Perturbed eyeglass frames [207]
Respectful cameras [208]
Negative face blurring [209]
FacePET [210]
I-Pic [211]
Access control
Location disclosure
Social implications
User’s fear
Criminal abuse
Social media sync
Discrete display and visual occlusion
Right to forget
External data-sharing privacyk-anonymity [212]
l-diversity [213]
t-closeness [214]
Differential privacy [215,216]
Homomorphic encryption [217,218]
A second privacy issue with wearables is bystanders’ privacy. Bystanders’ privacy is the issue of the re-identification of third parties (bystanders) who have not provided consent when a sensing device is used in a bystander’s surroundings [89]. Research in the area of bystanders’ privacy has focused on understanding user and bystander privacy perceptions and privacy norms on the utilization of camera-enabled and voice-capturing devices in shared spaces [194,204,208,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227] and on the development of systems for bystander privacy protection [200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211].
In the area of privacy perceptions and norms of camera-enabled and voice-capturing devices in shared spaces, past research has identified a conflict in spaces shared between users and bystanders [219,224,225,228], a desire of bystanders to have some control over what may be recorded and shared about them [220,221,222], and the meaning and definition of the contexts that affect the social meaning of privacy [223,228]. To protect bystanders’ privacy, research has focused on policies and systems to disable devices [200,201,202,203,204] and obfuscation of faces in photos in some systems [205,206,207,208,209,210,211].
Another privacy issue with wearables is external data sharing. When data are collected by remote services (such as systems described in Table 4), the issue of external data-sharing relates to how a remote service can protect a wearable’s user privacy when shared with a third party. Third-party data-sharing can occur because of commercial agreements by which an external party provides some type of service on behalf of the remote service provider, or because the remote service provider sells the collected sensor data. Solutions that address this issue to protect the privacy of the collected data focus on anonymization methods in databases and cryptographic-based methods.
Anonymization methods in databases protect wearable users’ privacy by providing meaningful third-party data (in the statistical sense) without releasing data that can identify users. Depending on the kind of data to be released, these methods can be classified as methods for microdata release or methods for statistical data release [229]. In the first group (methods for microdata release), the goal is to protect users’ private data by de-identifying private attributes of identities during the release of microdata (i.e., records from a database). Examples of methods for microdata release include k-anonymity [212], l-diversity [213], and t-closeness [214]. In the second group (methods for statistical data release), we protect user privacy by guaranteeing that the release or calculation of a statistical result (such as an average) using collected data cannot reveal information about the specific records or a user. An example of a method that falls into this latter category is differential privacy [215,216,230]. A third class of methods available to protect data when externally shared is cryptographic-based methods, using homomorphic encryption techniques [217,218]. Homomorphic encryption allows a remote service provider to release data encrypted so that an external party can perform calculations on the encrypted data without revealing the original data or identifiable data.

6. Challenges and Research Opportunities for Wearable Sensing Technologies

In the previous sections, we reviewed the technological advances in various aspects of wearable sensing systems. Although significant work has been untertaken on wearable sensing systems in the last ten years, in this section, we identify areas of interest that need further research. These areas include security, privacy, 6G and ML at the edge (federated learning), energy harvesting and management, and interoperability.

6.1. Security

Even though we reviewed the vulnerabilities of and possible solutions for wearable technologies, security will continue to play an important role in the research and development and use of and trust in wearable devices. Attacks on wearables devices launched by an adversary can have catastrophic consequences for a user, especially if the wearable device is used in m-Health systems [158,231]. In addition, wearables connected to the Internet could be hacked and used to attack other systems. This creates the issue of developing wearables with a security-by-design paradigm [232,233] to identify security risks and vulnerabilities during the design and development phases of a system rather than mitigating them after cyberattacks. The Mirai botnet illustrates this issue.
During late 2016, a distributed denial of service (DDoS) was launched over the Internet using a botnet called Mirai, which infected approximately 65,000 IoT devices such as DVR devices, IP cameras, routers, and printers [234]. Mirai converted them into zombies (i.e., devices controlled by a remote machine) and then used the infected IoT devices to launch various DDoS attacks on DNS servers. According to Antonakakis et al. [234], the attack was enabled by the design decisions of a small group of consumer electronics manufacturers. Although this attack used nonwearable IoTs, it underscores the need to incorporate security as part of the design process of a wearable. More research is needed to continue protecting current and next-generation wearables and mitigate emerging threats.

6.2. Privacy

One of the privacy challenges for users of wearable sensing technologies is making informed choices about the sensing devices that consumers buy and use. This highlights the importance of the development of usable privacy policies [235]. Privacy policies disclose the practices of remote services in terms of aspects such as data collection, management, and sharing about websites, services, and devices that consumers buy and use [144].
Although laws regarding the requirements of privacy policies and their content may differ from country to country, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulation standardized these requirements for the European Union (EU) countries by mandating remote services to provide a privacy policy if these services control and process the personal data of individuals located in the EU, independent of the services being physically located in the EU or not [236]. However, companies whose markets may not be EU countries are not bound by this requirement, which may leave users in non-EU countries without an understanding of how remote services use with the data they collect through wearables. Furthermore, if privacy policies are provided, the accessibility and understandability of these privacy policies remain challenges. More research is needed on usable and practical privacy policies for wearables and for general IoT devices.
Another open privacy challenge for wearable sensing technologies is the control of users’ sensor data collected by remote services and how data are shared with third parties (i.e., external systems or services) without users’ consent. There are two aspects to this issue:the first is how the users know that their data are being shared with third parties (an issue related to privacy policies) and when this occurs; the second is how users’ privacy may be protected when data are externally shared. While we reviewed solutions for the second issue, more work is needed to enable data-sharing with third parties while protecting users’ privacy and allowing users to have control over their data.
Finally, bystanders’ privacy [89] continues to be an open challenge in wearable devices. Even though we reviewed some solutions to address this issue, more research is needed to protect bystanders and to develop wearables with a focus on facial and voice privacy protection.

6.3. 6G and Machine Learning at the Edge (Federated Learning)

Currently, 5G networks continue to be deployed worldwide to support increasing mobile Internet traffic, including a growing demand for wearable sensing services [58]. However, the next generation of cellular networks (6G) will be designed to meet the demands of an intelligent, fully connected digital world [237,238]. It is expected that 6G networks will support pervasive and ubiquitous sensing services under very-low-latency requirements in the order of hundreds of microseconds [237]. To accomplish this, research is needed to integrate AI to dynamically predict traffic requirements, conduct adaptive and intelligent network management, and enhance remote sensing services.
Currently, remote services collect and store large amounts of wearable sensor data in clouds using machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques to extract knowledge. Advances in graphical processing units (GPUs) have fueled a revolution in deep neural networks (DNNs) and DL by shortening the training time of DNN/DL models from months to hours. However, 6G networks will require part of this process to be conducted at edge devices (e.g., wearables, cellular phones, IoTs).
Federated learning (FL) [239] is a paradigm in ML/DL that is being investigated to train AI models using a decentralized process that is executed at edge devices. As ML/DL models in FL are trained at edge devices that collaborate among themselves rather than in centralized servers in a cloud (or data centers connected to the core of the Internet), less data are sent over the Internet, with advantages such as improved privacy, security, and access rights management. The resulting models built using FL can be as robust as models built using centralized ML/DL and are useful in areas such as telecommunications [240] and healthcare [241], amongst others. Additionally, research on techniques against adversarial ML, wherein wrong or fake data are used on purpose to make AI models fail, in FL environments is needed.

6.4. Energy Harvesting and Management

Advances in software, hardware, communication, computation, sensor technology, and AI have enabled the current generation of wearables; their power consumption will become increasingly important in the future. This will make energy harvesting and management one of the most important aspects that will drive the design and implementation of the next generation of wearables. Without power, a device cannot work, and one of the goals of using wearables is that a wearable device can continue performing its tasks without having to recharge, or if it needs to be recharged, it can be achieved in a way that is not cumbersome for its user (e.g., using wireless charging).
To improve energy management in wearables, hardware research should focus on the optimization of specific tasks of the wearable without relying on software. In particular, given the use of DL to classify and recognize wearable sensor data and the future use of FL to train ML models at the edge, hardware research can focus on alternate implementations of deep neural networks and other ML models to minimize power. Currently, FL algorithms may use high-power-consuming GPUs in battery-powered devices such as wearables to train distributed DL models, which may affect the usefulness of a wearable device [242,243]. An example of hardware-based optimization for DL models is the IBM Fusion chip [244], which can encode an artificial neural network analogically using phase-change memory (PCM) circuits performing classification without using a microprocessor, thus accelerating a classification task while minimizing power. Other areas of research include intelligent software management to predict power usage and to switch among different power profiles (software optimizations such as decreasing the clock rate frequency [43]) and harvesting techniques that can collect energy from a wearable’s environment to enable its continuous operation.
A second aspect of energy management is the cost of energy needed to enable a wearable sensing system, from fabrication to operation and retirement or disposal. According to Smil [245], and using a concept called embodied energy (the sum of energy required to produce a good or service [246]), an approximation to the embodied energy of the production of all laptops, tablet, and mobile phones sold in 2015 was 1 EJ (1 × 1018 Joules) with an approximate weight of 550,000 metric tons; the 72 million cars sold during the same year accounted for 7 EJ of energy, while weighting about 100 million tons. According to his analysis, while the cars weighed 180 more times that of all portable electronics, they required only seven times as much energy to make [245]; while a car may last for a decade (or longer), many portable devices are disposed only after two years of operation. Cellular networks, which are needed for many future wearables, face a similar issue. In a research study, Humar et al. [247] found that embodied energy in cellular networks cannot be neglected because it accounts for an important and significant amount of their total energy consumption, and that embodied energy should be seriously considered in the design and development of other devices and systems used in the telecommunications sector (e.g., data centers). Thus, more work is needed to better estimate, optimize, and manage the energy consumption of telecommunication systems (such as wearable sensing systems) across their full lifecycle.

6.5. Interoperability

Wearable payment systems, fitness, and medical wearables are three of the fastest-growing market segments of wearable services. While the financial payments industry has worked (since the early years of 2000) to make payment systems interoperable and secure through standards such as the Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS) [16,248,249], this was not the case for fitness wearable services as of 2021.
On the fitness wearables side, the competition among many start-ups and well-established technological companies to position themselves as major players in the wearables market has made their wearable ecosystems closed ecosystems, with the exception of when a wearable/tech company takes over another wearable company (e.g., Google’s Fitbit acquisition in 2021 for USD 2.1 billion [250]), or when a company partners through business deals with third parties, including insurance companies or employee wellness benefit services. For example, Virgin Pulse, as of October of 2021, was supporting eight wearable brands including Fitbit, Misfit, Garmin, Polar, Withings, MiBand (via VP Mobile App), Apple Watch (via VP Mobile App), and the Samsung Gear family (via VP Mobile App) [251]. Thus, which data can be shared among different systems is left to each company, which may hinder interoperability. On the medical wearables side (m-Health), the regulations to determine if a wearable is an approved medical device and what constitutes an electronic health record (EHR) varies from country to country [252,253]. For example, in the U.S., the process to approve a device for the purpose of medical diagnosis, cure, mitigation, and treatment of disease in humans or other animals is managed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA/USFDA) [254]. Depending on the intrusiveness and risks to the human or animal, the device can fall into three classes (I being the lowest risk and III being the highest risk) and can take up approximately eight months to be FDA-approved. However, it can take much more time to document all the needed information for safety approval. For a wearable with connectivity (wired, wireless, or public Internet or intranet), the FDA submission should include a cybersecurity review of the device similar to the one described on the guidance document titled Content of Premarket Submissions for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices [255]. A submitting organization can use a list of FDA-recognized cybersecurity consensus standards for IT and medical device security to document cybersecurity management. Table 8 presents these FDA-recognized standards (as of October 2021).
For EHR records in the U.S., if the data records generated by a medical device will be stored as part of an electronic health record (EHR), then different guidelines are used, which include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The largest companies in terms of market share developing software for EHR management tend to have closed networks (allowing sharing of EHRs easily only amongst network members of a specific company [256]), which has prompted the creation of alliances to share EHRs among smaller EHR software providers and practitioners (e.g., CommonWell Health Alliance [257]), lately as part of the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (U.S. CARES Act) [258], giving hospitals and medical practitioners the option to use application programming interfaces (APIs) to exchange data using the recently developed United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI), which is a standardized set of health data classes and elements to allow interoperable exchange of health information nationwide. The second version of the USCDI was released in July 2021 [259].
While it is not mandated for fitness wearables companies to use medical-level standards, the latest development of standards for healthcare devices can provide interoperability among consumer wearables services in a secure and privacy-protected way, which may benefit users in the near future.

7. Conclusions

Over the last few decades, we have witnessed significant developments in the design and deployment of wearable sensing technologies. The size and cost of these technologies continue to decrease while their performance and capabilities continue to improve, making them increasingly pervasive in a wide range of applications. We foresee that wearable sensing technologies and services will continue to be improved and deployed worldwide in the future. In this work, we reviewed technological advances that have made wearable sensing possible and affordable. We described different types of wearable sensors, communication and remote services technologies, and security and privacy issues related to wearable devices. We also reviewed the use of consumer wearables during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we discussed research challenges that must be addressed to further improve wearable sensing systems in terms of their designs, energy consumption, security, privacy, and interoperability.
In this review, we did not discuss the extensive use of different types of sensors that track human behaviors (e.g., movements of elderly people or flexing a finger) for different types of users in various types of environments, the safety of wearable sensors (we only presented a summary of FDA-approved standards), integration issues with body area networks (BANs) with other emerging technologies (e.g., fog, edge, and 6G), or AI-enabled sensors that could play a pivotal role in future medical services. In the future, we will explore some of these issues.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.J.P. and S.Z.; investigation, A.J.P. and S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J.P. and S.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.J.P. and S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant award No. 1950416.

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped improve the paper’s content, quality, and organization. Alfredo J. Perez dedicates this work to the memory of Freddy Perez-Bossa and Miguel A. Labrador.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
cmcentimeter
4GFourth-generation cellular networks
5GFifth-generation cellular networks
6GSixth-generation cellular network
AAMIAssociation for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation
APIApplication Programming Interface
A/VAudio/Video
AESAdvanced Encryption Standard
AIArtificial Intelligence
ANSIAmerican National Standards Institute
ARAugmented Reality
BANBody Area Network
BCIBrain-Computer Interfaces
BLEBluetooth Low Energy
CARESU.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CCDCharged Coupled Device
CLSIClinical & Laboratory Standards Institute
CMOSComplementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor
CNNConvolutional Neural Network
COVID-19Coronavirus Disease 2019
DAppsDistributed Apps
DDoSDistributed Denial of Service
DLDeep Learning
DNNDeep Neural Network
DNSDomain Name System
DoSDenial of Service
DVRDigital Video Recorder
ECGElectrocardiography
EEGElectroencephalography
EHRElectronic Health Record
EJExajoule
EUEuropean Union
FDAFood and Drug Administration
FLFederated Learning
GDPRGeneral Data Protection Regulation
GLONASSGlobal Navigation Satellite System
GMMGaussian Mixture Model
GPSGlobal Positioning System
GPUGraphical Processing Unit
GSRGalvanic Skin Response
HCSHuman-Centric Sensing
HDFSHadoop Distributed File System
HIPAAHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Ac
HITECHHealth Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
IECInternational Electrotechnical Commission
IEEEInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IoTInternet of Things
ITInformation Technology
IRInfraRed
ISAInternational Society of Automation
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
LANLocal Area Network
LBSLocation-Based Services
LiDARLight Detection And Ranging
LSTMLong Short-Term Memory
MACMedium Access Control
MANETMobile Adhoc NETworks
MEMSMicroelectromechanical Systems
m-HealthMobile Health
MITMMan In the Middle
MLMachine Learning
MRFMarkov Random Field
NFCNear-Field Communication
NNNeural Network
OSOperating System
PA-DSSPayment Application Data Security Standard
PANPersonal Area Network
PBPetabytes
PCAPrincipal Component Analysis
PCMPhase-Change Memory
PPGPhotoplethysmography
PS/CSParticipatory/Crowdsensing Systems
PVPhotovoltaic
RFRadiofrequency
RFIDRadiofrequency Identification
SARS-CoV-2Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
SQLStructured Query Language
SVMSupport Vector Machine
TCP/IPTransmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol
TWSTrue Wireless Stereo
ULUL Incorporated, previously known as Underwriters Laboratories
USDUS Dollars
USFDAUS Food and Drug Administration
WLANWireless Local Area Network
WSNWireless Sensor Network
WWANWireless Wide Area Network

References

  1. Hayward, J. Wearable Technology Forecasts 2021–2031. Available online: https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-report/wearable-technology-forecasts-2021-2031/839 (accessed on 26 September 2021).
  2. Gartner Forecasts Global Spending on Wearable Devices to Total $81.5 Billion in 2021. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2021-01-11-gartner-forecasts-global-spending-on-wearable-devices-to-total-81-5-billion-in-2021 (accessed on 26 September 2021).
  3. Lee, L. Global TWS Hearables Market Tracker and Analysis: Q2 2021. Available online: https://report.counterpointresearch.com/posts/report_view/Emerging_Tech/2452 (accessed on 26 September 2021).
  4. De Sio, L.; Ding, B.; Focsan, M.; Kogermann, K.; Pascoal-Faria, P.; Petronela, F.; Mitchell, G.; Zussman, E.; Pierini, F. Personalized Reusable Face Masks with Smart Nano-Assisted Destruction of Pathogens for COVID-19: A Visionary Road. Chem. A Eur. J. 2021, 27, 6112–6130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Razer. Project Hazel. Available online: https://www.razer.com/concepts/razer-project-hazel (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  6. UVMask. UVMask. Available online: https://uvmask.com/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  7. Trafton, A. New Face Mask Prototype Can Detect Covid-19 Infection. Available online: https://news.mit.edu/2021/face-mask-covid-19-detection-0628 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  8. Nguyen, P.Q.; Soenksen, L.R.; Donghia, N.M.; Angenent-Mari, N.M.; de Puig, H.; Huang, A.; Lee, R.; Slomovic, S.; Galbersanini, T.; Lansberry, G.; et al. Wearable materials with embedded synthetic biology sensors for biomolecule detection. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ahmed, N.; Michelin, R.A.; Xue, W.; Ruj, S.; Malaney, R.; Kanhere, S.S.; Seneviratne, A.; Hu, W.; Janicke, H.; Jha, S.K. A survey of COVID-19 contact tracing apps. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 134577–134601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Drew, D.A.; Nguyen, L.H.; Steves, C.J.; Menni, C.; Freydin, M.; Varsavsky, T.; Sudre, C.H.; Cardoso, M.J.; Ourselin, S.; Wolf, J.; et al. Rapid implementation of mobile technology for real-time epidemiology of COVID-19. Science 2020, 368, 1362–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cho, H.; Ippolito, D.; Yu, Y.W. Contact tracing mobile apps for COVID-19: Privacy considerations and related trade-offs. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.11511. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wright, J.H.; Caudill, R. Remote treatment delivery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychother. Psychosom. 2020, 89, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Markets&Markets. Knowledge Store Interactive Wearable Dashboard. Available online: https://www.mnmks.com/demo/pages/mega_trends/wearable (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  14. Marketwatch. Fitness Tracker Market 2021 Global impact of COVID-19 on Size, Share, Trends, Historical Analysis, Opportunities and Industry Segments Poised for Rapid Growth by 2026. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/bwrd6efb (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  15. Wearable Fitness Tracker Market Research Report by Display Type, by Device Type, by Operating System, by Distribution-Global Forecast to 2025—Cumulative Impact of COVID-19. Available online: https://www.yahoo.com/now/wearable-fitness-tracker-market-research-130900948.html (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  16. Secure Technology Alliance. Contactless Payments Resources. Available online: https://www.securetechalliance.org/activities-councils-contactless-payments-resources (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  17. Téllez, J.; Zeadally, S. Mobile Payment Systems: Secure Network Architectures and Protocols; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bello, G.; Perez, A.J. Adapting financial technology standards to blockchain platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Southeast Conference, Kennesaw, GA, USA, 18–20 April 2019; pp. 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  19. NFC Ring. Available online: https://nfcring.com/ (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  20. GVR. Fitness Tracker Market Size Worth $138.7 Billion By 2028|CAGR: 18.9%. Available online: https://tinyurl.com/bunfepdy (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  21. GVR. Wearable Payments Devices Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Device Type (Fitness Tracker, Smart Watches), by Technology, By Application, by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2021–2028. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/wearable-payments-devices-market (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  22. VMR. Fitness Tracker Market Size And Forecast. Available online: https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/fitness-tracker-market/ (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  23. Perez, A.J.; Labrador, M.A.; Barbeau, S.J. G-sense: A scalable architecture for global sensing and monitoring. IEEE Netw. 2010, 24, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lane, N.D.; Miluzzo, E.; Lu, H.; Peebles, D.; Choudhury, T.; Campbell, A.T. A survey of mobile phone sensing. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2010, 48, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Christin, D.; Reinhardt, A.; Kanhere, S.S.; Hollick, M. A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applications. J. Syst. Softw. 2011, 84, 1928–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lara, O.D.; Labrador, M.A. A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2012, 15, 1192–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khan, W.Z.; Xiang, Y.; Aalsalem, M.Y.; Arshad, Q. Mobile phone sensing systems: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2012, 15, 402–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Macias, E.; Suarez, A.; Lloret, J. Mobile sensing systems. Sensors 2013, 13, 17292–17321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Park, S.; Chung, K.; Jayaraman, S. Wearables: Fundamentals, advancements, and a roadmap for the future. In Wearable Sensors; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jaimes, L.G.; Vergara-Laurens, I.J.; Raij, A. A survey of incentive techniques for mobile crowd sensing. IEEE Internet Things J. 2015, 2, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Merlo, A.; Migliardi, M.; Caviglione, L. A survey on energy-aware security mechanisms. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2015, 24, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bellekens, X.; Hamilton, A.; Seeam, P.; Nieradzinska, K.; Franssen, Q.; Seeam, A. Pervasive eHealth services a security and privacy risk awareness survey. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference On Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics And Assessment (CyberSA), London, UK, 13–14 June 2016; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  33. Restuccia, F.; Das, S.K.; Payton, J. Incentive mechanisms for participatory sensing: Survey and research challenges. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN) 2016, 12, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hammerla, N.Y.; Halloran, S.; Plötz, T. Deep, Convolutional, and Recurrent Models for Human Activity Recognition Using Wearables. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  35. Seneviratne, S.; Hu, Y.; Nguyen, T.; Lan, G.; Khalifa, S.; Thilakarathna, K.; Hassan, M.; Seneviratne, A. A survey of wearable devices and challenges. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 2573–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tana, J.; Forss, M.; Hellsten, T. The Use of Wearables in Healthcare–Challenges and Opportunities. Available online: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/140584 (accessed on 5 October 2021).
  37. Qiu, H.; Wang, X.; Xie, F. A survey on smart wearables in the application of fitness. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 15th International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, 15th International Conference on Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 3rd International Conference on Big Data Intelligence and Computing and Cyber Science and Technology Congress (DASC/PiCom/DataCom/CyberSciTech), Orlando, FL, USA, 6–10 November 2017; pp. 303–307. [Google Scholar]
  38. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S. Privacy issues and solutions for consumer wearables. Professional 2017, 20, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Peake, J.M.; Kerr, G.; Sullivan, J.P. A critical review of consumer wearables, mobile applications, and equipment for providing biofeedback, monitoring stress, and sleep in physically active populations. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dunn, J.; Runge, R.; Snyder, M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Pers. Med. 2018, 15, 429–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Neshenko, N.; Bou-Harb, E.; Crichigno, J.; Kaddoum, G.; Ghani, N. Demystifying IoT security: An exhaustive survey on IoT vulnerabilities and a first empirical look on Internet-scale IoT exploitations. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2019, 21, 2702–2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van Der Linden, D.; Zamansky, A.; Hadar, I.; Craggs, B.; Rashid, A. Buddy’s wearable is not your buddy: Privacy implications of pet wearables. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2019, 17, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zeadally, S.; Shaikh, F.K.; Talpur, A.; Sheng, Q.Z. Design architectures for energy harvesting in the Internet of Things. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 128, 109901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Niknejad, N.; Ismail, W.B.; Mardani, A.; Liao, H.; Ghani, I. A comprehensive overview of smart wearables: The state of the art literature, recent advances, and future challenges. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Díaz, S.; Stephenson, J.B.; Labrador, M.A. Use of wearable sensor technology in gait, balance, and range of motion analysis. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Dian, F.J.; Vahidnia, R.; Rahmati, A. Wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT), applications, opportunities, and challenges: A Survey. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 69200–69211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Svertoka, E.; Saafi, S.; Rusu-Casandra, A.; Burget, R.; Marghescu, I.; Hosek, J.; Ometov, A. Wearables for Industrial Work Safety: A Survey. Sensors 2021, 21, 3844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ometov, A.; Shubina, V.; Klus, L.; Skibińska, J.; Saafi, S.; Pascacio, P.; Flueratoru, L.; Gaibor, D.Q.; Chukhno, N.; Chukhno, O.; et al. A survey on wearable technology: History, state-of-the-art and current challenges. Comput. Netw. 2021, 193, 108074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. The Wearables Database. Available online: https://vandrico.com/wearables.html (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  50. Ramokapane, K.M.; van der Linden, D.; Zamansky, A. Does my dog really need a gadget? What can we learn from pet owners’ amotivations for using pet wearables? In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction, Haifa, Israel, 12–14 November 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kiourti, A.; Nikita, K.S. A review of in-body biotelemetry devices: Implantables, ingestibles, and injectables. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 64, 1422–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Dias, T. Electronic Textiles: Smart Fabrics and Wearable Technology; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Castaneda, D.; Esparza, A.; Ghamari, M.; Soltanpur, C.; Nazeran, H. A review on wearable photoplethysmography sensors and their potential future applications in health care. Int. J. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2018, 4, 195. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Ghosh, S.; Bose, M.; Kudeshia, A. GPS and GSM Enabled Smart Blind Stick. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Communication, Circuits, and Systems 2020, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, 16–20 October 2020; pp. 179–185. [Google Scholar]
  55. Eckart, R.E.; Kinney, K.G.; Belnap, C.M.; Le, T.D. Ventricular fibrillation refractory to automatic internal cardiac defibrillator in Fabry’s disease. Cardiology 2000, 94, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Prausnitz, M.R.; Langer, R. Transdermal drug delivery. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26, 1261–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sharma, R.; Singh, D.; Gaur, P.; Joshi, D. Intelligent automated drug administration and therapy: Future of healthcare. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ericsson. Ericsson Mobility Report. Available online: https://www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  59. BlueBite. The State of NFC in 2021. Available online: https://www.bluebite.com/nfc/nfc-usage-statistics (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  60. Stables, J. Wearables Popularity Soars in 2020—And Huawei Is the Big Winner. Available online: https://www.wareable.com/news/wearables-popularity-soars-in-2020-8322 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  61. Statistica. Unit Sales of True Wireless Hearables Worldwide from 2018 to 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/985608/worldwide-sales-volume-true-wireless-hearables/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  62. Henriksen, A.; Mikalsen, M.H.; Woldaregay, A.Z.; Muzny, M.; Hartvigsen, G.; Hopstock, L.A.; Grimsgaard, S. Using fitness trackers and smartwatches to measure physical activity in research: Analysis of consumer wrist-worn wearables. J. Med. Internet Res. 2018, 20, e9157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vasudevan, R.S.; Horiuchi, Y.; Torriani, F.J.; Cotter, B.; Maisel, S.M.; Dadwal, S.S.; Gaynes, R.; Maisel, A.S. Persistent Value of the Stethoscope in the Age of COVID-19. Am. J. Med. 2020, 133, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hammond, R. A Pilot Study on the Validity and Reliability of Portable Ultrasound Assessment of Swallowing with Dysphagic Patients. Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jokic, P.; Magno, M. Powering smart wearable systems with flexible solar energy harvesting. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Baltimore, MD, USA, 28–31 May 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  66. Aubert, H. RFID technology for human implant devices. Comptes Rendus Phys. 2011, 12, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Alberto, J.; Leal, C.; Fernandes, C.; Lopes, P.A.; Paisana, H.; de Almeida, A.T.; Tavakoli, M. Fully untethered battery-free biomonitoring electronic tattoo with wireless energy harvesting. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. González, J.L.; Rubio, A.; Moll, F. Human powered piezoelectric batteries to supply power to wearable electronic devices. Int. J. Soc. Mater. Eng. Resour. 2002, 10, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Radziemski, L.; Makin, I.R.S. In vivo demonstration of ultrasound power delivery to charge implanted medical devices via acute and survival porcine studies. Ultrasonics 2016, 64, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Manjarres, J.; Pardo, M. An Energy Logger for Kinetic-Powered Wrist-Wearable Systems. Electronics 2020, 9, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Francioso, L.; De Pascali, C.; Farella, I.; Martucci, C.; Cretì, P.; Siciliano, P.; Perrone, A. Flexible thermoelectric generator for ambient assisted living wearable biometric sensors. J. Power Sources 2011, 196, 3239–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hyland, M.; Hunter, H.; Liu, J.; Veety, E.; Vashaee, D. Wearable thermoelectric generators for human body heat harvesting. Appl. Energy 2016, 182, 518–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Castano, L.M.; Flatau, A.B. Smart fabric sensors and e-textile technologies: A review. Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 053001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ondrus, J.; Pigneur, Y. An assessment of NFC for future mobile payment systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Management of Mobile Business (ICMB 2007), Toronto, ON, Canada, 9–11 July 2007; p. 43. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kulkarni, R. Near Field Communication (NFC) Technology and Its Application. Techno-Societal 2021, 2020, 745–751. [Google Scholar]
  76. Wilder, V.T.; Gao, Y.; Wang, S.P.; Perez, A.J. Multi-Factor Stateful Authentication using NFC, and Mobile Phones. In Proceedings of the 2019 SoutheastCon, Huntsville, AL, USA, 11–14 April 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  77. Picard, R.W.; Vyzas, E.; Healey, J. Toward machine emotional intelligence: Analysis of affective physiological state. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2001, 23, 1175–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hwang, S.; Seo, J.; Jebelli, H.; Lee, S. Feasibility analysis of heart rate monitoring of construction workers using a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor embedded in a wristband-type activity tracker. Autom. Constr. 2016, 71, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Perez, A.J.; Rivera-Morales, K.G.; Labrador, M.A.; Vergara-Laurens, I. HR-auth: Heart rate data authentication using consumer wearables. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/ACM 5th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MOBILESoft), Gothenburg, Sweden, 27–28 May 2018; pp. 88–89. [Google Scholar]
  80. Lee, H.; Kim, E.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.; Kim, M.; Yoo, H.J.; Yoo, S. Toward all-day wearable health monitoring: An ultralow-power, reflective organic pulse oximetry sensing patch. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaas9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Fortino, G.; Giampà, V. PPG-based methods for non invasive and continuous blood pressure measurement: An overview and development issues in body sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Medical Measurements and Applications, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 30 April–1 May 2010; pp. 10–13. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lau-Zhu, A.; Lau, M.P.; McLoughlin, G. Mobile EEG in research on neurodevelopmental disorders: Opportunities and challenges. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2019, 36, 100635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Abiri, R.; Borhani, S.; Sellers, E.W.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, X. A comprehensive review of EEG-based brain–computer interface paradigms. J. Neural Eng. 2019, 16, 011001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous glucose monitoring and intensive treatment of type diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 1464–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Lara, O.D.; Pérez, A.J.; Labrador, M.A.; Posada, J.D. Centinela: A human activity recognition system based on acceleration and vital sign data. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2012, 8, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Laput, G.; Ahuja, K.; Goel, M.; Harrison, C. Ubicoustics: Plug-and-play acoustic activity recognition. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Berlin, Germany, 14–17 October 2018; pp. 213–224. [Google Scholar]
  87. Labrador, M.A.; Perez, A.J.; Wightman, P.M. Location-Based Information Systems: Developing Real-Time Tracking Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  88. Basiri, A.; Lohan, E.S.; Moore, T.; Winstanley, A.; Peltola, P.; Hill, C.; Amirian, P.; e Silva, P.F. Indoor location based services challenges, requirements and usability of current solutions. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2017, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Griffith, S. Bystanders’ privacy. IT Prof. 2017, 19, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Weinstein, R. RFID: A technical overview and its application to the enterprise. IT Prof. 2005, 7, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S. A communication architecture for crowd management in emergency and disruptive scenarios. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2019, 57, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Stein, S.; Lidar Is One of the iPhone and iPad’s Coolest Tricks. Here’s What Else It Can Do. Available online: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/lidar-is-one-of-the-iphone-ipad-coolest-tricks-its-only-getting-better/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  93. White, P.F.; Lazo, O.L.E.; Galeas, L.; Cao, X. Use of electroanalgesia and laser therapies as alternatives to opioids for acute and chronic pain management. F1000Research 2017, 6, 2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Asad, S.; Mooney, B.; Ahmad, I.; Huber, M.; Clark, A. Object detection and sensory feedback techniques in building smart cane for the visually impaired: An overview. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA), Corfu, Greece, 30 June–3 July 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mendez, D.; Perez, A.J.; Labrador, M.A.; Marron, J.J. P-sense: A participatory sensing system for air pollution monitoring and control. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), Seattle, WA, USA, 21–25 March 2011; pp. 344–347. [Google Scholar]
  96. Das, A.J.; Wahi, A.; Kothari, I.; Raskar, R. Ultra-portable, wireless smartphone spectrometer for rapid, non-destructive testing of fruit ripeness. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Dhanekar, S.; Rangra, K. Wearable Dosimeters for Medical and Defence Applications: A State of the Art Review. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2021, 6, 2000895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Vanveerdeghem, P.; Van Torre, P.; Thielens, A.; Knockaert, J.; Joseph, W.; Rogier, H. Compact personal distributed wearable exposimeter. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 4393–4401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Masse, F.; Gonzenbach, R.; Paraschiv-Ionescu, A.; Luft, A.R.; Aminian, K. Wearable barometric pressure sensor to improve postural transition recognition of mobility-impaired stroke patients. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2016, 24, 1210–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Makma, J.; Thanapatay, D.; Isshiki, T.; Chinrungrueng, J.; Thiemjarus, S. Enhancing Accelerometer-based Human Activity Recognition with Relative Barometric Pressure Signal. In Proceedings of the 2021 18th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 19–22 May 2021; pp. 529–532. [Google Scholar]
  101. Seyedi, M.; Kibret, B.; Lai, D.T.; Faulkner, M. A survey on intrabody communications for body area network applications. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2013, 60, 2067–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zeadally, S.; Siddiqui, F.; Baig, Z. 25 years of Bluetooth technology. Future Internet 2019, 11, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Negra, R.; Jemili, I.; Belghith, A. Wireless body area networks: Applications and technologies. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 83, 1274–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Liu, Y.H.; Huang, X.; Vidojkovic, M.; Ba, A.; Harpe, P.; Dolmans, G.; de Groot, H. A 1.9 nJ/b 2.4 GHz multistandard (Bluetooth Low Energy/Zigbee/IEEE802. 15.6) transceiver for personal/body-area networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers, San Francisco, CA, USA, 17–21 February 2013; pp. 446–447. [Google Scholar]
  105. Kwak, K.S.; Ullah, S.; Ullah, N. An overview of IEEE 802.15. 6 standard. In Proceedings of the 2010 3rd International Symposium on Applied Sciences in Biomedical and Communication Technologies (ISABEL 2010), Rome, Italy, 7–10 November 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  106. Coskun, V.; Ozdenizci, B.; Ok, K. A survey on near field communication (NFC) technology. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2013, 71, 2259–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Company, T.S. Sensium Wireless Vitals Monitoring. Available online: https://www.sensium.co.uk/us/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  108. ANT Basics. Available online: https://www.thisisant.com/developer/ant/ant-basics/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  109. NFC Market. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/near-field-communication-nfc-market-520.html (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  110. Gabriel, S.; Lau, R.; Gabriel, C. The dielectric properties of biological tissues: III. Parametric models for the dielectric spectrum of tissues. Phys. Med. Biol. 1996, 41, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Suda, T.; Moore, M.; Nakano, T.; Egashira, R.; Enomoto, A.; Hiyama, S.; Moritani, Y. Exploratory research on molecular communication between nanomachines. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), Washington, DC, USA, 25–29 June 2005; Volume 25, p. 29. [Google Scholar]
  112. Pierobon, M.; Akyildiz, I.F. A physical end-to-end model for molecular communication in nanonetworks. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2010, 28, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Farsad, N.; Yilmaz, H.B.; Eckford, A.; Chae, C.B.; Guo, W. A comprehensive survey of recent advancements in molecular communication. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2016, 18, 1887–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Galluccio, L.; Melodia, T.; Palazzo, S.; Santagati, G.E. Challenges and implications of using ultrasonic communications in intra-body area networks. In Proceedings of the 2012 9th Annual Conference on Wireless On-Demand Network Systems and Services (WONS), Courmayeur, Italy, 9–11 January 2012; pp. 182–189. [Google Scholar]
  115. Carroll, R.; Cnossen, R.; Schnell, M.; Simons, D. Continua: An interoperable personal healthcare ecosystem. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2007, 6, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lee, Y.F. An interoperability solution for legacy healthcare devices. IT Prof. 2015, 17, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Co, S. Samsung Galaxy Watch Silver 4G. Available online: https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/wearables/smartwatches/galaxy-watch–46mm–silver–lte–sm-r805uzsaxar/ (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  118. Fraga-Lamas, P.; Fernández-Caramés, T.M.; Suárez-Albela, M.; Castedo, L.; González-López, M. A review on internet of things for defense and public safety. Sensors 2016, 16, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Hu, X.; Chu, T.H.; Chan, H.C.; Leung, V.C. Vita: A crowdsensing-oriented mobile cyber-physical system. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2013, 1, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ismail, L.; Materwala, H.; Zeadally, S. Lightweight blockchain for healthcare. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 149935–149951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lin, C.; He, D.; Zeadally, S.; Huang, X.; Liu, Z. Blockchain-based Data Sharing System for Sensing-as-a-Service in Smart Cities. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. (TOIT) 2021, 21, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lu, Y.; Tang, Q.; Wang, G. Zebralancer: Private and anonymous crowdsourcing system atop open blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 38th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Vienna, Austria, 2–5 July 2018; pp. 853–865. [Google Scholar]
  123. Chatzopoulos, D.; Gujar, S.; Faltings, B.; Hui, P. Privacy preserving and cost optimal mobile crowdsensing using smart contracts on blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 15th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS), Chengdu, China, 9–12 October 2018; pp. 442–450. [Google Scholar]
  124. Huang, J.; Kong, L.; Kong, L.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Chen, G. Blockchain-based crowd-sensing System. In Proceedings of the 2018 1st IEEE International Conference on Hot Information-Centric Networking (HotICN), Shenzhen, China, 15–17 August 2018; pp. 234–235. [Google Scholar]
  125. Zhu, S.; Cai, Z.; Hu, H.; Li, Y.; Li, W. zkCrowd: A hybrid blockchain-based crowdsourcing platform. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019, 16, 4196–4205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kadadha, M.; Otrok, H.; Mizouni, R.; Singh, S.; Ouali, A. SenseChain: A blockchain-based crowdsensing framework for multiple requesters and multiple workers. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 105, 650–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kurt Peker, Y.; Rodriguez, X.; Ericsson, J.; Lee, S.J.; Perez, A.J. A cost analysis of internet of things sensor data storage on blockchain via smart contracts. Electronics 2020, 9, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Fu, Y.; Soman, C. Real-time Data Infrastructure at Uber. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data, Virtual Event, China, 20–25 June 2021; pp. 2503–2516. [Google Scholar]
  129. Barbeau, S.J.; Perez, R.A.; Labrador, M.A.; Perez, A.J.; Winters, P.L.; Georggi, N.L. A location-aware framework for intelligent real-time mobile applications. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2010, 10, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Barbeau, S.J.; Borning, A.; Watkins, K. OneBusAway multi-region–rapidly expanding mobile transit apps to new cities. J. Public Trans. 2014, 17, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Srivastava, M.; Abdelzaher, T.; Szymanski, B. Human-centric sensing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2012, 370, 176–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Colomo-Palacios, R.; Gómez-Pulido, J.A.; Pérez, A.J. Intelligent Health Services Based on Biomedical Smart Sensors. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Burke, J.A.; Estrin, D.; Hansen, M.; Parker, A.; Ramanathan, N.; Reddy, S.; Srivastava, M.B. Participatory sensing. In Proceedings of the Workshop on World-Sensor-Web (WSW’06) at SenSys’06, Boulder, CO, USA, 31 October–3 November 2006; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  134. Boukhechba, M.; Barnes, L.E. Swear: Sensing using wearables. Generalized human crowdsensing on smartwatches. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, San Diego, CA, USA, 16–20 July 2020; pp. 510–516. [Google Scholar]
  135. Mun, M.; Reddy, S.; Shilton, K.; Yau, N.; Burke, J.; Estrin, D.; Hansen, M.; Howard, E.; West, R.; Boda, P. PEIR, the personal environmental impact report, as a platform for participatory sensing systems research. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Krakow, Poland, 22–25 June 2009; pp. 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  136. Yamin, M.; Ades, Y. Crowd management with RFID and wireless technologies. In Proceedings of the 2009 First International Conference on Networks & Communications, Chennai, India, 27–29 December 2009; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  137. Franke, T.; Lukowicz, P.; Blanke, U. Smart crowds in smart cities: Real life, city scale deployments of a smartphone based participatory crowd management platform. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 2015, 6, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. El Khatib, R.F.; Zorba, N.; Hassanein, H.S. Rapid sensing-based emergency detection: A sequential approach. Comput. Commun. 2020, 159, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Rashid, M.T.; Wang, D. CovidSens: A vision on reliable social sensing for COVID-19. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 54, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Eisenman, S.B.; Lane, N.D.; Miluzzo, E.; Peterson, R.A.; Ahn, G.S.; Campbell, A.T. Metrosense project: People-centric sensing at scale. In Proceedings of the Workshop on World-Sensor-Web (WSW’06) at SenSys’06, Boulder, CO, USA, 31 October–3 November 2006; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  141. Balalaie, A.; Heydarnoori, A.; Jamshidi, P. Microservices architecture enables devops: Migration to a cloud-native architecture. IEEE Softw. 2016, 33, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Al-Debagy, O.; Martinek, P. A comparative review of microservices and monolithic architectures. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI), Budapest, Hungary, 21–22 November 2018; pp. 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  143. Ebert, C.; Gallardo, G.; Hernantes, J.; Serrano, N. DevOps. IEEE Softw. 2016, 33, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Cochran, J. A review and an empirical analysis of privacy policy and notices for consumer Internet of things. Secur. Priv. 2018, 1, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Kapadia, A.; Kotz, D.; Triandopoulos, N. Opportunistic sensing: Security challenges for the new paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2009 First International Communication Systems and Networks and Workshops, Bangalore, India, 5–10 January 2009; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  146. Gilbert, P.; Cox, L.P.; Jung, J.; Wetherall, D. Toward trustworthy mobile sensing. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems & Applications, Annapolis, MD, USA, 22–23 February 2010; pp. 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  147. Rahman, M.; Carbunar, B.; Banik, M. Fit and vulnerable: Attacks and defenses for a health monitoring device. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1304.5672. [Google Scholar]
  148. Shoukry, Y.; Martin, P.; Yona, Y.; Diggavi, S.; Srivastava, M. Pycra: Physical challenge-response authentication for active sensors under spoofing attacks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Denver, CO, USA, 12–16 October 2015; pp. 1004–1015. [Google Scholar]
  149. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Jabeur, N. Investigating security for ubiquitous sensor networks. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 109, 737–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Liu, J.; Sun, W. Smart attacks against intelligent wearables in people-centric internet of things. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Rieck, J. Attacks on fitness trackers revisited: A case-study of unfit firmware security. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1604.03313. [Google Scholar]
  152. Xu, F.; Qin, Z.; Tan, C.C.; Wang, B.; Li, Q. IMDGuard: Securing implantable medical devices with the external wearable guardian. In Proceedings of the 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, Shanghai, China, 10–15 April 2011; pp. 1862–1870. [Google Scholar]
  153. Yan, W.; Hylamia, S.; Voigt, T.; Rohner, C. PHY-IDS: A physical-layer spoofing attack detection system for wearable devices. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Wearable Systems and Applications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 19 June 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  154. Mendez, D.; Labrador, M.; Ramachandran, K. Data interpolation for participatory sensing systems. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2013, 9, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Mendez, D.; Labrador, M.A. On sensor data verification for participatory sensing systems. J. Netw. 2013, 8, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Bordel, B.; Alcarria, R.; Robles, T.; Sánchez-Picot, Á. Stochastic and information theory techniques to reduce large datasets and detect cyberattacks in Ambient Intelligence Environments. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 34896–34910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Bordel, B.; Alcarria, R.; Robles, T.; Iglesias, M.S. Data authentication and anonymization in IoT scenarios and future 5G networks using chaotic digital watermarking. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 22378–22398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Jabeur, N. Security and privacy in ubiquitous sensor networks. J. Inf. Process. Syst. 2018, 14, 286–308. [Google Scholar]
  159. Chandola, V.; Banerjee, A.; Kumar, V. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2009, 41, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Trinh, H.D.; Giupponi, L.; Dini, P. Urban anomaly detection by processing mobile traffic traces with LSTM neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 16th Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking (SECON), Boston, MA, USA, 10–13 June 2019; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  161. Pelati, A.; Meo, M.; Dini, P. A Semi-supervised Method to Identify Urban Anomalies through LTE PDCCH Fingerprinting. In Proceedings of the ICC 2021-IEEE International Conference on Communications, Montreal, QC, Canada, 14–23 June 2021; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  162. Zhang, M.; Li, T.; Yu, Y.; Li, Y.; Hui, P.; Zheng, Y. Urban anomaly analytics: Description, detection and prediction. IEEE Trans. Big Data 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Vallina-Rodriguez, N.; Crowcroft, J. ErdOS: Achieving energy savings in mobile OS. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on MobiArch, Bethesda, MD, USA, 28 June 2011; pp. 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  164. Kang, S.; Lee, J.; Jang, H.; Lee, H.; Lee, Y.; Park, S.; Park, T.; Song, J. Seemon: Scalable and energy-efficient context monitoring framework for sensor-rich mobile environments. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 17–20 June 2008; pp. 267–280. [Google Scholar]
  165. Dong, M.; Zhong, L. Self-constructive high-rate system energy modeling for battery-powered mobile systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Bethesda, MD, USA, 28 June–1 July 2011; pp. 335–348. [Google Scholar]
  166. Mittal, R.; Kansal, A.; Chandra, R. Empowering developers to estimate app energy consumption. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Istanbul, Turkey, 22–26 August 2012; pp. 317–328. [Google Scholar]
  167. Min, C.; Lee, Y.; Yoo, C.; Kang, S.; Choi, S.; Park, P.; Hwang, I.; Ju, Y.; Choi, S.; Song, J. PowerForecaster: Predicting smartphone power impact of continuous sensing applications at pre-installation time. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Seoul, South Korea, 1–4 November 2015; pp. 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  168. Ma, X.; Huang, P.; Jin, X.; Wang, P.; Park, S.; Shen, D.; Zhou, Y.; Saul, L.K.; Voelker, G.M. eDoctor: Automatically Diagnosing Abnormal Battery Drain Issues on Smartphones. In Proceedings of the 10th {USENIX} Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation ({NSDI} 13), Lombard, IL, USA, 2–5 April 2013; pp. 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  169. Xu, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhang, Y. V-edge: Fast self-constructive power modeling of smartphones based on battery voltage dynamics. In Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 13), Lombard, IL, USA, 2–5 April 2013; pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  170. Pathak, A.; Jindal, A.; Hu, Y.C.; Midkiff, S.P. What is keeping my phone awake? Characterizing and detecting no-sleep energy bugs in smartphone apps. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Low Wood Bay Lake District, UK, 25–29 June 2012; pp. 267–280. [Google Scholar]
  171. Martin, T.; Hsiao, M.; Ha, D.; Krishnaswami, J. Denial-of-service attacks on battery-powered mobile computers. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE Annual Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, Orlando, FL, USA, 14–17 March 2004; pp. 309–318. [Google Scholar]
  172. Newaz, A.K.M.; Sikder, A.K.; Rahman, M.A.; Uluagac, A.S. A survey on security and privacy issues in modern healthcare systems. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2005.07359. [Google Scholar]
  173. Bianchi, A.; Oakley, I. Wearable authentication: Trends and opportunities. Inf. Technol. 2016, 58, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Issoufaly, T.; Tournoux, P.U. BLEB: Bluetooth Low Energy Botnet for large scale individual tracking. In Proceedings of the 2017 1st International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp), Reduit, Mauritius, 19–21 September 2017; pp. 115–120. [Google Scholar]
  175. Medina, R.P.; Neundorfer, E.B.; Chouchane, R.; Perez, A. PRAST: Using Logic Bombs to Exploit the Android Permission Model and a Module Based Solution. In Proceedings of the 2018 13th International Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software (MALWARE), Nantucket, MA, USA, 22–24 October 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  176. Zhang, Q.; Liang, Z. Security analysis of bluetooth low energy based smart wristbands. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Frontiers of Sensors Technologies (ICFST), Shenzhen, China, 14–16 April 2017; pp. 421–425. [Google Scholar]
  177. Fereidooni, H.; Classen, J.; Spink, T.; Patras, P.; Miettinen, M.; Sadeghi, A.R.; Hollick, M.; Conti, M. Breaking fitness records without moving: Reverse engineering and spoofing fitbit. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses, Atlanta, GA, USA, 18–20 September 2017; pp. 48–69. [Google Scholar]
  178. AV-Test. Seven Fitness Wristbands and the Apple Watch in a Security Check. Available online: https://www.av-test.org/en/news/seven-fitness-wristbands-and-the-apple-watch-in-a-security-check-2016 (accessed on 5 October 2021).
  179. Goyal, R.; Dragoni, N.; Spognardi, A. Mind the tracker you wear: A security analysis of wearable health trackers. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Pisa, Italy, 4–8 April 2016; pp. 131–136. [Google Scholar]
  180. Sellahewa, H.; Ibrahim, N.; Zeadally, S. Biometric Authentication for Wearables. In Biometric-Based Physical and Cybersecurity Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 355–386. [Google Scholar]
  181. Ometov, A.; Petrov, V.; Bezzateev, S.; Andreev, S.; Koucheryavy, Y.; Gerla, M. Challenges of multi-factor authentication for securing advanced IoT applications. IEEE Netw. 2019, 33, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Ligatti, J.; Cetin, C.; Engram, S.; Subils, J.B.; Goldgof, D. Coauthentication. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, Limassol, Cyprus, 8–12 April 2019; pp. 1906–1915. [Google Scholar]
  183. Corn, B.; Perez, A.J.; Ruiz, A.; Cetin, C.; Ligatti, J. An Evaluation of the Power Consumption of Coauthentication as a Continuous User Authentication Method in Mobile Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Southeast Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, 2–4 April 2020; pp. 268–271. [Google Scholar]
  184. Robles-Cordero, A.M.; Zayas, W.J.; Peker, Y.K. Extracting the security features implemented in a bluetooth le connection. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Seattle, WA, USA, 10–13 December 2018; pp. 2559–2563. [Google Scholar]
  185. Becker, J.K.; Li, D.; Starobinski, D. Tracking Anonymized Bluetooth Devices. In Proceedings of the 2019 Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Stockholm, Sweden, 16–20 July 2019; pp. 50–65. [Google Scholar]
  186. Knackmuß, J.; Möller, T.; Pommerien, W.; Creutzburg, R. Security risk of medical devices in IT networks-the case of an infusion pump unit. Proc. Spie Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 2015, 9411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Krasner, H. The Cost of Poor Software Quality in the US: A 2020 Report. Available online: https://www.it-cisq.org/the-cost-of-poor-software-quality-in-the-us-a-2020-report.htm (accessed on 5 October 2021).
  188. Ramač, R.; Mandić, V.; Taušan, N.; Rios, N.; Freire, S.; Pérez, B.; Castellanos, C.; Correal, D.; Pacheco, A.; Lopez, G.; et al. Prevalence, Common Causes and Effects of Technical Debt: Results from a Family of Surveys with the IT Industry. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2109.13771. [Google Scholar]
  189. Kruchten, P.; Nord, R.L.; Ozkaya, I. Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Softw. 2012, 29, 18–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Applegate, S. The Dawn of Kinetic Cyber. In Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Conference on Cyber Conflict, Tallinn, Estonia, 4–7 June 2013; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  191. Camara, C.; Peris-Lopez, P.; De Fuentes, J.M.; Marchal, S. Access control for implantable medical devices. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Corbin, B.A. When “Things” Go Wrong: Redefining Liability for the Internet of Medical Things. SCL Rev. 2019, 71, 1. [Google Scholar]
  193. Zeadally, S.; Badra, M. Privacy in a Digital, Networked World: Technologies, Implications and Solutions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  194. Motti, V.G.; Caine, K. Users’ privacy concerns about wearables. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, San Juan, PR, USA, 30 January 2015; pp. 231–244. [Google Scholar]
  195. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S. PEAR: A privacy-enabled architecture for crowdsensing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems, Krakow, Poland, 20–23 September 2017; pp. 166–171. [Google Scholar]
  196. Hoh, B.; Gruteser, M.; Herring, R.; Ban, J.; Work, D.; Herrera, J.C.; Bayen, A.M.; Annavaram, M.; Jacobson, Q. Virtual trip lines for distributed privacy-preserving traffic monitoring. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 17–20 June 2008; pp. 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  197. Lu, H.; Lane, N.; Eisenman, S.; Campbell, A. Bubble-sensing: A new paradigm for binding a sensing task to the physical world using mobile phones. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Mobile Devices and Urban Sensing, St. Louis, MO, USA, 22–24 April 2008; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  198. Christin, D.; López, P.S.; Reinhardt, A.; Hollick, M.; Kauer, M. Share with strangers: Privacy bubbles as user-centered privacy control for mobile content sharing applications. Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep. 2013, 17, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Kapadia, A.; Henderson, T.; Fielding, J.J.; Kotz, D. Virtual walls: Protecting digital privacy in pervasive environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Pervasive Computing, White Plains, NY, USA, 19–23 March 2007; pp. 162–179. [Google Scholar]
  200. Truong, K.N.; Patel, S.N.; Summet, J.W.; Abowd, G.D. Preventing camera recording by designing a capture-resistant environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Tokyo, Japan, 11–14 September 2005; pp. 73–86. [Google Scholar]
  201. Tiscareno, V.; Johnson, K.; Lawrence, C. Systems and Methods for Receiving Infrared Data with a Camera Designed to Detect Images Based on Visible Light. US Patent 8,848,059, 30 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  202. Wagstaff, J. Using Bluetooth to Disable Camera Phones. Available online: http://www.loosewireblog.com/2004/09/using_bluetooth.html (accessed on 17 September 2021).
  203. Blank, P.; Kirrane, S.; Spiekermann, S. Privacy-aware restricted areas for unmanned aerial systems. IEEE Secur. Priv. 2018, 16, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Steil, J.; Koelle, M.; Heuten, W.; Boll, S.; Bulling, A. Privaceye: Privacy-preserving head-mounted eye tracking using egocentric scene image and eye movement features. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, Denver, CO, USA, 25–28 June 2019; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  205. Yamada, T.; Gohshi, S.; Echizen, I. Use of invisible noise signals to prevent privacy invasion through face recognition from camera images. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on MULTIMEDIA, Nara, Japan, 29 October–2 November 2012; pp. 1315–1316. [Google Scholar]
  206. Yamada, T.; Gohshi, S.; Echizen, I. Privacy visor: Method based on light absorbing and reflecting properties for preventing face image detection. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Manchester, UK, 13–16 October 2013; pp. 1572–1577. [Google Scholar]
  207. Sharif, M.; Bhagavatula, S.; Bauer, L.; Reiter, M.K. Accessorize to a crime: Real and stealthy attacks on state-of-the-art face recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Sigsac Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016; pp. 1528–1540. [Google Scholar]
  208. Schiff, J.; Meingast, M.; Mulligan, D.K.; Sastry, S.; Goldberg, K. Respectful cameras: Detecting visual markers in real-time to address privacy concerns. In Protecting Privacy in Video Surveillance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 65–89. [Google Scholar]
  209. Ye, T.; Moynagh, B.; Albatal, R.; Gurrin, C. Negative faceblurring: A privacy-by-design approach to visual lifelogging with google glass. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Shanghai, China, 3–7 November 2014; pp. 2036–2038. [Google Scholar]
  210. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Matos Garcia, L.Y.; Mouloud, J.A.; Griffith, S. FacePET: Enhancing bystanders’ facial privacy with smart wearables/internet of things. Electronics 2018, 7, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Aditya, P.; Sen, R.; Druschel, P.; Joon Oh, S.; Benenson, R.; Fritz, M.; Schiele, B.; Bhattacharjee, B.; Wu, T.T. I-pic: A platform for privacy-compliant image capture. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Singapore, 26–30 June 2016; pp. 235–248. [Google Scholar]
  212. Samarati, P. Protecting respondents identities in microdata release. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2001, 13, 1010–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  213. Machanavajjhala, A.; Kifer, D.; Gehrke, J.; Venkitasubramaniam, M. l-diversity: Privacy beyond k-anonymity. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data (TKDD) 2007, 1, 3–es. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Li, N.; Li, T.; Venkatasubramanian, S. t-closeness: Privacy beyond k-anonymity and l-diversity. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 11–15 April 2007; pp. 106–115. [Google Scholar]
  215. Dwork, C. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, Xi’an, China, 25–29 May 2008; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  216. Dwork, C.; Roth, A. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 2014, 9, 211–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Gentry, C. Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Bethesda, MD, USA, 31 May–2 June 2009; pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  218. Acar, A.; Aksu, H.; Uluagac, A.S.; Conti, M. A survey on homomorphic encryption schemes: Theory and implementation. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018, 51, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Palen, L.; Salzman, M.; Youngs, E. Going wireless: Behavior & practice of new mobile phone users. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2–6 December 2000; pp. 201–210. [Google Scholar]
  220. Denning, T.; Dehlawi, Z.; Kohno, T. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In Proceedings of the 2014 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April–1 May 2014; pp. 2377–2386. [Google Scholar]
  221. Hoyle, R.; Templeman, R.; Armes, S.; Anthony, D.; Crandall, D.; Kapadia, A. Privacy behaviors of lifeloggers using wearable cameras. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Seattle, WA, USA, 13–17 September 2014; pp. 571–582. [Google Scholar]
  222. Zhang, S.; Feng, Y.; Das, A.; Bauer, L.; Cranor, L.F.; Sadeh, N. Understanding people’s privacy attitudes towards video analytics technologies. In Proceedings of the FTC PrivacyCon 2020, Washington, DC, USA, 21 July 2020; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  223. Hoyle, R.; Stark, L.; Ismail, Q.; Crandall, D.; Kapadia, A.; Anthony, D. Privacy norms and preferences for photos posted online. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 2020, 27, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Ahmad, I.; Farzan, R.; Kapadia, A.; Lee, A.J. Tangible privacy: Towards user-centric sensor designs for bystander privacy. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2020, 4, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Wang, Y.; Xia, H.; Yao, Y.; Huang, Y. Flying Eyes and Hidden Controllers: A Qualitative Study of People’s Privacy Perceptions of Civilian Drones in The US. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 2016, 2016, 172–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  226. Chang, V.; Chundury, P.; Chetty, M. Spiders in the sky: User perceptions of drones, privacy, and security. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 6765–6776. [Google Scholar]
  227. Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S.; Griffith, S.; Garcia, L.Y.M.; Mouloud, J.A. A User Study of a Wearable System to Enhance Bystanders’ Facial Privacy. IoT 2020, 1, 198–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Hatuka, T.; Toch, E. Being visible in public space: The normalisation of asymmetrical visibility. Urban Stud. 2017, 54, 984–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. De Capitani Di Vimercati, S.; Foresti, S.; Livraga, G.; Samarati, P. Data privacy: Definitions and techniques. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst. 2012, 20, 793–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  230. Abadi, M.; Chu, A.; Goodfellow, I.; McMahan, H.B.; Mironov, I.; Talwar, K.; Zhang, L. Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016; pp. 308–318. [Google Scholar]
  231. Hassija, V.; Chamola, V.; Bajpai, B.C.; Zeadally, S. Security issues in implantable medical devices: Fact or fiction? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 102552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Xu, T.; Wendt, J.B.; Potkonjak, M. Security of IoT systems: Design challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), San Jose, CA, USA, 3–6 November 2014; pp. 417–423. [Google Scholar]
  233. Sequeiros, J.B.; Chimuco, F.T.; Samaila, M.G.; Freire, M.M.; Inácio, P.R. Attack and system modeling applied to IoT, cloud, and mobile ecosystems: Embedding security by design. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2020, 53, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  234. Antonakakis, M.; April, T.; Bailey, M.; Bernhard, M.; Bursztein, E.; Cochran, J.; Durumeric, Z.; Halderman, J.A.; Invernizzi, L.; Kallitsis, M.; et al. Understanding the mirai botnet. In Proceedings of the 26th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX SECURITY 17), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–18 August 2017; pp. 1093–1110. [Google Scholar]
  235. Sadeh, N.; Acquisti, A.; Breaux, T.D.; Cranor, L.F.; McDonald, A.M.; Reidenberg, J.R.; Smith, N.A.; Liu, F.; Russell, N.C.; Schaub, F.; et al. The Usable Privacy Policy Project. 2013. Available online: http://ra.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/usr0/ftp/home/anon/isr2013/CMU-ISR-13-119.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2021).
  236. Goddard, M. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2017, 59, 703–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Giordani, M.; Polese, M.; Mezzavilla, M.; Rangan, S.; Zorzi, M. Toward 6G networks: Use cases and technologies. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2020, 58, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Zhang, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Ma, Z.; Xiao, M.; Ding, Z.; Lei, X.; Karagiannidis, G.K.; Fan, P. 6G wireless networks: Vision, requirements, architecture, and key technologies. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2019, 14, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Li, T.; Sahu, A.K.; Talwalkar, A.; Smith, V. Federated learning: Challenges, methods, and future directions. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2020, 37, 50–60. [Google Scholar]
  240. Niknam, S.; Dhillon, H.S.; Reed, J.H. Federated learning for wireless communications: Motivation, opportunities, and challenges. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2020, 58, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Rieke, N.; Hancox, J.; Li, W.; Milletari, F.; Roth, H.R.; Albarqouni, S.; Bakas, S.; Galtier, M.N.; Landman, B.A.; Maier-Hein, K.; et al. The future of digital health with federated learning. NPJ Digit. Med. 2020, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Huynh, L.N.; Lee, Y.; Balan, R.K. Deepmon: Mobile gpu-based deep learning framework for continuous vision applications. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, Niagara Falls, NY, USA, 19–23 June 2017; pp. 82–95. [Google Scholar]
  243. Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhan, Y.; Guo, S.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, X. A survey on deploying mobile deep learning applications: A systemic and technical perspective. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Joshi, V.; Le Gallo, M.; Haefeli, S.; Boybat, I.; Nandakumar, S.R.; Piveteau, C.; Dazzi, M.; Rajendran, B.; Sebastian, A.; Eleftheriou, E. Accurate deep neural network inference using computational phase-change memory. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Smil, V. Embodied energy: Mobile devices and cars [Numbers Don’t Lie]. IEEE Spectr. 2016, 53, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Leontief, W. Input-Output Economics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  247. Humar, I.; Ge, X.; Xiang, L.; Jo, M.; Chen, M.; Zhang, J. Rethinking energy efficiency models of cellular networks with embodied energy. IEEE Netw. 2011, 25, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Bello, G.; Perez, A.J. On the Application of Financial Security Standards in Blockchain Platforms. In Blockchain Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy; Choo, K.K.R., Dehghantanha, A., Parizi, R.M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 247–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. PCI. Payment Application Data Security Standard. Available online: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/minisite/en/pa-dss-v2-0.php (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  250. Landi, H. Google Closes $2.1B Acquisition of Fitbit as Justice Department Probe Continues. Available online: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/tech/google-closes-2-1b-acquisition-fitbit-as-justice-department-probe-continues (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  251. Virgin Pulse Support. Available online: https://virginpulse.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/categories/200339624-DEVICES-APPS (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  252. Appenzeller, A. Privacy and Patient Involvement in e-Health Worldwide: An International Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 Workshop of Fraunhofer IOSB and Institute for Anthropomatics, Vision and Fusion Laboratory, Karlsruhe, Germany, 27–31 July 2020; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  253. Häyrinen, K.; Saranto, K.; Nykänen, P. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: A review of the research literature. Int. J. Med Inform. 2008, 77, 291–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. U.S. Food and & Drug Administration: Medical Devices. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  255. FDA. Content of Premarket Submissions for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/content-premarket-submissions-management-cybersecurity-medical-devices-0 (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  256. Jennings, K. The Billionaire Who Controls Your Medical Records. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2021/04/08/billionaire-judy-faulkner-epic-systems/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  257. Commonwell Health Alliance. Available online: https://www.commonwellalliance.org/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  258. H.R. 748-CARES Act. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  259. United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI). Available online: https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi (accessed on 1 October 2021).
Figure 1. Consumer wearables device market share (2019–2022).
Figure 1. Consumer wearables device market share (2019–2022).
Sensors 21 06828 g001
Figure 2. Wearable services market value.
Figure 2. Wearable services market value.
Sensors 21 06828 g002
Figure 3. Paper organization.
Figure 3. Paper organization.
Sensors 21 06828 g003
Figure 4. Wearable sensors based on intrusiveness level.
Figure 4. Wearable sensors based on intrusiveness level.
Sensors 21 06828 g004
Figure 5. Typical components of a wearable sensing device. The red dotted line indicates possible connection.
Figure 5. Typical components of a wearable sensing device. The red dotted line indicates possible connection.
Sensors 21 06828 g005
Figure 6. Typical sensors available in wearable devices grouped by type of collected data.
Figure 6. Typical sensors available in wearable devices grouped by type of collected data.
Sensors 21 06828 g006
Figure 7. General architecture of wearable sensing systems.
Figure 7. General architecture of wearable sensing systems.
Sensors 21 06828 g007
Table 1. Summary of survey works in mobile and wearable sensing.
Table 1. Summary of survey works in mobile and wearable sensing.
ReferencesYearTitleRemarks
[24]2010A survey of mobile phone sensingReview of applications and architectures for smartphone sensing in human-centric and participatory sensing systems. No mention of wearables
[25]2011A survey on privacy in mobile participatory sensing applicationsReview of privacy mechanisms for smartphone-based crowdsensing systems. No mention of wearables.
[26]2012A survey on human activity recognition using wearable sensorsReview of machine learning (ML) models to classify activities using wearables. Review does not include deep learning (DL) systems.
[27]2012Mobile phone sensing systems: A surveyReview of mobile-smartphone-based sensing applications in participatory/crowdsensing settings. Mentions two systems that, as of 2012,used electrocardiogram (ECG) sensors.
[28]2013Mobile sensing systemsReview of mobile sensing systems based on smartphones and their communication architectures. Provides short review on security.
[29]2014Wearables: Fundamentals, advancements, and a roadmap for the futureReview of wearable technology as of 2014 with a focus on sensors and applications. Does not review security or privacy issues.
[30]2015A survey of incentive techniques for mobile crowd sensingReview of monetary and nonmonetary incentives mechanisms for mobile crowdsensing systems based on smartphones. Incentives are important in crowdsensing to recruit participants to collect data.
[31]2015A survey on energy-aware security mechanismsReviews energy-aware security mechanisms for WSNs, mobile devices (focus on smartphones), and network nodes as of 2015. Review does not mention wearables.
[32]2016Pervasive eHealth services a security and privacy risk awareness surveyPresents risk awareness and perception for eHealth wearables using Amazon Mechanical Turk.
[33]2016Incentive mechanisms for participatory sensing: Survey and research challengesReview of application-specific and general-purpose incentive mechanisms for mobile crowdsensing systems based on smartphones.
[34]2016Deep, convolutional, and recurrent models for human activity recognition using wearablesReviews and evaluates of deep learning methods for human activity recognition.
[35]2017A survey of wearable devices and challengesReview focuses on consumer wearables available as of 2017. Work also addresses security, power, task offloading, and machine learning. Work does not address privacy issues.
[36]2017The use of wearables in healthcare–challenges and opportunitiesReviews applications of wearables in healthcare from the application perspective.
[37]2017A survey on smart wearables in the application of fitnessReview of wearables available as of 2017 in the context of fitness. Work does not address security, privacy, power, or ML in wearable systems.
[17]2017Mobile payment systems: secure network architectures and protocolsDescribes architectures and protocols to enable mobile payments. From the device perspective, it focuses on mobile phones. No mention of wearables.
[38]2018Privacy issues and solutions for consumer wearablesReview of privacy issues in consumer wearables. Work does not address power or machine learning.
[39]2018A critical review of consumer wearables, mobile applications, and equipment for providing biofeedback, monitoring stress, and sleep in physically active populationsReview of the utilization of consumer wearables for stress and sleep monitoring. No privacy or security issues mentioned in the paper.
[40]2018Wearables and the medical revolutionReviews the utilization of wearables for medical use (m-Health). No privacy or security issues reviewed in the paper.
[41]2019Demystifying IoT security: An exhaustive survey on IoT vulnerabilities and a first empirical look on Internet-scale IoT exploitationsReview of security issues and solutions in Internet of Things (IoT) systems. Review does not mention wearables.
[42]2019Buddy’s wearable is not your buddy: Privacy implications of pet wearablesReview of privacy issues and possible privacy violations or privacy leakages to owners of pets (pet parents) by having their pets use wearables.
[43]2020Design architectures for energy harvesting in the Internet of ThingsReviews power and energy harvesting techniques for Internet of Things (IoT) devices including wearable devices.
[44]2020A comprehensive overview of smart wearables: The state of the art literature, recent advances, and future challengesBibliographic review of published works related to wearable devices. This work reviews published works from 2010 to 2019 (before the COVID-19 pandemic).
[45]2020Use of wearable sensor technology in gait, balance, and range of motion analysisReview of wearables and ML systems with a focus on gait analysis.
[46]2020Wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT), applications, opportunities, and challenges: A SurveyReview of sensors and applications of wearables before the COVID-19 pandemic. This work does not review security, privacy, or ML.
[9]2020A survey of COVID-19 contact tracing appsReviews contact tracing apps developed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[47]2021Wearables for Industrial Work Safety: A SurveyReview of wearables in the context of industrial settings. Work focuses on applications of wearables for industry.
[48]2021A survey on wearable technology: History, state-of-the-art and current challengesReview provides a comprehensive historical review of wearables devices. Reports on applications and some aspects of security and privacy.
Table 6. Wearable user’s privacy concerns, as researched by the authors of  [194].
Table 6. Wearable user’s privacy concerns, as researched by the authors of  [194].
Privacy ConcernDescription
Social implicationsUnawareness by a network of friends regarding data being collected about them
Criminal abuseFear that wearable data will be used by criminals to harass a user
Facial recognitionAssociation and recognition of a bystander to a place or a situation where the bystander would not wish to be recognized by others
Access controlFear of users of third-party service providers sharing data without consent
Social media syncImmediate publishing or sharing by the wearable device without the knowledge of the user
Discrete display and visual occlusionNotifications/information of users that might be seen by bystanders who should not have access
Right to forgetThe user’s wish to delete collected data that he or she wants to forget
User fears: surveillance and sousveillanceContinuous tracking of user activities that might make the user feel that no matter what they do, everything is recorded
Speech disclosureCapturing speech that a user or bystanders would not want to record or share
Surreptitious A/V recordingRecording of video without permission that might affect bystanders
Location disclosureFear of sharing a location inadvertently to third parties that should not have access
Table 8. U.S. FDA-recognized standards for medical informatics security.
Table 8. U.S. FDA-recognized standards for medical informatics security.
FDA DateFDA NumberOrganizationOrganization Designation/DateStandard
7 June 202113-119ANSI ISA62443-4-1-2018Security for industrial automation and control systems Part 4-1: Product security development life-cycle requirements.
7 June 202113-118IEEEStd 11073-40102:2020Health informatics-Device interoperability. Part 40102: Foundational-Cybersecurity-Capabilities for mitigation.
7 June 202113-117IEEEStd 11073-40101-2020Health informatics-Device interoperability Part 40101: Foundational-Cybersecurity-Processes for vulnerability assessment.
6 July 202013-115IEC IEEE ISO29119-1 First edition 2013-09-01Software and systems engineering-Software testing-Part 1: Concepts and definitions
6 July 202013-114IEEEStd 11073-10101-2019Health informatics-Point-of-care medical device communication. Part 10101: Nomenclature
23 December 201913-112AAMITIR97:2019Principles for medical device security-Postmarket risk management for device manufacturers
15 July 201913-109AAMI ANSI UL2800-1: 2019(American National Standard) Standard for Safety for Medical Device Interoperability
7 June 201813-104ANSI UL2900-2-1 First Edition 2017Standard for Safety Software Cybersecurity for Network-Connectable Products Part 2-1: Particular Requirements for Network Connectable Components of Healthcare and Wellness Systems
4 December 201713-103IECTR 80001-2-9 Edition 1.0 2017-01Application of risk management for IT-networks incorporating medical devices-Part 2-9: Application guidance-guidance for use of security assurance cases to demonstrate confidence in IEC TR 80001-2-2 security capabilities
4 December 201713-102IECTR 80001-2-8 Edition 1.0 2016-05Application of risk management for IT-networks incorporating medical devices-Part 2-8: Application guidance-guidance on standards for establishing the security capabilities identified in IEC TR 80001-2-2
21 August 201713-97IEC82304-1 Edition 1.0 2016-10Health software-Part 1: General requirements for product safety
21 August 201713-96ANSI UL2900-1 First Edition 2017Standard for Safety Standard for Software Cybersecurity Network-Connectable Products Part 1: General Requirements
23 December 201613-85CLSIAUTO11-A2Information Technology Security of In Vitro Diagnostic Instruments and Software Systems; Approved Standard-Second Edition
27 June 201613-83AAMITIR57:2016Principles for medical device security-Risk management.
14 August 201513-78IEC ISO30111 First edition 2013-11-01Information technology-Security techniques-Vulnerability handling processes
14 August 201513-77IEC ISO29147 First edition 2014-02-15Information technology-Security techniques-Vulnerability disclosure
27 January 201513-70IECTR 80001-2-5 Edition 1.0 2014-12Application of risk management for IT-networks incorporating medical devices-Part 2-5: Application guidance-Guidance on distributed alarm systems
6 August 201313-62IECTR 62443-3-1 Edition 1.0 2009-07Industrial communication networks-Network and system security-Part 3-1: Security technologies for industrial automation and control systems
6 August 201313-61IEC62443-2-1 Edition 1.0 2010-11Industrial communication networks-Network and system security-Part 2-1: Establishing an industrial automation and control system security program
6 August 201313-60IECTS 62443-1-1 Edition 1.0 2009-07Industrial communication networks-Network and system security-Part 1-1: Terminology concepts and models
6 August 201313-44IECTR 80001-2-3 Edition 1.0 2012-07Application of risk management for IT Networks incorporating medical devices-Part 2-3: Guidance for wireless networks
6 August 201313-42IECTR 80001-2-2 Edition 1.0 2012-07Application of risk management for IT Networks incorporating medical devices-Part 2-2: Guidance for the disclosure and communication of medical device security needs risks and controls
6 August 201313-38IEC80001-1 Edition 1.0 2010-10Application of risk management for IT-networks incorporating medical devices-Part 1: Roles responsibilities and activities
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Perez, A.J.; Zeadally, S. Recent Advances in Wearable Sensing Technologies. Sensors 2021, 21, 6828. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206828

AMA Style

Perez AJ, Zeadally S. Recent Advances in Wearable Sensing Technologies. Sensors. 2021; 21(20):6828. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206828

Chicago/Turabian Style

Perez, Alfredo J., and Sherali Zeadally. 2021. "Recent Advances in Wearable Sensing Technologies" Sensors 21, no. 20: 6828. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206828

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop