Falls are unintentional: Studying simulations is a waste of faking time

Researchers tend to agree that falls are, by definition, unintentional and that sensor algorithms (the processes that allows a computer program to identify a fall among data from sensors) perform poorly when attempting to detect falls ‘in the wild’ (a phrase some scientists use to mean ‘in reality’). Algorithm development has been reliant on simulation, i.e. asking actors to throw themselves intentionally to the ground. This is unusual (no one studies faked coughs or headaches) and uninformative (no one can intend the unintentional). Researchers would increase their chances of detecting ‘real’ falls in ‘the real world’ by studying the behaviour of fallers, however, vulnerable, before, during and after the event: the literature on the circumstances of falling is more informative than any number of faked approximations. A complimentary knowledge base (in falls, sensors and/or signals) enables multidisciplinary teams of clinicians, engineers and computer scientists to tackle fall detection and aim for fall prevention. Throughout this paper, I discuss differences between falls, ‘intentional falling’ and simulations, and the balance between simulation and reality in falls research, finally suggesting ways in which researchers can access examples of falls without resorting to fakery.