Premium
P2‐442: Automatic video monitoring system to detect apathy in Alzheimer's disease
Author(s) -
Mulin Emmanuel,
David Renaud,
Romdhane Rim,
Piano Julie,
Lee Ji Hyun,
Zouba Nadia,
Thonnat Monique,
Bremond François,
Leroy Iracema,
Leduff Franck,
Robert Philippe
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.05.1314
Subject(s) - apathy , actigraphy , psychology , physical medicine and rehabilitation , activities of daily living , parkinson's disease , disease , psychiatry , cognition , medicine , insomnia
Background: Apathy is one of the main neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s diseasewhich increases cognitive impairment and involves earlier institutionalization. Currently, evaluation of apathy is based on subjective scales as Apathy Inventory (AI) and domain Apathy of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), or on more subjective tools as actigraphy. However, actigraphy only measures motor activity. We hypothesized that using postural and gait recognition with automatised video would bring objective data to recognize goal-directed activities and to measure apathy. Methods: AD patients with and without apathy are recruited in the memory center in Nice and performed a scenario in a smartroom with 2 camera and 3 worn-actigraph. The scenario is divided in 3 steps covering basic to more complex activities: 1) directed activities, 2) semi-directed activities, patients have a list of daily living activities to follow, 3) free activities. Patients are evaluatedwithMMSE, IADL,AI, NPI and diagnostic criteria for apathy. Results: Preliminary results confirm the feasibility this protocol. 20 AD patients were evaluated with this scenario. Only, two of them did not perform completely different activities because of anxiety. The results show that apathy correlate with lower goal-directed activities especially during all the step of the scenario. Besides, apathetic patients walked slowly (p < .05) and scores of apathy evaluated by AI clinician versio and item apathy of the NPI correlated significantly (p1⁄4 .02) negatively with shorter Step length (R 1⁄4 .79). Two clinical vignettes will be presented to compare some gait and postural parameters according to presence or not of apathy. Conclusions: The procedure seems to be acceptable for patients and elderly controls. Video processing is able to capture gait differences. Differences for more complex activities need to be demonstrated after inclusion of additional patients. These preliminary results probably premised to define judgment criteria for the different steps of the scenario and must be completed by a comparative study with two larger subgroups of AD patients according to the presence of apathy or not. This would bring more objective data to evaluate apathy.