↓ Skip to main content

Automated Video Analysis of Non-verbal Communication in a Medical Setting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Automated Video Analysis of Non-verbal Communication in a Medical Setting
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuval Hart, Efrat Czerniak, Orit Karnieli-Miller, Avraham E. Mayo, Amitai Ziv, Anat Biegon, Atay Citron, Uri Alon

Abstract

Non-verbal communication plays a significant role in establishing good rapport between physicians and patients and may influence aspects of patient health outcomes. It is therefore important to analyze non-verbal communication in medical settings. Current approaches to measure non-verbal interactions in medicine employ coding by human raters. Such tools are labor intensive and hence limit the scale of possible studies. Here, we present an automated video analysis tool for non-verbal interactions in a medical setting. We test the tool using videos of subjects that interact with an actor portraying a doctor. The actor interviews the subjects performing one of two scripted scenarios of interviewing the subjects: in one scenario the actor showed minimal engagement with the subject. The second scenario included active listening by the doctor and attentiveness to the subject. We analyze the cross correlation in total kinetic energy of the two people in the dyad, and also characterize the frequency spectrum of their motion. We find large differences in interpersonal motion synchrony and entrainment between the two performance scenarios. The active listening scenario shows more synchrony and more symmetric followership than the other scenario. Moreover, the active listening scenario shows more high-frequency motion termed jitter that has been recently suggested to be a marker of followership. The present approach may be useful for analyzing physician-patient interactions in terms of synchrony and dominance in a range of medical settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 30 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,340,423
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,238
of 29,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,349
of 342,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#360
of 404 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 404 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.