| Literature DB >> 31116785 |
Nan Zhao1, Zhan Zhang1,2, Yameng Wang1,2, Jingying Wang1, Baobin Li2, Tingshao Zhu1, Yuanyuan Xiang1.
Abstract
As the challenge of mental health problems such as anxiety and depression increasing today, more convenient, objective, real-time assessing techniques of mental state are in need. The Microsoft Kinect camera is a possible option for contactlessly capturing human gait, which could reflect the walkers' mental state. So we tried to propose a novel method for monitoring individual's anxiety and depression based on the Kinect-recorded gait pattern. In this study, after finishing the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), 179 participants were required to walked on the footpath naturally while shot by the Kinect cameras. Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) were conducted to extract features from the Kinect-captured gait data after preprocessing, and different machine learning algorithms were used to train the regression models recognizing anxiety and depression levels, and the classification models detecting the cases with specific depressive symptoms. The predictive accuracies of the regression models achieved medium to large level: The correlation coefficient between predicted and questionnaire scores reached 0.51 on anxiety (by epsilon-Support Vector Regression, e-SVR) and 0.51 on depression (by Gaussian Processes, GP). The predictive accuracies could be even higher, 0.74 on anxiety (by GP) and 0.64 on depression (by GP), while training and testing the models on the female sample. The classification models also showed effectiveness on detecting the cases with some symptoms. These results demonstrate the possibility to recognize individual's questionnaire measured anxiety/depression levels and some depressive symptoms based on Kinect-recorded gait data through machine learning method. This approach shows the potential to develop non-intrusive, low-cost methods for monitoring individuals' mental health in real time.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31116785 PMCID: PMC6530855 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216591
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The comparison of recorded data before and after Gaussian filtering.
A: Before filtering. B: After filtering.
Fig 2The distributions of the whole sample, males, and females on the GAD-7 scores.
A: All. B: Male. C: Female.
Fig 3The distributions of the whole sample, males, and females on the PHQ-9 scores.
A: All. B: Male. C: Female.
The sampling distribution on the PHQ-9 items (the whole sample).
| 0: Not at all | 1: Several days | 2: More than half the days | 3: Nearly every day | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1. Losing interest or pleasure. | 25 | 136 | 4 | 1 |
| Item 2. Feeling down or depressed. | 57 | 107 | 3 | 0 |
| Item 3. Sleep problems. | 78 | 73 | 11 | 5 |
| Item 4. Low energy. | 41 | 115 | 11 | 0 |
| Item 5. Eating problems. | 85 | 67 | 11 | 4 |
| Item 6. Feeling of failure. | 103 | 60 | 3 | 1 |
| Item 7. Trouble in concentration. | 74 | 75 | 13 | 5 |
| Item 8. Moving or speaking too slow or being fidgety. | 134 | 30 | 2 | 1 |
| Item 9. Thoughts of suicide. | 163 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Note: table entries are the numbers of cases.
Predictive accuracies of the regression models on GAD-7 scores.
| SLR | LR | e-SVR | n-SVR | GP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.07 | 0.24 | 0.48 | 0.43 | ||
| 0.01 | 0.54 | 0.56 | 0.53 | ||
| 0.29 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.56 |
Note: table entries are Pearson correlation coefficients (r).
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001
Predictive accuracies of the regression models on PHQ-9 scores.
| SLR | LR | e-SVR | n-SVR | GP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.16 | 0.23 | 0.38 | 0.40 | ||
| 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.30 | ||
| 0.05 | 0.60 | 0.41 | 0.43 |
Note: table entries are Pearson correlation coefficients (r).
* p<.05
** p<.01
*** p<.001
Predictive results of the classification models on each symptom in PHQ-9.
| ALL | Male | Famele | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR | K-S | C-SVC | LR | K-S | C-SVC | LR | K-S | C-SVC | ||
| P | ||||||||||
| R | ||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||
| P | ||||||||||
| R | ||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||
| P | 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.56 | |||||
| R | 0.68 | 0.91 | 0.54 | 0.15 | 0.92 | |||||
| F | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.70 | |||||
| P | ||||||||||
| R | ||||||||||
| F | ||||||||||
| P | 0.49 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.49 | |||||
| R | 0.89 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 0.88 | 0.92 | |||||
| F | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.64 | |||||
| P | 0.57 | 0.75 | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.42 | 0.40 | 0.53 | 0.60 | ||
| R | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.25 | 0.17 | ||
| F | 0.11 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.26 | ||
| P | 0.37 | 0.57 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.58 | |||
| R | 0.20 | 0.88 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.13 | 0.64 | 0.91 | |||
| F | 0.26 | 0.70 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.22 | 0.57 | 0.71 | |||
| Item 8 | P | 0.33 | 0.25 | 0.31 | - | 0.33 | 0.2 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.24 |
| R | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.33 | - | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.21 | |
| F | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.32 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.22 | |
Note: Due to the small sample size of item 9 symptomatic group, no valid results were obtained. The results are marked in bold if the precision and recall are both higher than 0.6.
P refers to precision;
R refers to recall;
F refers to F-measure.