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.

Digital spiral analysis for objective assessment of fine motor timing variability in Parkinson's disease

OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for objective assessment of fine motor timing variability in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients, using digital spiral data gathered by a touch screen device. BACKGROUND: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 105 subjects including65 patients with advanced PD (group A), 15 intermediate patients experiencing motor fluctuations (group I), 15 early stage patients (group S), and 10 healthy elderly subjects (HE) were examined. The subjects were asked to perform repeated upper limb motor tasks by tracing a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral as shown on the screen of the device. The spiral tracing test was performed using an ergonomic pen stylus, using dominant hand. The test was repeated three times per test occasion and the subjects were instructed to complete it within 10 seconds. Digital spiral data including stylus position (x-ycoordinates) and timestamps (milliseconds) were collected and used in subsequent analysis. The total number of observations with the test battery were as follows: Swedish group (n=10079), Italian I group (n=822), Italian S group (n = 811), and HE (n=299). METHODS: The raw spiral data were processed with three data processing methods. To quantify motor timing variability during spiral drawing tasks Approximate Entropy (APEN) method was applied on digitized spiral data. APEN is designed to capture the amount of irregularity or complexity in time series. APEN requires determination of two parameters, namely, the window size and similarity measure. In our work and after experimentation, window size was set to 4 and similarity measure to 0.2 (20% of the standard deviation of the time series). The final score obtained by APEN was normalized by total drawing completion time and used in subsequent analysis. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted APEN. In addition, two more methods were applied on digital spiral data and their scores were used in subsequent analysis. The first method was based on Digital Wavelet Transform and Principal Component Analysis and generated a score representing spiral drawing impairment. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted WAV. The second method was based on standard deviation of frequency filtered drawing velocity. The score generated by this method is hence on denoted SDDV. Linear mixed-effects (LME) models were used to evaluate mean differences of the spiral scores of the three methods across the four subject groups. Test-retest reliability of the three scores was assessed after taking mean of the three possible correlations (Spearman’s rank coefficients) between the three test trials. Internal consistency of the methods was assessed by calculating correlations between their scores. RESULTS: When comparing mean spiral scores between the four subject groups, the APEN scores were different between HE subjects and three patient groups (P=0.626 for S group with 9.9% mean value difference, P=0.089 for I group with 30.2%, and P=0.0019 for A group with 44.1%). However, there were no significant differences in mean scores of the other two methods, except for the WAV between the HE and A groups (P<0.001). WAV and SDDV were highly and significantly correlated to each other with a coefficient of 0.69. However, APEN was not correlated to neither WAV nor SDDV with coefficients of 0.11 and 0.12, respectively. Test-retest reliability coefficients of the three scores were as follows: APEN (0.9), WAV(0.83) and SD-DV (0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the digital spiral analysis-based objective APEN measure is able to significantly differentiate the healthy subjects from patients at advanced level. In contrast to the other two methods (WAV and SDDV) that are designed to quantify dyskinesias (over-medications), this method can be useful for characterizing Off symptoms in PD. The APEN was not correlated to none of the other two methods indicating that it measures a different construct of upper limb motor function in PD patients than WAV and SDDV. The APEN also had a better test-retest reliability indicating that it is more stable and consistent over time than WAV and SDDV.