| Literature DB >> 26404288 |
Qi Wei Oung1, Hariharan Muthusamy2, Hoi Leong Lee3, Shafriza Nisha Basah4, Sazali Yaacob5, Mohamed Sarillee6, Chia Hau Lee7.
Abstract
Parkinson's Disease (PD) is characterized as the commonest neurodegenerative illness that gradually degenerates the central nervous system. The goal of this review is to come out with a summary of the recent progress of numerous forms of sensors and systems that are related to diagnosis of PD in the past decades. The paper reviews the substantial researches on the application of technological tools (objective techniques) in the PD field applying different types of sensors proposed by previous researchers. In addition, this also includes the use of clinical tools (subjective techniques) for PD assessments, for instance, patient self-reports, patient diaries and the international gold standard reference scale, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Comparative studies and critical descriptions of these approaches have been highlighted in this paper, giving an insight on the current state of the art. It is followed by explaining the merits of the multiple sensor fusion platform compared to single sensor platform for better monitoring progression of PD, and ends with thoughts about the future direction towards the need of multimodal sensor integration platform for the assessment of PD.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson Disease (PD); Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS); audio sensor; multimodal sensor; wearable sensor
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26404288 PMCID: PMC4610449 DOI: 10.3390/s150921710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram illustrating the motor fluctuations cycle of PD.
Figure 2Summary of overall assessment of PD.
Figure 3Overview of the clinical metric-Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale UPDRS (adapted from [26,27]).
Summary of previous works conducted using EMG signals.
| First Author and Year | Database | Techniques | Best Performance Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 male subjects (10 PWD and 6 healthy controls) | Wavelet correlation analysis with Global wavelet power (PCQ) parameters extracted from local wavelet power spectra | Accurately classify the PWP from healthy controls | |
| 48 subjects (26 PWP and 22 healthy controls) | Histogram and crossing rate (CR) values applied as high dimensional feature vectors and the dimensionality was reduced using Korhunen-Loeve transform (KLT) | Precise discrimination for healthy controls: 86% and PWP: 72% | |
| 33 healthy young controls | 1. Selected features (six from right side and six from left side variables): | Clustering analysis using k-means algorithms into 3 clusters: One cluster having 90% of the healthy controls while the two other clusters having 76% of PWP | |
| −19 PWP (4 men and 15 women), −20 healthy old controls (7 men and 13 women) −20 young controls (10 men, 10 women) | Non-linear SEMG features (% Recurrence, % Determinism and SEMG distribution kurtosis, correlation dimension and sample) entropy) | Differentiate PWP from healthy controls | |
| 4 PWP and 2 healthy controls | 1. Linear classifier for detection when the subject is upright | Sensitivity (82.9%) and Specificity (97.3%) | |
| 35 PWP and 17 patients with ET | Sample histograms during isometric contraction of biceps brachii muscle with varying loads and PCA for feature dimension reduction | Discriminate 13/17 (76%) patients with ET and 26/35 (74%) PWP |
Figure 4Placement of accelerometer sensors and surface EMG sensor on the subject (adapted from [34]).
Figure 5General system procedure for PD detection using EEG signal (adapted from [40]).
Figure 6Flowcharts of the techniques. (a) Detection and quantification techniques for tremor; (b) Techniques for bradykinesia quantification.
List of posture transition related parameters [46,47].
| Parameter | Description |
|---|---|
| Period of transition: Time break between the two positive peaks before and after the transition time in the trunk tilt, | |
| Minimum amplitude of negative peak of flexion and extension tilt of the trunk that in general much higher in the real posture transition patterns compared to the non-transitions patterns | |
| Signal αtrunk-lp was produced through the norm of the acceleration vector measured by the perpendicular accelerometers of the trunk sensor filtered using a low pass filter. The maximum, minimum and range, of this signal were generally higher in the posture transitions and lower in non-transitions. The relative time of the minimum and maximum peaks of this signal compared to the transition time was also different between SiSt and StSi transitions. | |
| Range of flexion and extension tilt of the trunk where the value of this parameter was lower for the non-transitions than for the real posture transitions. |
List of input parameters for neural network [50].
| Variables | Description |
|---|---|
| Mean of segment velocity | |
| Mean of segment velocity for frequencies below 3 Hz | |
| Mean of segment velocity for frequencies above 3 Hz | |
| Ratio between | |
| Segment velocity standard deviation | |
| Percentage of time of segment’s movement | |
| Mean segment velocity of segment’s movement | |
| Power for frequencies in the range between 1 and 3 Hz | |
| Power for frequencies in the range below 3 Hz | |
| Mean value of the normalized cross-correlation between the segment velocities of different segments | |
| Maximum value of the normalized cross-correlation between the segment velocities of different segments | |
| Percentage of time during subject sitting posture | |
| Percentage of time during subject upright posture |
Figure 7An overview of the methodology of dyskinesia severity assessment.
List of criteria considered in estimating symptom severity of PD [52].
| Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Used for selecting data segments of the accelerometer data and deriving data featuresAchieving the average estimation errors below 5% | |
| Three different types of kernels: polynomial, exponential and radial basis | |
| Five features types were compared: Data range, root mean square (rms) value, cross-correlation-based features, frequency based features and signal entropy |
Figure 8A general idea of the design of the home monitoring system (adapted from [53]).
Different types of latency and their description [54].
| Latency | Description |
|---|---|
Time between commands delivered to the clinician’s host and the patient’s host received and acknowledged. Commands are delivered by the clinician’s to execute configuration on the body sensor network such as changes in data sampling frequency | |
Data latency: Interval in live streaming of that decimated version of the sensor data Video latency: Time between generation of a frame at the patient’s end and the appearance of the frame at the clinician’s end | |
Time needed for the system to begin re-operate after the miscarriage of the system Latency values were predictable as the alteration between the two timestamps linked with the restart command and with the finishing point of the re-initialization process of the sensor node | |
Logging of the raw data or the data features into the onboard flash memory and uploading into the central server when possible |
Figure 9The intuitive idea behind multiple instances learning (MIL) (adapted from [59]).
Figure 10Levels of multimodal fusion (adapted from [124]).