You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sensors
  • Review
  • Open Access

31 August 2015

Technologies for Assessment of Motor Disorders in Parkinson’s Disease: A Review

,
,
,
,
,
and
1
School of Mechatronic Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Campus Pauh Putra, 02600 Arau, Perlis, Malaysia
2
Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Spanish Institute, Kulim Hi-TechPark, 09000 Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Wearable Sensors

Abstract

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) is characterized as the commonest neurodegenerative illness that gradually degenerates the central nervous system. The goal of this review is to come out with a summary of the recent progress of numerous forms of sensors and systems that are related to diagnosis of PD in the past decades. The paper reviews the substantial researches on the application of technological tools (objective techniques) in the PD field applying different types of sensors proposed by previous researchers. In addition, this also includes the use of clinical tools (subjective techniques) for PD assessments, for instance, patient self-reports, patient diaries and the international gold standard reference scale, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Comparative studies and critical descriptions of these approaches have been highlighted in this paper, giving an insight on the current state of the art. It is followed by explaining the merits of the multiple sensor fusion platform compared to single sensor platform for better monitoring progression of PD, and ends with thoughts about the future direction towards the need of multimodal sensor integration platform for the assessment of PD.

1. Introduction

For the past several decades, quantitative monitoring of human motor control and movement disorders has been an evolving research field, which grown through the large global computer technologies, context-aware computing, solid-state micro sensors and telecommunication. This effective research has a continuous number of useful fundamental applications, with much attention-grabbing advances in term of human behavior modelling, interaction between human and machine, and healthcare field of research. In principle, this indeed will convey great public benefits, particularly in the applications related to human real life, for instance, attention towards healthcare technologies and elderly care. Beginning from the 1960s, the accessibility of advanced equipment has permitted many hospitals to measure human motor performance in details with good precision. This advanced equipment has also been used for studying various pathologies of human motor performance [,,,,]. Research studies state the fact that Malaysia has been undergoing progress in term of health, extended life expectancy, lower mortality rate and decreasing of the fertility rate. This had taken about changes in the demographic profile of its population, where one of the main medical concerns it brings is the growth in the number of people affected by numerous types of illness as this prevalence increases exponentially with advancing age []. For a population that is shifting towards an older age range, Parkinson disease (PD) is categorized in second ranking for the commonest chronic progressive neurodegenerative disorder in the world after Alzheimer’s disease [], which affects approximately 3% of people above 65 years old. For the coming 30 years, this figure is expected to double due to the increase in the number of elderly people, as age is the main key risk feature for the start of PD [,].
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it was estimated that the world is having seven to 10 million PD patients. The incidence of Parkinson’s increases with age and the syndrome rates rise sharply after 60 years old. PD has greater impacts in North America and European countries compared to Africa or Asian countries, and men are 1.5 times more likely to have Parkinson’s compared to women [,]. In Malaysia, the Malaysian Parkinson’s Disease Association estimated that about 15,000 to 20,000 patients suffer from PD, where this figure is estimated to rise for the forthcoming centuries []. The most general symptoms of PD are tremor (uncontrolled trembling or shaking movements), bradykinesia (slowness of movement), akinesia (loss of control in producing motion), hypokinesia (decreased in body movement), rigidity (struggle to externally carry out movements), postural instability and falls, speech and swallowing difficulties. It is also linked with some other non-motor symptoms that consist of fatigue, nervousness, gloominess, slow thinking, difficult to focus, visual hallucinations, pain, urinary regularity or urgency, extreme sweating, and sleep deprivation (e.g., dream-enacting behavior with shouting or kicking during sleep, or excessive sleepiness during the day) [,,,,]. PD is recognized as one kind of neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system that is categorized into the group of circumstances known as motor system disorders, which are due to the loss of dopamine-producing brain cells. Till now, identifying the reason that causes PD is still remain elusive and there is no existing treatment, though medication through drugs can relieve some of the symptoms in PD. Current therapy in managing PD symptom severity is through the replacement of dopaminergic agonist, via levodopa, combined with carbidopa, a peripheral decarboxylase inhibitor (PDI) that provides the greatest anti-Parkinsonian benefits to patients with Parkinson (PWP) [,,,].
Usually, levodopa, which has been the most successful medication in reducing Parkinsonian symptoms, is prescribed to these patients for eliminating the typical symptoms of PD. This therapy is effective during the initial stages of PD. Yet, in the PD’s later stage, PWP have developed motor difficulties that include sudden loss of efficiency of the medicine during the end of each treatment break, wearing off and uncontrolled hyperkinetic actions denoted as dyskinesia [,,]. These variations are referred as motor fluctuations by the clinicians as shown in Figure 1. Many PWP start to fluctuate between the “off” state (i.e., re-emergence of PD symptoms due to the effect of levodopa wears off a few hours after levodopa intake) and the “on” state (i.e., levodopa is active and improves the patients’ motor performance). While, in the “on” state, patients had chances to suffer from dyskinesia. The presence of dyskinesia is a side effect of levodopa therapy and therefore denoted as levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) [,].
Figure 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the motor fluctuations cycle of PD.
To ensure that these patients are able to be self-independent, clinician’s in-charge must have a precise picture of how the PWP symptoms will fluctuate throughout their everyday activities by optimally adjusting the medications. With the latest advancement in healthcare technology, techniques for PD symptom severity detection and assessment are pretty restricted. The validation of PD can be accomplished either through subjective clinical assessments or through objective technological tools. Figure 2 shows the summary of various types of assessments that are applicable in monitoring PWP.

Assessment of Parkinson Disease-State of Art

One of the currently available tools for monitoring motor fluctuations of PWP is through subjective clinical practice. From the clinical side of view, patient-diaries, patient-self reports and prolonged observations on the spot approach have been applied. Details about motor fluctuations of PWP are obtained by using self-reports or the use of patient diaries. In order to obtain information regarding the motor fluctuations, PWP are requested to refresh back the total periods of active time and non-active time they had undergone. “Active time” is referring to the duration when the medicine is still active in weakening the indications of PD while “Non-active time” is referring to the duration of presence of PD symptoms.
Figure 2. Summary of overall assessment of PD.
However, these both solutions have drawbacks of recalling bias, for instance, patients frequently have trouble in differentiating dyskinesia from other types of symptoms. Even though the use of patient diaries can increase the reliability through the records as the symptoms occur, but this method only provides little information and does not collect useful features, which are advantageous for the clinicians to make an accurate judgment. Besides that, PD expert’s observations on the spot are unrealistic as the duration of motor fluctuations are more than a few hours between the medication prescriptions. The current existing conventional methods have many limitations, for instance, the requirement of patient’s frequent visits to the clinic that may be very inconvenient for them [,,,].
In order to overcome these difficulties and looking for more objective assessment, numerous types of rating scales have been taken into account and applied. This method for PD symptoms monitoring typically requires expert clinical staff to conduct several practical tests and physical examinations. This is linked to the international gold standard reference scale, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) used by physicians, which reflects the presence and severity of PD symptoms. Figure 3 shows the summary of the clinical rating scale, UPDRS that computes the average PD symptoms severity. Unfortunately, the use of UPDRS brings some boundaries such as intra and inter observer inconsistencies whereby this scale may be too time consuming to administer and it can hardly be applied for continuous registration procedures done in the clinic. Additionally, UPDRS only offers assessment at that particular moment, but the symptoms severity of PWP may fluctuate extensively over the whole day. The motor fluctuation measurements taken during visits to the clinic might not precisely reveal the real functional disability experienced by patients while they are at home [,,]. Prolong period of hospitalization will cause problems for the patient and their family members in term of financial status. Currently, this issue is one of the most demanding difficulties faced with PD as the appropriate medical care is progressively difficult and expensive.
With the existing and on-going advance development in microelectronics, it had increased interest in using computerized methods for detecting early symptoms of PD on a more objective basis. This can be categorized into five groups: (1) techniques that analyzed electromyography (EMG) signals; (2) techniques that analyzed electroencephalogram (EEG) signals; (3) techniques based on 3-D motion analysis or imaging modalities (Computed Tomography (CT) scans or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)); (4) techniques examining motion signals using unimodal wearable sensors; and (5) techniques using audio sensors. The researches using such sensors for monitoring and detecting early symptoms of PD allow the opportunity to visualize an unremarkable system on a more continuous basis. These objective assessments are favorable tools that allow long-term home-based intensive care, having the possibility of improving the standards, delivering healthcare and at the same time, turning it into an effective and cost-saving procedure in PD progression. In the previous year, many advances have been conducted, but there is still an absence of an all-comprehensive system that had the capability in dealing with consistent PWP status assessment and at the same time economically reasonable. In this review, our focus will be on the state of art in early detection of PD symptoms severity performing through technological tools. The main objective of this review is to deliver a discussion of the abilities of different types of assessments of PD through technological tools, which are presented in the following section.
Figure 3. Overview of the clinical metric-Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale UPDRS (adapted from [,]).

3. Discussion and Conclusions

It is essential for the medications to be optimally adjusted in order for PWP to function at their best whereby the clinicians in charge are compulsory to have a precise image of the way PWP symptoms fluctuate throughout their everyday life activities. Lately, PD cannot be handled through medication, although it offered significant improvement of symptoms, particularly at the primary stages of PD. Yet, appropriate identification at an initial stage can produce significant lifesaving outcomes [,]. In these conditions, the conventional methods such as patient’s subjective self-reports and patient diaries are normally not very precise and have shortcomings. Although several rating scales that were plotted to UPDRS had been designed and used by physicians, they still possess some limitation whereby UPDRS assessment is subjective, time consuming task and sensitive to inter-rater variability. Many PWP will thus be extensively reliant on clinical involvement, but physical appointments to clinic for checking and treatment are demanding for many PD patients [,,]. This matter is currently a tedious challenge that the physicians are fronting when handling long durations of PD as the medical care towards these patients is increasingly complex and expensive.
Over the past decades, researchers have devised several non-invasive, objective methods for detecting early symptoms of PD using physiological biomarkers, including EMG [,,,,] and EEG [,] signals, brain imaging methods (CT scans or MRI) [,,], speech difficulties using audio sensors [,] and wearable sensors [,,,,,,,,,]. EEG is a tool that is used to measure the electrical activity generated in the brain, which opens a window for exploring brain functioning and neural activity. It is a completely non-invasive technique measured using several electrodes located on the subject’s scalp, which records the electrical impulses generated by nerve cells from the brain (brain waves). In medical environments, EEG refers to the recording of brain’s unstructured electrical activity over a long time period, usually 20–30 min that includes preparation time, as recorded from multiple electrodes located on the scalp []. Even though current EEG technology can precisely identify brain activity at resolution of single millisecond (and even less), simple to operate and inexpensive compared to other devices, EEG still had a number of limitations. By applying EEG methods, brain responses of the patients were recorded with or without visual indications, which bring difficulty for both patients and their caregivers, especially in the later stages of the disease. Large areas of the cortex have to be activated synchronously for ensuring that adequate potentials are generated and changes to be enumerated at the electrodes positioned on the scalp. In addition, the position of the source of the electrical activity may sometimes give puzzling impressions due to the propagation of electrical activity along the physiological pathway or through volume conduction in extracellular spaces. The placement of an EEG cap may also bring discomfort to the patients without making any head movements and this will be a tedious procedure during the data collection [,,].
For EMG, this technique is related to the function of muscles through measures of the electrical activity (action potentials) activated during muscular contractions. One of the informative diagnostic EMG signal approach used to measure PD patient’s muscles is through surface (interference) electrode placed on the skin. This signal is frequently examined using amplitude and spectral analysis techniques. These approaches are applied mainly to calculate the degree of muscle activation and fatigue [,,]. However, the physician that uses the EMG electrodes is requested of having knowledgeable perception on the anatomy of the human body as it is essential for the accurate electrode location and placement. The physician must also ensures that the inter-electrodes distance are constant during the whole experiments for making sure the electrodes are over the identical muscle fibers. Moreover, there are many undesirable signals obtained together with the useful signals, for instance skin artifacts, power line artifacts, motion artifact due to electrodes not attached properly at the skin interface or loose tips of the wires, involuntary reflex activity, and any other electrical device that may be available in the room when data are collected. Besides that, this technique cannot function accurately if the patients had taken medicine beforehand, which will disturb the nervous system, for instance, a muscle relaxant or anticholinergic (medicine that function for reducing uncontrollable movements, relaxing the lung airways, and relieving cramps) [,,,].
While for methods using imaging modalities such as MRI, it also brings some drawbacks where the MRI machines will make a tremendous amount of noise during the operation of the machine. The simultaneous actions of being put in an enclosed space and the loud noises from the machine made by the magnets can cause some patients having a claustrophobic feeling while undergoing the MRI scan. It also requires subjects to maintain still for some period of time, but the MRI scan can take up to 90 min to complete the whole test. A very minor movement during the scan may bring the effects of distorted images meaning that the scanning will require to be taken again. In addition, if multimodal MRI is applied, this modality has additional drawbacks, which include the increased cost of the scan, increased scan time, increased post-processing and reading time, and the need for an experienced radiologist who is familiar with the post-processing and interpretation of images and metabolic spectra produced by these modalities. On the other hand, CT scans have the gains of more precise, painless and more detailed compared to other imaging modalities. However, they insert a high dose of radiation in the patients and sometimes will give misconceptions to physicians where the scan can cause negative effects to the patients’ body if found out that there is a mistake. Then the patients will have to experience unnecessary cures, which exposed them to more radiation [,].
In latest years, the significance of biomedical engineering and wearable technology for healthcare is developing with the progress and the accessibility of many strategies and technological explanations. With the latest on-going advance development in various technologies and systems, this latest knowledge will permit the monitoring of PD with the application of wearable and user-friendly technology. Recently, wearable sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer) and audio sensor have been taken into consideration to progress the experience and capabilities of doctors and medical specialist in making judgments about the PWP. There is no hesitation that the assessment of data tool from PWP and judgments of experts is still the most significant factors in diagnosis. However, these computational tools and techniques have the potentials of being useful supportive tools for the experts. The developed system can be an assistance in improving the precision and consistency of diagnoses and reducing potential errors, and at the same time making the diagnoses more time saving []. Current technological developments in the multimodal miniature sensor system (combination of more than two sensors), which includes mobile and ubiquitous monitoring have been producing excessive growing attention in applying wearable technology for health monitoring. Wearable sensors or body fixed sensors placed on the body to monitor the kinematic and physiological parameters have been advanced to the state that they can be equipped for clinical applications and started to play an important role in patient’s daily routine. The success of these wearable sensor technology fully depends on the sensor performance, cost and reliability. For these reasons, wearable sensors have become very useful for scientific applications and in daily life settings-home monitoring. The use of wearable sensors for monitoring at home has the prospective to expand the quality of delivering healthcare while creating it to be proficient in the process of rehabilitation. This allows physicians resolving restrictions of ambulatory technology and providing feedback for physicians in order to monitor individuals over weeks or even months [,].
The main target using this wearable technology is providing an objective evaluation of motor disorder status, for instance, PD through the motion analysis. Most recently, body-fixed sensors such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers have been widely used for PWP mobility monitoring, especially in term of recording their daily activities. Perhaps, the researchers begin exploring PD motor disorders and the likelihood of employing wearable technology for assessing the effect of clinical interventions on the value of movement observed while PWP accomplished tasks required. These sensors have turn out to be smaller, more robust, totally unobtrusive and precise in the previous couples of years back that facilitate long-term monitoring [,,]. An accelerometer is a low-cost, flexible and miniature devices that provide sufficient information for human motion detection in clinical/laboratory settings or free-living environments. This sensor has been the most commonly used wearable sensor in the field of physical activity recognition and monitoring. It is a type of position sensor functioned by measuring acceleration in motion along each reference axis. Measuring human physical activity using accelerometer is preferred because acceleration is proportional to external forces and therefore reflects the intensity and frequency of human movement. A gyroscope measures angular rotation of body segments, when attached to the segment with their axis parallel to the segment axis. It uses the vibrating mechanical element to sense angular velocity (angular rate) along one rotational axis. It can measure transitions between postures by measuring the Coriolis acceleration from rotational angular velocity and often combined with accelerometers in human motion studies. Magnetometer measures a change in rotation of the body segment with respect to the earth’s magnetic field. The general concepts of these sensors correspond to the magneto-resistive effect, which is the property to change the resistance with a change in magnetic induction. Magnetometer is mostly combined with inertial sensors (gyroscope and accelerometer) where every sensor has their own benefits for overall recognition performance. The combination of multimodal sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer) forms an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that provides quick, accurate position and orientation determination with a low amount of drift over time [,,,,].
Besides the application of wearable sensors, research also shown that speech signal may be a useful biomarker to remotely monitor PD symptom severity based on the sources of medical indication that suggested the huge majority of PD patients usually reveal some form of vocal disorder. There is strong supported proof of degrading in voice with PD progression. In fact, speech impairment might be among the initial sign of PD symptoms, measurable up to five years prior to clinical diagnosis. Study of progression and severity of PD using speech signals is a non-invasive technique, easy to obtain that drawn significant attention. In addition, speech signals fit ideally the purpose of telemonitoring in medical care, because they can be self-recorded, easy to obtain, potentially reliable, cost-effective screening of PWP and potentially alleviating the burden of frequent, and often inconvenience, visit to the clinic. This also relieves national health systems from excessive additional workload, decreasing the cost and increasing the accuracy of clinical evaluation of the patient’s disease condition [,,,,,,]. From earlier investigation conducted, there have been a number of initiatives from previous researches addressing the application of wearable sensors that had the ability to enumerate the different types of PD symptoms (i.e., dyskinesia, bradykinesia, tremor, FoG, etc.) using uni-modal sensor or bi-modal sensors (accelerometer and gyroscope) and application of speech in discriminating healthy control from PWP.
Until now, there is insufficient research on the development of multimodal sensor platform for accurately and efficiently follow PD progression at more frequent intervals with less cost and minimal waste of resources. At the same time, the strength of existing signal processing and classification algorithms was not tested using the information from the combination of multiple sensors. Although many improvements have been shown, but there is still an absence of a multimodal fusion system that had ability to deliver a trustworthy validation of PWP status and at the same time economically practical [,]. The driving principle of multimodal fusion (also known as multimodal signal integration) system is computer systems provided with multimodal proficiencies for human/machine interaction and the ability to interpret information from various sensory and communication channels. Multimodal interfaces process two or more combined user input modes, such as speech, gesture, and body movements in a coordinated manner with multimedia system output. Fusion of input modalities is one of the features that distinguish multimodal interfaces from unimodal interfaces. The aim of fusion is to extract useful information from a set of input modalities and pass it to a human-machine dialog manager. Fusion of different modalities is a delicate task, which can be executed at three levels: at data level, at feature level and at decision level. Each fusion scheme operates at a different level of analysis of the same modality channel as illustrated in Figure 10. Data-level fusion is applied for multiple raw data coming from a same type of modality source, for instance, similar scene recorded from two webcams from different viewpoints. The advantage of this fusion is achieving the highest level of information details as the signal is directly processed, but it is highly susceptible to noise and failure as there is an absence of preprocessing. Next, feature-level fusion is a general type of fusion when closely-coupled modalities are to be fused. The typical example is the fusion of speech and lip movements. This level of fusion will produce a moderate level of information details, but less sensitive to noise and failures. Finally, the decision-level fusion is the most common type of fusion in multimodal applications. The key reason is due to its ability to manage loosely-coupled modalities, for instance, pen and speech interaction. This level of fusion is highly resistant to noise and failure as well as improving reliability and accuracy of semantic interpretation, by combining information coming from each input mode [,,].
Figure 10. Levels of multimodal fusion (adapted from []).
The rising interest in the design of multimodal sensor fusion platform has been motivated through the benefits of pursuing robustness and providing more convenient, obvious, and powerfully expressive means of human-computer interaction. The multimodal sensor interface design could have potential for more interesting applications, provide access to a larger range of consumers and provide more adverse habit surroundings comparisons to before. These sensor designs regularly reveal improvements when handling errors, reducing recognition uncertainty and demonstrate performance advantages. Perhaps, most importantly, the multimodal sensor system can achieve error suppression higher compared to a unimodal sensor system that improves the overall recognition rates [,]. The prospective gain obtained when fusing information from numerous sensors corresponds respectively to the notions of overlapping, complementarily and timeless provided for the system. Overlapping information sources provided from integration of two or more sensors obtained through a multimodal interface can be an effective means of considerably lessen the overall recognition doubt and thus aid to improve the precision whereby the features are perceived by the system. Additionally, this overlapping information can also serve to improve reliability in the case of sensor error or failure. Complementary information obtained through numerous types of sensors will allow features in the surroundings to be perceived, which are impossible to be perceived using information from every single sensor functioning independently. Increasing the quantity of input sensors interpreted within the multimodal system can provide more appropriate information as compared to single sensor due to either the processing parallelism or the speed of each unimodal sensor, which had possibility to achieve as part of the integrating. Overall, a well-designed multimodal sensor interfaces fusing two or more information sources can successfully function in a more robust, reducing the recognition uncertainty and stabilizing the system performance compared to unimodal system that involve only a single recognition technology [,,,,,].
The latest studies have raised the significant topic of looking for a statistical mapping between speech properties and application of wearable sensors as an issue worthy of advance exploration. The combination of wearable sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer) and audio sensor can be an appropriate to investigate, on the basis of clinical evidence, suggesting that the earliest prodromal PD symptoms in the vast majority of PWP are slowness (82.4%), difficulty in walking (77.1%), difficulty in writing (53.6%), stiffness (50%), tremor (82%) and speech difficulty (34%) []. On one hand, wearable sensor technology is totally unobtrusive and does not interfere with the PWP’s normal behavior. While on the other hand, it has been suggested that speech is affected in the early stage where it is a natural candidate for measuring and quantifying the progress of PD. With the benefits from both wearable sensors and audio sensor as the biomarker of PD assessment, the fusion of these two sensors is expected to deliver an outstanding performance in management related to PD and provide a remarkable improvement in the patients’ management as well as a substantial cutting-off of the economic burden caused by PD. Currently, to the authors’ knowledge, the latest research on multimodal sensor fusion do not cover the focus on a combination of wearable sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer) and audio sensor for monitoring the progression of PD. For this reason, areas for future research focused on the integration of multimodal sensor fusion with wearable sensors and audio sensor as the biomarker for enriching early diagnosis of PD are proposed.

Acknowledgments

All the authors would like to acknowledge the journal incentive research grant received from Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) (Grant No: 9007-00117 and 9007-00197).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Choudhury, T.; Consolvo, S.; Harrison, B.; Hightower, J.; LaMarca, A.; LeGrand, L.; Rahimi, A.; Rea, A.; Bordello, G.; Hemingway, B. The mobile sensing platform: An embedded activity recognition system. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2008, 7, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Casale, P.; Pujol, O.; Radeva, P. Human activity recognition from accelerometer data using a wearable device. In Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 289–296. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kim, E.; Helal, S.; Cook, D. Human activity recognition and pattern discovery. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2010, 9, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lee, H.L.; Shahriman, A.B.; Za’aba, S.K.; Khairunizam, W.; Roohi, S.A.; Zuradzman, M.R. Upper Extremity Vein Graft Monitoring Device after Surgery Procedure: A Preliminary Study. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, H.L.; Shahriman, A.B.; Sazali, Y.; Zuradzman, M.R.; Khairunizam, W.; Ahmad, W.; Zunaidi, I.; Cheng, E.M.; Khadijah, S.; Nisha, S. In vitro evaluation of fingerʼs hemodynamics for vein graft surveillance using electrical bio-impedance method. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2014, 8, 350–359. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sim, O.F. Ageing in Malaysia: National Policy and Future Direction; Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  7. De Lau, L.M.; Breteler, M.M. Epidemiology of parkinsonʼs disease. Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Goodman, L.S. Goodman and Gilmanʼs the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  9. Patel, S.; Sherrill, D.; Hughes, R.; Hester, T.; Huggins, N.; Lie-Nemeth, T.; Standaert, D.; Bonato, P. Analysis of the Severity of Dyskinesia in Patients with Parkinsonʼs Disease via Wearable Sensors. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, Cambridge, MA, USA, 3–5 April 2006.
  10. Parkinson Centre-Malaysian Parkinson Disease Association. Why is a Parkinson Centre Needed? Available online: http://www.mpda.org.my/helpparkinsonclub.php (accessed on 5 May 2015).
  11. Aarli, J.A.; Dua, T.; Janca, A.; Muscetta, A. Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  12. Parkinsonʼs Disease: Hope through research. Available online: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/parkinsons_disease/detail_parkinsons_disease.htm (accessed on 5 May 2015).
  13. Elbaz, A.; Bower, J.H.; Maraganore, D.M.; McDonnell, S.K.; Peterson, B.J.; Ahlskog, J.E.; Schaid, D.J.; Rocca, W.A. Risk tables for parkinsonism and parkinsonʼs disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2002, 55, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sung, M.; Marci, C.; Pentland, A. Wearable feedback systems for rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2005, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van den Eeden, S.K.; Tanner, C.M.; Bernstein, A.L.; Fross, R.D.; Leimpeter, A.; Bloch, D.A.; Nelson, L.M. Incidence of parkinson’s disease: Variation by age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003, 157, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chase, T.N. Levodopa therapy consequences of the nonphysiologic replacement of dopamine. Neurology 1998, 50, S17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lang, A.E.; Lozano, A.M. Parkinsonʼs disease. New Engl. J. Med. 1998, 339, 1044–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Obeso, J.A.; Olanow, C.W.; Nutt, J.G. Levodopa motor complications in parkinsonʼs disease. Trends Neurosci. 2000, 23, S2–S7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oung, Q.W.; Hariharan, M.; Basah, S.; Yaacob, S.; Sarillee, M.; Lee, H.L. Use of technological tools for parkinsonʼs disease early detection: A review. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE), Penang, Malaysia, 28–30 November 2014; pp. 343–348.
  20. Jankovic, J. Parkinson’s disease: Clinical features and diagnosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008, 79, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Keijsers, N.L.; Horstink, M.W.; Gielen, S.C. Online monitoring of dyskinesia in patients with parkinsonʼs disease. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Maga. 2003, 22, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Patel, S.; Lorincz, K.; Hughes, R.; Huggins, N.; Growdon, J.H.; Welsh, M.; Bonato, P. Analysis of feature space for monitoring persons with parkinsonʼs disease with application to a wireless wearable sensor system. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon, France, 22–26 August 2007; pp. 6290–6293.
  23. Group, P.S. Evaluation of dyskinesias in a pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of remacemide in advanced parkinson disease. Arch. Neurol. 2001, 58, 1660. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pastor-Sanz, L.; Cancela, J.; Waldmeyer, M.T.A.; Pansera, M.; Pastorino, M. Mobile Systems as a Challenge for Neurological Diseases Management-the Case of Parkinsonʼs; InTech Open Access Publisher: Morn Hill, Winchester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  25. Patel, S.; Lorincz, K.; Hughes, R.; Huggins, N.; Growdon, J.; Standaert, D.; Dy, J.; Welsh, M.; Bonato, P. A body sensor network to monitor parkinsonian symptoms: Extracting features on the nodes. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Wearable Micro and Nanosystems for Personalised Health, Valencia, Spain, 21–23 May 2008; pp. 21–23.
  26. Goetz, C.G.; Fahn, S.; Martinez-Martin, P.; Poewe, W.; Sampaio, C.; Stebbins, G.T.; Stern, M.B.; Tilley, B.C.; Dodel, R.; Dubois, B. Movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the unified parkinsonʼs disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS): Process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Goetz, C.G.; Tilley, B.C.; Shaftman, S.R.; Stebbins, G.T.; Fahn, S.; Martinez-Martin, P.; Poewe, W.; Sampaio, C.; Stern, M.B.; Dodel, R. Movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the unified parkinsonʼs disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 2129–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fattorini, L.; Felici, F.; Filligoi, G.; Traballesi, M.; Farina, D. Influence of high motor unit synchronization levels on non-linear and spectral variables of the surface EMG. J. Neurosci. Methods 2005, 143, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Meigal, A.I.; Rissanen, S.; Tarvainen, M.; Karjalainen, P.; Iudina-Vassel, I.; Airaksinen, O.; Kankaanpää, M. Novel parameters of surface emg in patients with parkinson’s disease and healthy young and old controls. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2009, 19, e206–e213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rissanen, S.; Kankaanpää, M.; Tarvainen, M.P.; Nuutinen, J.; Tarkka, I.M.; Airaksinen, O.; Karjalainen, P.A. Analysis of surface EMG signal morphology in parkinsonʼs disease. Physiol. Meas. 2007, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Ruonala, V.; Meigal, A.; Rissanen, S.; Airaksinen, O.; Kankaanpaa, M.; Karjalainen, P. EMG signal morphology in essential tremor and parkinsonʼs disease. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Osaka, Japan, 3–7 July 2013; pp. 5765–5768.
  32. De Michele, G.; Sello, S.; Carboncini, M.C.; Rossi, B.; Strambi, S.K. Cross-correlation time-frequency analysis for multiple emg signals in parkinson’s disease: A wavelet approach. Med. Eng. Phys. 2003, 25, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sturman, M.M.; Vaillancourt, D.E.; Metman, L.V.; Bakay, R.A.; Corcos, D.M. Effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation and medication on resting and postural tremor in parkinsonʼs disease. Brain 2004, 127, 2131–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rissanen, S.M.; Kankaanpää, M.; Meigal, A.; Tarvainen, M.P.; Nuutinen, J.; Tarkka, I.M.; Airaksinen, O.; Karjalainen, P.A. Surface EMG and acceleration signals in parkinson’s disease: Feature extraction and cluster analysis. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2008, 46, 849–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cole, B.T.; Roy, S.H.; Nawab, S.H. Detecting freezing-of-gait during unscripted and unconstrained activity. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Boston, MA, USA, 30 August–3 September 2011; pp. 5649–5652.
  36. Handojoseno, A.A.; Shine, J.M.; Nguyen, T.N.; Tran, Y.; Lewis, S.J.; Nguyen, H.T. The detection of freezing of gait in parkinsonʼs disease patients using eeg signals based on wavelet decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August–1 September 2012; pp. 69–72.
  37. Backer, J.H. The symptom experience of patients with parkinsonʼs disease. J. Neurosci. Nurs. 2006, 38, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nutt, J.G.; Bloem, B.R.; Giladi, N.; Hallett, M.; Horak, F.B.; Nieuwboer, A. Freezing of gait: Moving forward on a mysterious clinical phenomenon. Lancet Neurol. 2011, 10, 734–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Burrus, C.S.; Gopinath, R.A.; Guo, H. Introduction to Wavelets and Wavelet Transforms: A Primer; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bhosale, M.P.G.; Patil, S. Classification of EMG signals using wavelet transform and hybrid classifier for parkinson’s disease detection. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2012, 2, 106–112. [Google Scholar]
  41. Long, D.; Wang, J.; Xuan, M.; Gu, Q.; Xu, X.; Kong, D.; Zhang, M. Automatic classification of early parkinsonʼs disease with multi-modal mr imaging. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Stawarz, M.; Polański, A.; Kwiek, S.; Boczarska-Jedynak, M.; Janik, L.; Przybyszewski, A.; Wojciechowski, K. A system for analysis of tremor in patients with parkinson’s disease based on motion capture technique. In Computer Vision and Graphics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 618–625. [Google Scholar]
  43. Andrade, L.; Manolakos, E.S. Signal background estimation and baseline correction algorithms for accurate DNA sequencing. J. VLSI Signal Process. Syst. Signal Image Video Technol. 2003, 35, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Salarian, A.; Russmann, H.; Wider, C.; Burkhard, P.R.; Vingerhoets, F.J.; Aminian, K. Quantification of tremor and bradykinesia in parkinsonʼs disease using a novel ambulatory monitoring system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 54, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Salarian, A.; Russmann, H.; Vingerhoets, F.J.; Burkhard, P.R.; Aminian, K. Ambulatory monitoring of physical activities in patients with parkinsonʼs disease. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 54, 2296–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Salarian, A.; Russmann, H.; Vingerhoets, F.; Burkhard, P.; Blanc, Y.; Dehollain, C.; Aminian, K. An ambulatory system to quantify bradykinesia and tremor in parkinsonʼs disease. In Proceedings of the 4th International IEEE EMBS Special Topic Conference on Information Technology Applications in Biomedicine, Birmingham, UK, 24–26 April 2003; pp. 35–38.
  47. Salarian, A.; Russmann, H.; Vingerhoets, F.J.; Dehollaini, C.; Blanc, Y.; Burkhard, P.R.; Aminian, K. Gait assessment in parkinsonʼs disease: Toward an ambulatory system for long-term monitoring. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2004, 51, 1434–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Keijsers, N.L.; Horstink, M.W.; Gielen, S.C. Ambulatory motor assessment in parkinsonʼs disease. Mov. Disord. 2006, 21, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Keijsers, N.L.; Horstink, M.W.; Gielen, S.C. Automatic assessment of levodopa-induced dyskinesias in daily life by neural networks. Mov. Disord. 2003, 18, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Keijsers, N.L.; Horstink, M.W.; Gielen, S.C. Movement parameters that distinguish between voluntary movements and levodopa-induced dyskinesia in parkinson’s disease. Human Mov. Sci. 2003, 22, 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Keijsers, N.; Horstink, M.; van Hilten, J.; Hoff, J.; Gielen, C. Detection and assessment of the severity of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in patients with parkinson’s disease by neural networks. Mov. Disord. 2000, 15, 1104–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Patel, S.; Lorincz, K.; Hughes, R.; Huggins, N.; Growdon, J.; Standaert, D.; Akay, M.; Dy, J.; Welsh, M.; Bonato, P. Monitoring motor fluctuations in patients with parkinsonʼs disease using wearable sensors. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2009, 13, 864–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Patel, S.; Chen, B.R.; Buckley, T.; Rednic, R.; McClure, D.; Tarsy, D.; Shih, L.; Dy, J.; Welsh, M.; Bonato, P. Home monitoring of patients with parkinsonʼs disease via wearable technology and a web-based application. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 August–4 September 2010; pp. 4411–4414.
  54. Chen, B.R.; Patel, S.; Buckley, T.; Rednic, R.; McClure, D.J.; Shih, L.; Tarsy, D.; Welsh, M.; Bonato, P. A web-based system for home monitoring of patients with parkinsonʼs disease using wearable sensors. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2011, 58, 831–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cancela, J.; Pastorino, M.; Arredondo, M.; Pansera, M.; Pastor-Sanz, L.; Villagra, F.; Pastor, M.; Gonzalez, A. Gait assessment in parkinsonʼs disease patients through a network of wearable accelerometers in unsupervised environments. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Boston, MA, USA, 30 August–3 September 2011; pp. 2233–2236.
  56. Das, S.; Amoedo, B.; de la Torre, F.; Hodgins, J. Detecting parkinsonsʼ symptoms in uncontrolled home environments: A multiple instance learning approach. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), San Diego, CA, USA, 28 August–1 September 2012; pp. 3688–3691.
  57. Andrews, S.; Tsochantaridis, I.; Hofmann, T. Support vector machines for multiple-instance learning. In Proceedings of the Advances in neural information processing systems, Providence, RI, USA, 7 May 2002; pp. 561–568.
  58. Lathropb, T.G.D.R.H. Solving the multiple-instance problem with axis-parallel rectangles. J. Artif. Intell. 1997, 89, 31–71. [Google Scholar]
  59. Maron, O.; Lozano-Pérez, T. A framework for multiple-instance learning. In Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 29 November–4 December 1997; pp. 570–576.
  60. Wang, J.; Zucker, J.D. Solving multiple-instance problem: A lazy learning approach. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning, Standord, CA, USA, 29 June–2 July 2000; pp. 1119–1126.
  61. LeMoyne, R.; Mastroianni, T.; Grundfest, W. Wireless accelerometer configuration for monitoring parkinson’s disease hand tremor. Sci. Res. 2013, 2, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. LeMoyne, R.; Coroian, C.; Mastroianni, T. Quantification of parkinsonʼs disease characteristics using wireless accelerometers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering, Tempe, AZ, USA, 9–11 April 2009; pp. 1–5.
  63. Lemoyne, R.; Coroian, C.; Mastroianni, T.; Grundfest, W. Accelerometers for quantification of gait and movement disorders: A perspective review. J. Mech. Med. Biol. 2008, 8, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. LeMoyne, R.; Mastroianni, T.; Cozza, M.; Coroian, C.; Grundfest, W. Implementation of an iphone for characterizing parkinson’s disease tremor through a wireless accelerometer application. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 August–4 September 2010; pp. 4954–4958.
  65. Macht, M.; Kaussner, Y.; Möller, J.C.; Stiasny-Kolster, K.; Eggert, K.M.; Krüger, H.P.; Ellgring, H. Predictors of freezing in parkinsonʼs disease: A survey of 6620 patients. Mov. Disord. 2007, 22, 953–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bächlin, M.; Plotnik, M.; Roggen, D.; Giladi, N.; Hausdorff, J.; Tröster, G. A wearable system to assist walking of parkinson s disease patients. Methods Inf. Med. 2010, 49, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bächlin, M.; Plotnik, M.; Roggen, D.; Inbar, N.; Giladi, N.; Hausdorff, J.; Tröster, G. Parkinsons disease patients perspective on context aware wearable technology for auditive assistance. In Proceding of the 3rd International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, London, UK, 1–3 April 2009; pp. 1–8.
  68. Bächlin, M.; Plotnik, M.; Roggen, D.; Maidan, I.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Giladi, N.; Troster, G. Wearable assistant for parkinson’s disease patients with the freezing of gait symptom. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2010, 14, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bächlin, M.; Roggen, D.; Tröster, G.; Plotnik, M.; Inbar, N.; Maidan, I.; Herman, T.; Brozgol, M.; Shaviv, E.; Giladi, N. Potentials of enhanced context awareness in wearable assistants for parkinsonʼs disease patients with the freezing of gait syndrome. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Linz, Austria, 4–7 September 2009; pp. 123–130.
  70. Bloem, B.R.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Visser, J.E.; Giladi, N. Falls and freezing of gait in parkinsonʼs disease: A review of two interconnected, episodic phenomena. Mov. Disord. 2004, 19, 871–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Giladi, N.; Treves, T.; Simon, E.; Shabtai, H.; Orlov, Y.; Kandinov, B.; Paleacu, D.; Korczyn, A. Freezing of gait in patients with advanced parkinsonʼs disease. J. Neural Transm. 2001, 108, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mazilu, S.; Calatroni, A.; Gazit, E.; Roggen, D.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Tröster, G. Feature learning for detection and prediction of freezing of gait in parkinson’s disease. In Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mazilu, S.; Hardegger, M.; Zhu, Z.; Roggen, D.; Troster, G.; Plotnik, M.; Hausdorff, J.M. Online detection of freezing of gait with smartphones and machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth), San Diego, CA, USA, 21–24 May 2012; pp. 123–130.
  74. Moore, S.T.; MacDougall, H.G.; Ondo, W.G. Ambulatory monitoring of freezing of gait in parkinsonʼs disease. J. Neurosci. Methods 2008, 167, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zabaleta, H.; Keller, T.; Fimbel, E. Gait analysis in frequency domain for freezing detection in patients with parkinson’s disease. Gerontechnology 2008, 7, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Saad, A.; Zaarour, I.; Lefebvre, D.; Guerin, F.; Bejjani, P.; Ayache, M. About detection and diagnosis of freezing of gait. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Advances in Biomedical Engineering (ICABME), Tripoli, Libya, 11–13 September 2013; pp. 117–120.
  77. Titze, I.R.; Martin, D.W. Principles of voice production. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Baken, R.J.; Orlikoff, R.F. Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rosen, K.M.; Duffy, J.R. Parametric quantitative acoustic analysis of conversation produced by speakers with dysarthria and healthy speakers. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2006, 49, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hartelius, L.; Svensson, P. Speech and swallowing symptoms associated with parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis: A survey. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 1994, 46, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Ho, A.K.; Iansek, R.; Marigliani, C.; Bradshaw, J.L.; Gates, S. Speech impairment in a large sample of patients with parkinson’s disease. Behav. Neurol. 1999, 11, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Sindhu, R.; Neoh, S.C.; Hariharan, M. A hybrid expert system for automatic detection of voice disorders. Int. J. Med. Eng. Inf. 2014, 6, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hariharan, M.; Polat, K.; Yaacob, S. A new feature constituting approach to detection of vocal fold pathology. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2014, 45, 1622–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tsanas, A.; Little, M.A.; Fox, C.; Ramig, L.O. Objective automatic assessment of rehabilitative speech treatment in parkinsonʼs disease. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2014, 22, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tsanas, A.; Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Spielman, J.; Ramig, L.O. Novel speech signal processing algorithms for high-accuracy classification of parkinson’s disease. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 59, 1264–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Hunter, E.J.; Spielman, J.; Ramig, L.O. Suitability of dysphonia measurements for telemonitoring of parkinson’s disease. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2009, 56, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hariharan, M.; Polat, K.; Sindhu, R. A new hybrid intelligent system for accurate detection of parkinsonʼs disease. Comput. Methods Progr. Biomed. 2014, 113, 904–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Tsanas, A. Accurate Telemonitoring of Parkinson’s Disease Symptom Severity Using Nonlinear Speech Signal Processing and Statistical Machine Learning. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  89. Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Roberts, S.J.; Costello, D.A.; Moroz, I.M. Exploiting nonlinear recurrence and fractal scaling properties for voice disorder detection. Biomed. Eng. OnLine 2007, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Tsanas, A. New nonlinear markers and insights into speech signal degradation for effective tracking of parkinson’s disease symptom severity. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Nonlinear Theory and its Applications, Krakow, Poland, 5–8 September 2010; pp. 457–460.
  91. Tsanas, A.; Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Ramig, L.O. Nonlinear speech analysis algorithms mapped to a standard metric achieve clinically useful quantification of average parkinsonʼs disease symptom severity. J. Royal Soc. Interface 2011, 8, 842–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Tsanas, A.; Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Ramig, L.O. Enhanced classical dysphonia measures and sparse regression for telemonitoring of parkinsonʼs disease progression. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, Dallas, TX, USA, 14–19 March 2010; pp. 594–597.
  93. Tsanas, A.; Little, M.A.; McSharry, P.E.; Ramig, L.O. Accurate telemonitoring of parkinsonʼs disease progression by noninvasive speech tests. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2010, 57, 884–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Åström, F.; Koker, R. A parallel neural network approach to prediction of parkinson’s disease. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12470–12474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Shahbakhi, M.; Far, D.T.; Tahami, E. Speech analysis for diagnosis of parkinson’s disease using genetic algorithm and support vector machine. J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 2014, 7, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Luukka, P. Feature selection using fuzzy entropy measures with similarity classifier. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 4600–4607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rustempasic, I.; Can, M. Diagnosis of parkinson’s disease using fuzzy c-means clustering and pattern recognition. South East Eur. J. Soft Comput. 2013, 2, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hadjahmadi, A.; Askari, T. A decision support system for parkinsonʼs disease diagnosis using classification and regression tree. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2012, 4, 257–263. [Google Scholar]
  99. Das, R. A comparison of multiple classification methods for diagnosis of parkinson disease. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1568–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bakar, Z.A.; Ispawi, D.I.; Ibrahim, N.F.; Tahir, N.M. Classification of parkinsonʼs disease based on multilayer perceptrons (MLPs) neural network and anova as a feature extraction. In Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and its Applications, Melaka, Malaysia, 23–25 March 2012; pp. 63–67.
  101. Chen, H.L.; Huang, C.C.; Yu, X.G.; Xu, X.; Sun, X.; Wang, G.; Wang, S.J. An efficient diagnosis system for detection of parkinson’s disease using fuzzy k-nearest neighbor approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Polat, K. Classification of parkinsonʼs disease using feature weighting method on the basis of fuzzy c-means clustering. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2012, 43, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rahn, D.A.; Chou, M.; Jiang, J.J.; Zhang, Y. Phonatory impairment in parkinsonʼs disease: Evidence from nonlinear dynamic analysis and perturbation analysis. J. Voice 2007, 21, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Tolosa, E.; Wenning, G.; Poewe, W. The diagnosis of parkinsonʼs disease. Lancet Neurol. 2006, 5, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Singh, N.; Pillay, V.; Choonara, Y.E. Advances in the treatment of parkinsonʼs disease. Prog. Neurobiol. 2007, 81, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Smith, S. EEG in the diagnosis, classification, and management of patients with epilepsy. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2005, 76, ii2–ii7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Henry, J.C. Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. Neurology 2006, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Niedermeyer, E.; da Silva, F.L. Electroencephalography: Basic principles, Clinical Applications, and Related Fields; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  109. Criswell, E. Cramʼs Introduction to Surface Electromyography; Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  110. Robichaud, J.A.; Pfann, K.D.; Comella, C.L.; Corcos, D.M. Effect of medication on emg patterns in individuals with parkinsonʼs disease. Mov. Disord. 2002, 17, 950–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Lukhanina, E.; Karaban, I.; Berezetskaya, N. Diagnosis of Parkinsonʼs Disease by Electrophysiological Methods; InTech Open Access Publisher: Winchester, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  112. Electromyography (EMG): Monitors Peripheral, Lumbar, and Cranial Nerves. Available online: www.calderdevelopment.com/modalities/emg.html (accessed on 25 Janaury 2015).
  113. Neuroimaging: Advantages and Disadvatages of CT Scans. Available online: http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/neuroimaging/#advantages-and-disadvantages-of-ct (accessed on 25 Janaury 2015).
  114. Gould, T.A. How MRI Works; HowStuffWorks Inc: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  115. Khemphila, A.; Boonjing, V. Parkinsons disease classification using neural network and feature selection. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 64, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  116. Patel, S.; Park, H.; Bonato, P.; Chan, L.; Rodgers, M. A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2012, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Bonato, P. Wearable sensors/systems and their impact on biomedical engineering. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2003, 22, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Bonato, P. Wearable sensors and systems. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 2010, 29, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Bonato, P. Advances in wearable technology for rehabilitation. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2009, 145, 145–159. [Google Scholar]
  120. Bonato, P. Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and rehabilitation. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2005, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pastorino, M.; Arredondo, M.; Cancela, J.; Guillen, S. Wearable sensor network for health monitoring: The case of parkinson disease. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Oviatt, S. Advances in robust multimodal interface design. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2003, 23, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Luo, R.C.; Kay, M.G. Multisensor integration and fusion in intelligent systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1989, 19, 901–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Dumas, B.; Lalanne, D.; Oviatt, S. Multimodal interfaces: A survey of principles, models and frameworks. In Human Machine Interaction; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar]
  125. Oviatt, S. Multimodal interfaces. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications; L. Erlbaum Associates Inc: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 286–304. [Google Scholar]
  126. Oviatt, S.; Cohen, P. Perceptual user interfaces: Multimodal interfaces that process what comes naturally. Commun. ACM 2000, 43, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Luo, R.C.; Chang, C.C. Multisensor fusion and integration: A review on approaches and its applications in mechatronics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2012, 8, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Luo, R.C.; Chang, C.C.; Lai, C.C. Multisensor fusion and integration: Theories, applications, and its perspectives. IEEE Sens. J. 2011, 11, 3122–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Luo, R.C.; Chou, Y.C.; Chen, O. Multisensor fusion and integration: Algorithms, applications, and future research directions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, 2007 (ICMA 2007), Harbin, China, 5–8 August 2007; pp. 1986–1991.
  130. Chew, N.; Goh, K.; Tan, C. Parkinson’s disease in university hospital, kuala lumpur. Neurol J. Southeast Asia 1998, 3, 75–80. [Google Scholar]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.