| Literature DB >> 35432161 |
Cong-Cong Li1,2, Zhuo-Ru Zhang1,3, Yu-Hui Liu1,2, Tao Zhang4, Xu-Tao Zhang1,2, Han Wang1,2, Xiao-Cheng Wang1,2.
Abstract
Background: As human transportation, recreation, and production methods change, the impact of motion sickness (MS) on humans is becoming more prominent. The susceptibility of people to MS can be accurately assessed, which will allow ordinary people to choose comfortable transportation and entertainment and prevent people susceptible to MS from entering provocative environments. This is valuable for maintaining public health and the safety of tasks. Objective: To develop an objective multi-dimensional MS susceptibility assessment model based on physiological indicators that objectively reflect the severity of MS and provide a reference for improving the existing MS susceptibility assessment methods.Entities:
Keywords: machine learning; motion sickness; objective assessment; susceptibility; vestibular system
Year: 2022 PMID: 35432161 PMCID: PMC9011053 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.824670
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Figure 1The experimental procedure and data acquisition methods. pre-E, the period before exposure to Coriolis acceleration stimulation; E, the period of exposure to Coriolis acceleration stimulation; post-E, the period after exposure to Coriolis acceleration stimulation.
Figure 2Changes in objective indicators before and after exposure to MS (n = 51). The mean and standard error of measured values for each objective indicator during the pre-E and post-E periods are also labeled in the pictures. (A) AMPEGG0.067−0.167; (B) POWEGG0.067−0.167; (C) TEMPs; (D) SCL; (E) CIE-L*L−R; (F) CIE-a*L−R; (G) TTW; (H) EA. * p < 0.05; ****p < 0.0001; ns, no significance.
Figure 3Correlations of the variations of objective indicators with the severity of MS (n = 51). The r and p values of the objective variables significantly correlated with Graybiel's scoremax are labeled in each graph. The colored line represents the line of best fit for each linear regression, while the shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval. (A) LOGΔAMPEGG0.067−0.167; (B) LOGΔPOWEGG0.067−0.167; (C) ΔTEMPs; (D) MSPVL−R; (E) ΔCIE-L*L−R; (F) ΔCIE-a*L−R.
Means and standard deviations of AUC for 100 tests of the ML classifier.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| SVM |
|
|
| RF | 0.8703 | 0.0716 |
| KNN | 0.8007 | 0.0925 |
| MLP | 0.7904 | 0.1113 |
The bold values indicate that the SVM classifier had the best performance among the four models.
Figure 4Distribution of the ranks of AUC values of different ML classifiers for 100 tests. The mean ranks of the AUC values for each model are also labeled in the picture. ****p < 0.0001; ns, no significance.
Figure 5Confusion matrix for the classification results of different classifiers.
Evaluation of the performances of different ML classifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVM |
|
|
|
|
|
| RF | 0.8236 | 0.9143 | 0.6250 | 0.8421 | 0.7692 |
| KNN | 0.8039 | 0.8286 | 0.7500 | 0.8789 | 0.6667 |
| MLP | 0.7647 | 0.8286 | 0.6250 | 0.8286 | 0.6250 |
The bold values indicate that the SVM classifier had the best performance among the four models.
Figure 6Comparison of the ROC curves of different ML classifiers. The SVM classifier performs best.