Advertisement

Preliminary Wearable and Locally Wireless Systems for Quantification of Parkinson’s Disease and Essential Tremor Characteristics

  • Robert LeMoyne
  • Timothy Mastroianni
  • Donald Whiting
  • Nestor Tomycz
Chapter
Part of the Smart Sensors, Measurement and Instrumentation book series (SSMI, volume 31)

Abstract

Inertial sensor systems, such as accelerometers, were proposed for the monitoring of human movement before their technology capability was sufficient for application to the human body. With sufficient progressive evolution, these sensors have been demonstrated for quantifying neurodegenerative movement disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease and Essential tremor. Initial success was demonstrated for matters, such as medication efficacy and symptom status. Their further recent evolution has elucidated utility regarding the preliminary context of wearable and locally wireless systems. A novel configuration was proposed for the use of wearable and wireless accelerometer systems to provide quantified feedback to establish a strategy for acquiring optimal parameter settings for a deep brain stimulation system. Further demonstration of wearable and locally wireless inertial sensor systems for objectively quantifying neurodegenerative movement disorder tremor symptoms has been provided with local wireless connectivity to a proximally situated personal computer for post-processing. These developments establish the foundation for the extension to wearable and wireless inertial sensor systems with considerable accessibility to the Internet, such as provided by the smartphone. This foundation sets the precedence for the emergence of Network Centric Therapy regarding the domain of quantifying neurodegenerative movement disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease and Essential tremor.

Keywords

Movement disorder Hand tremor Parkinson’s disease Essential tremor Quantification Accelerometer Gyroscope Deep brain stimulation system Optimal parameter configuration Wearable and wireless system 

References

  1. 1.
    Saunders JB, Inman VT, Eberhart HD (1953) The major determinants in normal and pathological gait. J Bone Joint Surg 35A(3):543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Cozza M, Opalinski P, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2009) The merits of artificial proprioception, with applications in biofeedback gait rehabilitation concepts and movement disorder characterization. In: Biomedical engineering. Intech, Vienna, pp 165–198Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2008) Accelerometers for quantification of gait and movement disorders: a perspective review. J Mech Med Biol 8(2):137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culhane KM, O’Connor M, Lyons D, Lyons GM (2005) Accelerometers in rehabilitation medicine for older adults. Age Ageing 34(6):556–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Patel S, Park H, Bonato P, Chan L, Rodgers M (2012) A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 9(1):21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2018) Wearable and wireless systems for healthcare I: gait and reflex response quantification. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2015) Use of smartphones and portable media devices for quantifying human movement characteristics of gait, tendon reflex response, and Parkinson’s disease hand tremor. In: Mobile health technologies, methods and protocols. Springer, New York, pp 335–358Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2017) Wearable and wireless gait analysis platforms: smartphones and portable media devices. In: Wireless MEMS networks and applications. Elsevier, New York, pp 129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2016) Telemedicine perspectives for wearable and wireless applications serving the domain of neurorehabilitation and movement disorder treatment. In: Telemedicine, SMGroup, Dover, Delaware, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2017) Smartphone and portable media device: a novel pathway toward the diagnostic characterization of human movement. In: Smartphones from an applied research perspective. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schrag A, Schelosky L, Scholz U, Poewe W (1999) Reduction of parkinsonian signs in patients with Parkinson’s disease by dopaminergic versus anticholinergic single-dose challenges. Mov Disord 14(2):252–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keijsers NL, Horstink MW, van Hilten JJ, Hoff JI, Gielen CC (2000) Detection and assessment of the severity of levodopa-induced dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson’s disease by neural networks. Mov Disord 15(6):1104–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keijsers NL, Horstink MW, Gielen SC (2006) Ambulatory motor assessment in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 21(1):34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gurevich TY, Shabtai H, Korczyn AD, Simon ES, Giladi N (2006) Effect of rivastigmine on tremor in patients with Parkinson’s disease and dementia. Mov Disord 21(10):1663–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obwegeser AA, Uitti RJ, Witte RJ, Lucas JA, Turk MF, Wharen RE Jr (2001) Quantitative and qualitative outcome measures after thalamic deep brain stimulation to treat disabling tremors. Neurosurgery 48(2):274–284Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumru H, Summerfield C, Valldeoriola F, Valls-Solé J (2004) Effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation on characteristics of EMG activity underlying reaction time in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 19(1):94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeMoyne R, Dabiri F, Coroian C, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2007) Quantified deep tendon reflex device for assessing response and latency. In: 37th Society for Neuroscience annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2008) Quantified deep tendon reflex device for response and latency, third generation. J Mech Med Biol 8(4):491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T, Kale H, Luna J, Stewart J, Elliot S, Bryan F, Coroian C, Grundfest W (2011) Fourth generation wireless reflex quantification system for acquiring tendon reflex response and latency. J Mech Med Biol 11(1):31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    LeMoyne RC (2010) Wireless quantified reflex device. Ph.D. Dissertation UCLAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T, Coroian C, Grundfest W (2011) Tendon reflex and strategies for quantification, with novel methods incorporating wireless accelerometer reflex quantification devices, a perspective review. J Mech Med Biol 11(3):471–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2009) Wireless accelerometer assessment of gait for quantified disparity of hemiparetic locomotion. J Mech Med Biol 9(3):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2008) Virtual proprioception. J Mech Med Biol 8(3):317–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeMoyne R (2007) Gradient optimized neuromodulation for Parkinson’s disease. In: 12th Annual UCLA research conference on agingGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T (2008) 3D wireless accelerometer characterization of Parkinson’s disease status. In: Plasticity and repair in neurodegenerative disorders (Conference)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    LeMoyne R, Coroian C, Mastroianni T (2009) Quantification of Parkinson’s disease characteristics using wireless accelerometers. In: ICME International conference on IEEE Complex Medical Engineering (CME), pp 1–5Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T, Grundfest W (2013) Wireless accelerometer configuration for monitoring Parkinson’s disease hand tremor. Adv Park Dis 2(2):62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    LeMoyne R (2008) Multidisciplinary cost and performance optimization of a two stage liquid propulsion based launch vehicle. In: 15th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, AIAA 2008–2642Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    LeMoyne R (2016) Advances for prosthetic technology: from historical perspective to current status to future application. Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    LeMoyne R (2016) Testing and evaluation strategies for the powered prosthesis, a global perspective. In: Advances for prosthetic technology: from historical perspective to current status to future application. Springer, Tokyo, pp 37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2018) Quantification systems appropriate for a clinical setting. In: Wearable and wireless systems for healthcare I: gait and reflex response quantification. Springer, Singapore, pp 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000) Principles of neural science. McGraw-Hill, New York, Ch 43Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bickley LS, Szilagyi PG (2003) Bates’ guide to physical examination and history taking. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, Ch 16Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    LeMoyne R, Mastroianni T (2018) Quantifying the spatial position representation of gait through sensor fusion. In: Wearable and wireless systems for healthcare I: gait and reflex response quantification. Springer, Singapore, pp 105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Giuffrida JP, Riley DE, Maddux BN, Heldman DA (2009) Clinically deployable Kinesia™ technology for automated tremor assessment. Mov Disord 24(5):723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert LeMoyne
    • 1
  • Timothy Mastroianni
    • 2
  • Donald Whiting
    • 3
  • Nestor Tomycz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences and Center for Bioengineering InnovationNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.IndependentPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of Neurosurgery Allegheny General HospitalAllegheny Health Network Neuroscience InstitutePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations