Delayed and More Variable Unimanual and Bimanual Finger Tapping in Alzheimer's Disease: Associations with Biomarkers and Applications for Classification.
Delayed and More Variable Unimanual and Bimanual Finger Tapping in Alzheimer's Disease: Associations with Biomarkers and Applications for Classification.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3233/jad-221297
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Duff, Kevin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koppelmans, Vincent;Ruitenberg, Marit F. L.;Schaefer, Sydney Y.;King, Jace B.;Hoffman, John M.;Mejia, Amanda F.;Tasdizen, Tolga;Duff, Kevin
尽管有报道称轻度认知障碍（MCI）和阿尔茨海默病（AD）存在粗大运动问题，但精细运动功能的研究相对不足。我们检查了手指敲击是否受到 AD 的影响，与 AD 生物标志物相关，并且能够对 MCI 或 AD 进行分类。 47 名认知正常的受试者、27 名遗忘性 MCI 受试者和 26 名 AD 受试者完成了单手和双手计算机化敲击测试。我们测试了 1) 使用排列模型进行攻丝的群体差异； 2) 敲击和生物标志物（PET 淀粉样蛋白-β、海马体积和 APOE ɛ4 等位基因）之间的关联与线性回归； 3）使用机器学习进行群体分类的点击预测价值。在所有敲击条件下（双敲击除外），AD 受试者的反应时间较慢，速度变化较大。 MCI 受试者在双手和非惯用手敲击的反应时间和速度变化方面表现比对照组差。敲击速度和变异性与海马体积有关，但与淀粉样蛋白-β 沉积或 APOE ɛ4 等位基因无关。随机森林分类（总体准确率 = 70%）区分了对照和 AD 受试者，但很难区分 MCI 和对照或 AD。 MCI 和 AD 与更多变化的手指敲击有关，反应时间更慢。手指敲击与海马体积之间的关联，但与淀粉样变性无关，表明敲击缺陷与疾病后期出现的神经病理学有关。考虑到敲击性能能够区分对照组和 AD 受试者，它可以提供一种经济高效的工具来增强现有的 AD 生物标志物。
Despite reports of gross motor problems in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD), fine motor function has been relatively understudied. We examined if finger tapping is affected in AD, related to AD biomarkers, and able to classify MCI or AD. Forty-seven cognitively normal, 27 amnestic MCI, and 26 AD subjects completed unimanual and bimanual computerized tapping tests. We tested 1) group differences in tapping with permutation models; 2) associations between tapping and biomarkers (PET amyloid-β, hippocampal volume, and APOE ɛ4 alleles) with linear regression; and 3) the predictive value of tapping for group classification using machine learning. AD subjects had slower reaction time and larger speed variability than controls during all tapping conditions, except for dual tapping. MCI subjects performed worse than controls on reaction time and speed variability for dual and non-dominant hand tapping. Tapping speed and variability were related to hippocampal volume, but not to amyloid-β deposition or APOE ɛ4 alleles. Random forest classification (overall accuracy = 70%) discriminated control and AD subjects, but poorly discriminated MCI from controls or AD. MCI and AD are linked to more variable finger tapping with slower reaction time. Associations between finger tapping and hippocampal volume, but not amyloidosis, suggest that tapping deficits are related to neuropathology that presents later during the disease. Considering that tapping performance is able to differentiate between control and AD subjects, it can offer a cost-efficient tool for augmenting existing AD biomarkers.