4.4 Article

Classification of pallidal oscillations with increasing parkinsonian severity

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 1, 页码 209-218

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00840.2014

关键词

Parkinson's disease; machine learning; support vector machine; phase-amplitude coupling

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS-058945, R01 NS-081118]
  2. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [00006595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The firing patterns of neurons in the basal ganglia are known to become more oscillatory and synchronized from healthy to parkinsonian conditions. Similar changes have been observed with local field potentials (LFPs). In this study, we used an unbiased machine learning approach to investigate the utility of pallidal LFPs for discriminating the stages of a progressive parkinsonian model. A feature selection algorithm was used to identify subsets of LFP features that provided the most discriminatory information for severity of parkinsonian motor signs. Prediction errors <20% were achievable using 28 of the possible 206 features tested. For all subjects, a spectral feature within the beta band was chosen through the feature selection algorithm, but a combination of features, including alpha-band power and phase-amplitude coupling, was necessary to achieve minimal prediction errors. There was large variability between the discriminatory features for individual subjects, and testing of classifiers between subjects yielded prediction errors >50%. These results suggest that pallidal oscillations can be predictive biomarkers of parkinsonian severity, but the features are more complex than spectral power in individual frequency bands, such as the beta band. Additionally, the best feature set was subject specific, which highlights the pathophysiological heterogeneity of parkinsonism and the importance of subject specificity when designing closedloop system controllers dependent on such features.

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

4.4
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