4.2 Article

Characterization of the fine motor problems in patients with cognitive dysfunction - A computerized handwriting analysis

期刊

HUMAN MOVEMENT SCIENCE
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 71-79

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2018.06.006

关键词

Handwriting; Alzheimer's disease; Amnestic mild cognitive impairment; Computerized evaluation; Digital tablet

资金

  1. I-Shou University [ISU101-04-08]
  2. [MOST-103-2221-E-214-014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposed a new technology to assess the accuracy of Chinese handwriting by comparing every stroke movement between a template model and a handwritten script. It tested the feasibility of a computerized evaluation in the parameterization of the handwriting deterioration caused by impaired cognitive function. This study recruited 22 participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 14 with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI); 18 age- and gender-matched healthy elderly individuals made up the health control. The graphomotor tasks included drawing four straight lines (vertical, horizontal, and two diagonal) as well as writing Chinese words with simple vertical, horizontal and diagonal strokes. The temporal and spatial data were calculated to measure the motor coordination. The results in geographic drawing tests reveal significant differences among the three groups in task accuracy and movement fluency, especially in nonequivalent and wrist movements. The accuracy control of the graphic drawing in the AD and aMCI groups was significantly lower than that for the subjects in the normal group. These two groups also showed longer pauses in stroke movement with the handwriting tasks. The handwriting accuracy in the AD and aMCI groups was found to be significantly different from that of the subjects in the normal group. The results of this study can be used as an indicative reference for early detection of AD or aMCI, an objective evaluation for the effectiveness of interventions, and an assessment of disease progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据