NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundRegularity, quantified by sample entropy (SampEn), has been extensively used as a gait stability measure. Yet, there is no consensus on the calculation process and variant approaches, e.g. single-scale SampEn with and without incorporating a time delay greater than one, multiscale SampEn, and complexity index, have been used to calculate the regularity of kinematic or kinetic signals. The aim of the present study was to test the discriminatory performance of the abovementioned approaches during single and dual-task walking in people with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsSeventeen individuals with PD were included in this study. Participants completed two walking trials that included single and dual-task conditions. The secondary task was word searching with twelve words randomly appearing in the participants' visual field. Trunk linear acceleration at sternum level, linear acceleration of the center of gravity, and angular velocity of feet, shanks, and thighs, each in three planes of motion were collected. The regularity of signals was computed using approaches mentioned above for single and dual-task conditions.ResultsIncorporating a time delay greater than one and considering multiple scales helped better distinguish between single and dual-task walking. For all signals, the complexity index, defined as the summary of multiscale SampEn analysis, was the most efficient discriminatory index between single-task walking and dual-tasking in people with Parkinson's disease. Specifically, the complexity index of the trunk linear acceleration of the center of gravity distinguished between the two walking conditions in all three planes of motion.ConclusionsThe significant results observed across the 24 signals studied in this study are illustrative examples of the complexity index's potential as a gait feature for classifying different walking conditions.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.