Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Smartphone automated motor and speech analysis for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: Validation of TapTalk across 20 different devices
Li R, Huang G, Wang X, Lawler K, Goldberg LR, Roccati E, St George RJ, Aiyede M et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024-10-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Smartphones are proving useful in assessing movement and speech function in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative conditions. Valid outcomes across different smartphones are needed before population-level tests are deployed. This study introduces the TapTalk protocol, a novel app designed to capture hand and speech function and validate it in smartphones against gold-standard measures. Methods Twenty different smartphones collected video data from motor tests and audio data from speech tests. Features were extracted using Google Mediapipe (movement) and Python audio analysis packages (speech). Electromagnetic sensors (60 Hz) and a microphone acquired simultaneous movement and voice data, respectively. Results TapTalk video and audio outcomes were comparable to gold-standard data: 90.3% of video, and 98.3% of audio, data recorded tapping/speech frequencies within ± 1 Hz of the gold-standard measures. Discussion Validation of TapTalk across a range of devices is an important step in the development of smartphone-based telemedicine and was achieved in this study. Highlights TapTalk evaluates hand motor and speech functions across a wide range of smartphones.Data showed 90.3% motor and 98.3% speech accuracy within +/-1 Hz of gold standards.Validation advances smartphone-based telemedicine for neurodegenerative diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Li, R., Huang, G., Wang, X., Lawler, K., Goldberg, L. R., Roccati, E., et al. (2024). Smartphone automated motor and speech analysis for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: Validation of TapTalk across 20 different devices. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70025
Vancouver
Li R, Huang G, Wang X, Lawler K, Goldberg LR, Roccati E, et al. Smartphone automated motor and speech analysis for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: Validation of TapTalk across 20 different devices. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2024. doi:10.1002/dad2.70025. PMID: 39445342.
BibTeX
@article{li2024-39445342,
author = {Li, R. and Huang, G. and Wang, X. and Lawler, K. and Goldberg, L. R. and Roccati, E. and St George, R. J. and Aiyede, M. and others},
title = {{Smartphone automated motor and speech analysis for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease: Validation of TapTalk across 20 different devices}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.70025},
pmid = {39445342},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70025}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results TapTalk video and audio outcomes were comparable to gold-standard data: 90.3% of video, and 98.3% of audio, data recorded tapping/speech frequencies within ± 1 Hz of the gold-standard measures.
Study details
- Effect size90.3%; 98.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39445342) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “speech”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “speech”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.