| Literature DB >> 35310098 |
De-Feng Liu1, Bao-Tian Zhao1, Guan-Yu Zhu1, Yu-Ye Liu1, Yu-Tong Bai1, Huan-Guang Liu1,2,3, Yin Jiang2,3, Xin Zhang2, Hua Zhang1,3, An-Chao Yang1,2,3, Jian-Guo Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to describe a synchronized intracranial electroencephalogram (EEG) recording and motion capture system, which was designed to explore the neural dynamics during walking of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with freezing of gait (FOG). Preliminary analysis was performed to test the reliability of this system.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease; freezing of gait; intracranial electrical activity; motion capture; synchronization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35310098 PMCID: PMC8927080 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.795417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Preoperative characteristics of the eight patients.
| No. of patients | 8 |
| Sex | 3M/5F |
| Age at time of surgery (Years) | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 52–73/62.63 ± 7.60 |
| Age at disease onset (Years) | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 37–65/52.25 ± 9.15 |
| Disease duration (Years) | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 7–15/10.38 ± 2.45 |
| Dose of levodopa equivalent medication (mg/d) | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 488–1439.25/924.03 ± 356.49 |
| Hoehn-Yahr Stage | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 2–3/2.56 ± 0.42 |
| UPDRS III Score | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 32–79/52.88 ± 13.52 |
| FOGQ Score | |
| Range/Mean ± SD | 15–23/18.88 ± 2.75 |
FIGURE 1Syncronized iEEG recording and motion capture. The video clip in the upper right was simultaneously recorded by the video-EEG and real-time spatial positions of the optical sensitive nodes weared by the patients were captured by multiple surrounding cameras.
Classification of data quality.
| Classification | Description |
| Level 1 | The data quality is excellent in all time ranges, and there are almost no artifacts |
| Level 2 | The data quality in most of the time range is excellent, with some artifacts, but the basic EEG waveforms are still reserved |
| Level 3 | The data quality is acceptable in most of the time range, and the artifact interference is more obvious |
| Level 4 | Most of the data is of poor quality and artifacts are obvious |
| Level 5 | The entire signal is heavily contaminated by noise, and no normal EEG signal components can be seen |
FIGURE 2The working flow of current methodology (PD-FOG, Parkinson’s disease with freezing of gait; STN, subthalamic nucleus; iEEG, intracranial electroencephalogram).
FIGURE 3A case illustration of FI (Freeze index) increase during manually labeling freezing phase. (A) Gait positioning data (vertical Z axis) captured by the CODA system of PD patients during walking. (B) The corresponding dynamic fluctuation of FI; Blue area indicates the occurrence time of FOG determined manually. (C) Time frequency representation of the acceleration (trace in yellow) of the raw trace during walking of PD patients. During freezing, the power of the “locomotion band” (0–3 Hz) decreased.
FIGURE 4Statistical comparison of the FI between freezing the non-onset period at trial level. Each red data point represents the FI during the FOG of a walking trial, and blue data point represents the FI during the non-FOG of a walking trial. FI during FOG is significantly higher than effective walking period. Both sides exhibited similar results (P<0.05).
FIGURE 5(A) Time series of raw and beta band filtered LFP. (B) An individual case illustration of power spectrum density of LFP in the STN between freezing and non-freezing period; The red line represents the power spectrum of LFP during FOG, and the blue line represents the power spectrum of LFP during non-FOG. (C) The group analyze of power spectrum density averaged by all included walking epochs. The shaded error bar indicates SEM and the gray square indicates beta range. (D) Statistical comparison of averaged beta band power of LFP between conditions at trial level indicated significantly increased beta power during freezing (P<0.05).
FIGURE 6(A) Coherence of ipsilateral ECoG and LFP. Compared with shuffled surrogates, significantly higher coherence (P < 0.05, FDR correction) was found in high beta (20–35 Hz) and high gamma (145–195 Hz) bands. (B,C) Statistical comparison between original data and shuffled surrogates in high beta (20–35 Hz) and high gamma (145–195 Hz) bands, in which the rows and columns of matrix entries represent ECoG and LFP channels (“Right Strip 1–7” represent each channel of the ECoG, “Right Depth 1–3” represent each channel of the LFP of right STN and “Left Depth 1–3” represent each channel of the LFP of left STN) and the color scheme indicates the significant level of coherence (*P < 0.05; ***P < 0.001).
FIGURE 7High beta coherence is significantly higher for ipsilateral STN/cortical pairs than contralateral pairs (P < 0.05).
FIGURE 8The result of MERF to classify between FOG-epochs and non-FOG-epochs: in a total of 126 epochs (containing 42 FOG epochs), STN LFP band power features showed above-chance performance (p < 0.01, permutation test) in identifying FOG epochs.