| Literature DB >> 23698268 |
Karmele López-de-Ipiña1, Jesus-Bernardino Alonso, Carlos Manuel Travieso, Jordi Solé-Casals, Harkaitz Egiraun, Marcos Faundez-Zanuy, Aitzol Ezeiza, Nora Barroso, Miriam Ecay-Torres, Pablo Martinez-Lage, Unai Martinez de Lizardui.
Abstract
The work presented here is part of a larger study to identify novel technologies and biomarkers for early Alzheimer disease (AD) detection and it focuses on evaluating the suitability of a new approach for early AD diagnosis by non-invasive methods. The purpose is to examine in a pilot study the potential of applying intelligent algorithms to speech features obtained from suspected patients in order to contribute to the improvement of diagnosis of AD and its degree of severity. In this sense, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) have been used for the automatic classification of the two classes (AD and control subjects). Two human issues have been analyzed for feature selection: Spontaneous Speech and Emotional Response. Not only linear features but also non-linear ones, such as Fractal Dimension, have been explored. The approach is non invasive, low cost and without any side effects. Obtained experimental results were very satisfactory and promising for early diagnosis and classification of AD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23698268 PMCID: PMC3690078 DOI: 10.3390/s130506730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Signal and spectrogram of a control subject (Top) and an AD subject (Bottom) during spontaneous speech (pitch in blue, intensity in yellow).
Figure 2.Plots of speech signal, Short Time Energy and Spectral Centroid, all measures filtered by a median filter, for a control subject (Left) and an AD subject (Right).
Figure 3.Higuchi Fractal Dimension c of speech signal for an AD subject and different window length.
Figure 4.Emotional Temperature for a healthy subject (Left) and an AD subject (Right).
Accuracy (%), global results with regard to test and feature sets.
| SSF | 75.2 | |
| SSF + FD1 | 76.7 | |
| SSF + FD2 | 86.1 | |
| EF | 90.7 | |
| EF + TE | 97.7 | |
| SSF + EF | 92.2 | |
| SSF + FD2 + EF | 94.6 | |
| SSF + FD2 + EF + TE | 94.6 |
Figure 5.Accuracy in % for the three defined tests in the pilot study and each corresponding feature sets.
Figure 6.Accumulative Classification Error Rate (%) for the three defined tests and each corresponding feature sets.
Figure 7.Accuracy (%) of classes for INTEGRAL test and each corresponding feature sets.