↓ Skip to main content

The Feasibility of Using Acoustic Markers of Speech for Optimizing Patient Outcomes during Randomized Amplitude Variation in Deep Brain Stimulation: A Proof of Principle Methods Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Feasibility of Using Acoustic Markers of Speech for Optimizing Patient Outcomes during Randomized Amplitude Variation in Deep Brain Stimulation: A Proof of Principle Methods Study
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam P. Vogel, Hugh J. McDermott, Thushara Perera, Mary Jones, Richard Peppard, Colette M. McKay

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for reducing symptoms of tremor. A common and typically subjectively determined adverse effect of DBS is dysarthria. Current assessment protocols are driven by the qualitative judgments of treating clinicians and lack the sensitivity and objectivity required to optimize patient outcomes where multiple stimulation parameters are trialed. To examine the effect of DBS on speech in patients receiving stimulation to the posterior sub-thalamic area (PSA) via randomized manipulation of amplitude parameters. Six patients diagnosed with tremor receiving treatment via DBS of the PSA were assessed in a double-blinded, within-subjects experimental protocol. Amplitude (i.e., voltage or current) was randomly adjusted across 10 settings, while speech samples (e.g., sustained vowel, counting to 10) were recorded to identify the patient-specific settings required for optimal therapeutic benefit (reduced tremor) with minimal adverse effects (altered speech). Speech production between stimulation parameters was quantified using acoustic analysis. Speech changed as a response to DBS but those changes were not uniform across patients nor were they generally in line with changes in amplitude with the exception of reduced vocal control and increased mean silence length in two patients. Speech outcomes did not correlate with changes in tremor. Intra-individual changes in speech were detected as a response to modified amplitude; however, no clear pattern was observed across patients as a group. The use of objective acoustic measures allows for quantification of speech changes during DBS optimization protocols, even when those changes are subtle and potentially difficult to detect perceptually.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Neuroscience 7 25%
Linguistics 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 2 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,527,706
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#1,589
of 6,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,800
of 263,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#14
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,980 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.