| Literature DB >> 33105787 |
Iwona Doroniewicz1, Daniel J Ledwoń2, Alicja Affanasowicz1, Katarzyna Kieszczyńska1, Dominika Latos1, Małgorzata Matyja1, Andrzej W Mitas2, Andrzej Myśliwiec1.
Abstract
Observation of neuromotor development at an early stage of an infant's life allows for early diagnosis of deficits and the beginning of the therapeutic process. General movement assessment is a method of spontaneous movement observation, which is the foundation for contemporary attempts at objectification and computer-aided diagnosis based on video recordings' analysis. The present study attempts to automatically detect writhing movements, one of the normal general movement categories presented by newborns in the first weeks of life. A set of 31 recordings of newborns on the second and third day of life was divided by five experts into videos containing writhing movements (with occurrence time) and poor repertoire, characterized by a lower quality of movement in relation to the norm. Novel, objective pose-based features describing the scope, nature, and location of each limb's movement are proposed. Three machine learning algorithms are evaluated in writhing movements' detection in leave-one-out cross-validation for different feature extraction time windows and overlapping time. The experimental results make it possible to indicate the optimal parameters for which 80% accuracy was achieved. Based on automatically detected writhing movement percent in the video, infant movements are classified as writhing movements or poor repertoire with an area under the ROC (receiver operating characteristics) curve of 0.83.Entities:
Keywords: classification; diagnosis; feature extraction; general movement assessment; infant; machine learning; physiotherapy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33105787 PMCID: PMC7660095 DOI: 10.3390/s20215986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow diagram containing criteria for excluding recordings from further analysis and the division resulting from the application of GMA.
Figure 2Examples of indications of WM fragments by different experts (E1–E5) for one recording. The intervals denoted N = 1–5 present the ground truth depending on the number of experts for whom the common part was chosen.
Figure 3Effect of individual trajectory processing steps on the resulting shape of the ellipse. Omitting pre-processing leads to the inclusion of an area not covered by the trajectory in the ellipse. The removal of outliers reduces the effect of single parts of trajectories deviating from the general course of motion, but the result is still affected by areas of density resulting from the low amplitude of motion. Downsampling in the form of removing adjacent points reduces the excess area of the ellipse and leads to changes in its orientation due to the areas of density.
Figure 4Visualization of the coordinate system associated with the right shoulder used to normalize the parameters of the ellipse circumscribed on the trajectory of the right wrist from a 30 s observation. The unit of the system is the length of the analyzed limb, whereas the sense of the horizontal axis is oriented towards the body axis. The blue circle shows the possible range of motion used to normalize the value of the area of the ellipse circumscribed on the trajectory (orange). Minor and major axes are marked inside the ellipse.
Accuracy and F1 score between writhing movement (WM) fragments selected by individual experts pairwise.
| E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| - | 78.60 | 80.78 | 77.44 | 81.18 |
|
| 75.45 | - | 83.04 | 78.85 | 80.93 |
|
| 77.54 | 81.88 | - | 85.09 | 86.28 |
|
| 73.23 | 77.08 | 83.56 | - | 86.72 |
|
| 77.23 | 78.98 | 84.60 | 84.88 | - |
| Accuracy | F1 score. |
Figure 5The individual results of cross-validation in the true positive rate (TPR) to false positive rate (FPR) space depending on the time window and the selection of a training set with different N values. The change in parameter N is represented by five identical markers for each pair of classifier and feature extraction window.
Figure 6The individual results of cross-validation in the TPR to FPR space depending on the overlapping time for the analysis time of 15 s and the selection of a training set with different N values. The change in parameter N is represented by five identical markers for each pair of classifier and feature extraction window.
Classifiers’ assessment metrics obtained by cross-validation across the entire dataset containing WM and PR recordings for the selected analysis time of 15 s, overlapping time of 10 s, and N = 3.
| ACC | SENS | SPEC | F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | 80.23 | 71.36 | 83.15 | 64.13 |
| RF | 80.93 | 44.18 | 93.02 | 53.42 |
| DA | 80.41 | 39.70 | 93.81 | 50.10 |
Accuracy and F1 score between the WM fragments determined by the classifier and individual experts, 15 s, overlapping of 10 s, and N = 3.
| Metric | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 | E5 | Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM | ACC | 76.88 | 74.92 | 76.39 | 74.54 | 77.29 | 76.00 |
| F1 | 70.52 | 71.25 | 72.42 | 69.79 | 72.54 | 71.30 | |
| RF | ACC | 71.29 | 68.33 | 69.71 | 68.55 | 71.18 | 69.81 |
| F1 | 53.35 | 55.00 | 55.93 | 53.35 | 56.21 | 54.77 | |
| LDA | ACC | 73.00 | 65.17 | 68.52 | 68.35 | 70.77 | 69.16 |
| F1 | 54.06 | 48.48 | 52.29 | 51.04 | 53.64 | 51.90 |
Figure 7Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the division of the entire set of recordings into writhing movements and poor repertoire movements based on the percentage threshold of WM in predictions for each classifier.
Area Under Curve (AUC) for each model in WM/PR classification.
| AUC | |
|---|---|
| SVM | 0.83 |
| RF | 0.82 |
| LDA | 0.84 |