A web-based system for visualizing upper limb motor performance of Parkinson’s disease patients

Objective To design, develop and set up a web-based system for enabling graphical visualization of upper limb motor performance (ULMP) of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients to clinicians. Background Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD have used a test battery, implemented in a touch-screen handheld computer, in their home environment settings over the course of a 3-year clinical study. The test items consisted of objective measures of ULMP through a set of upper limb motor tests (finger to tapping and spiral drawings). For the tapping tests, patients were asked to perform alternate tapping of two buttons as fast and accurate as possible, first using the right hand and then the left hand. The test duration was 20 seconds. For the spiral drawing test, patients traced a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral using the dominant hand, and the test was repeated 3 times per test occasion. In total, the study database consisted of symptom assessments during 10079 test occasions. Methods Visualization of ULMP The web-based system is used by two neurologists for assessing the performance of PD patients during motor tests collected over the course of the said study. The system employs animations, scatter plots and time series graphs to visualize the ULMP of patients to the neurologists. The performance during spiral tests is depicted by animating the three spiral drawings, allowing the neurologists to observe real-time accelerations or hesitations and sharp changes during the actual drawing process. The tapping performance is visualized by displaying different types of graphs. Information presented included distribution of taps over the two buttons, horizontal tap distance vs. time, vertical tap distance vs. time, and tapping reaction time over the test length. Assessments Different scales are utilized by the neurologists to assess the observed impairments. For the spiral drawing performance, the neurologists rated firstly the ‘impairment’ using a 0 (no impairment) – 10 (extremely severe) scale, secondly three kinematic properties: ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ using a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale, and thirdly the probable ‘cause’ for the said impairment using 3 choices including Tremor, Bradykinesia/Rigidity and Dyskinesia. For the tapping performance, a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale is used for first rating four tapping properties: ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’, ‘arrhythmia’, and then the ‘global tapping severity’ (GTS). To achieve a common basis for assessment, initially one neurologist (DN) performed preliminary ratings by browsing through the database to collect and rate at least 20 samples of each GTS level and at least 33 samples of each ‘cause’ category. These preliminary ratings were then observed by the two neurologists (DN and PG) to be used as templates for rating of tests afterwards. In another track, the system randomly selected one test occasion per patient and visualized its items, that is tapping and spiral drawings, to the two neurologists. Statistical methods Inter-rater agreements were assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. The internal consistency of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were assessed using Cronbach’s α test. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean scores of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were different among GTS and ‘cause’ categories, respectively. Results When rating tapping graphs, inter-rater agreements (Kappa) were as follows: GTS (0.61), ‘tapping speed’ (0.89), ‘accuracy’ (0.66), ‘fatigue’ (0.57) and ‘arrhythmia’ (0.33). The poor inter-rater agreement when assessing “arrhythmia” may be as a result of observation of different things in the graphs, among the two raters. When rating animated spirals, both raters had very good agreement when assessing severity of spiral drawings, that is, ‘impairment’ (0.85) and irregularity (0.72). However, there were poor agreements between the two raters when assessing ‘cause’ (0.38) and time-information properties like ‘drawing speed’ (0.25) and ‘hesitation’ (0.21). Tapping properties, that is ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘arrhythmia’ had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.77. In general, the trends of mean scores of tapping properties worsened with increasing levels of GTS. The mean scores of the four properties were significantly different to each other, only at different levels. In contrast from tapping properties, kinematic properties of spirals, that is ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ had a questionable consistency among them with a coefficient of 0.66. Bradykinetic spirals were associated with more impaired speed (mean = 83.7 % worse, P < 0.001) and hesitation (mean = 77.8% worse, P < 0.001), compared to dyskinetic spirals. Both these ‘cause’ categories had similar mean scores of ‘impairment’ and ‘irregularity’. Conclusions In contrast from current approaches used in clinical setting for the assessment of PD symptoms, this system enables clinicians to animate easily and realistically the ULMP of patients who at the same time are at their homes. Dynamic access of visualized motor tests may also be useful when observing and evaluating therapy-related complications such as under- and over-medications. In future, we foresee to utilize these manual ratings for developing and validating computer methods for automating the process of assessing ULMP of PD patients.

Automatic spiral analysis for objective assessment of motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

Objective: To develop a method for objective quantification of PD motor symptoms related to Off episodes and peak dose dyskinesias, using spiral data gathered by using a touch screen telemetry device. The aim was to objectively characterize predominant motor phenotypes (bradykinesia and dyskinesia), to help in automating the process of visual interpretation of movement anomalies in spirals as rated by movement disorder specialists. Background: A retrospective analysis was conducted on recordings from 65 patients with advanced idiopathic PD from nine different clinics in Sweden, recruited from January 2006 until August 2010. In addition to the patient group, 10 healthy elderly subjects were recruited. Upper limb movement data were collected using a touch screen telemetry device from home environments of the subjects. Measurements with the device were performed four times per day during week-long test periods. On each test occasion, the subjects were asked to trace pre-drawn Archimedean spirals, using the dominant hand. The pre-drawn spiral was shown on the screen of the device. The spiral test was repeated three times per test occasion and they were instructed to complete it within 10 seconds. The device had a sampling rate of 10Hz and measured both position and time-stamps (in milliseconds) of the pen tip. Methods: Four independent raters (FB, DH, AJ and DN) used a web interface that animated the spiral drawings and allowed them to observe different kinematic features during the drawing process and to rate task performance. Initially, a number of kinematic features were assessed including ‘impairment’, ‘speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ followed by marking the predominant motor phenotype on a 3-category scale: tremor, bradykinesia and/or choreatic dyskinesia. There were only 2 test occasions for which all the four raters either classified them as tremor or could not identify the motor phenotype. Therefore, the two main motor phenotype categories were bradykinesia and dyskinesia. ‘Impairment’ was rated on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 10 (extremely severe) whereas ‘speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ were rated on a scale from 0 (normal) to 4 (extremely severe). The proposed data-driven method consisted of the following steps. Initially, 28 spatiotemporal features were extracted from the time series signals before being presented to a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) classifier. The features were based on different kinematic quantities of spirals including radius, angle, speed and velocity with the aim of measuring the severity of involuntary symptoms and discriminate between PD-specific (bradykinesia) and/or treatment-induced symptoms (dyskinesia). A Principal Component Analysis was applied on the features to reduce their dimensions where 4 relevant principal components (PCs) were retained and used as inputs to the MLP classifier. Finally, the MLP classifier mapped these components to the corresponding visually assessed motor phenotype scores for automating the process of scoring the bradykinesia and dyskinesia in PD patients whilst they draw spirals using the touch screen device. For motor phenotype (bradykinesia vs. dyskinesia) classification, the stratified 10-fold cross validation technique was employed. Results: There were good agreements between the four raters when rating the individual kinematic features with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88 for ‘impairment’, 0.74 for ‘speed’, 0.70 for ‘irregularity’, and moderate agreements when rating ‘hesitation’ with an ICC of 0.49. When assessing the two main motor phenotype categories (bradykinesia or dyskinesia) in animated spirals the agreements between the four raters ranged from fair to moderate. There were good correlations between mean ratings of the four raters on individual kinematic features and computed scores. The MLP classifier classified the motor phenotype that is bradykinesia or dyskinesia with an accuracy of 85% in relation to visual classifications of the four movement disorder specialists. The test-retest reliability of the four PCs across the three spiral test trials was good with Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of 0.80, 0.82, 0.54 and 0.49, respectively. These results indicate that the computed scores are stable and consistent over time. Significant differences were found between the two groups (patients and healthy elderly subjects) in all the PCs, except for the PC3. Conclusions: The proposed method automatically assessed the severity of unwanted symptoms and could reasonably well discriminate between PD-specific and/or treatment-induced motor symptoms, in relation to visual assessments of movement disorder specialists. The objective assessments could provide a time-effect summary score that could be useful for improving decision-making during symptom evaluation of individualized treatment when the goal is to maximize functional On time for patients while minimizing their Off episodes and troublesome dyskinesias.