Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26236707›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2015

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.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Adam P VogelThe Bionics Institute of Australia , Melbourne, VIC , Australia ; Speech Neuroscience Unit, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC , Australia ; Department of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen , Tübingen , Germany ; Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Hugh J McDermottThe Bionics Institute of Australia , Melbourne, VIC , Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Thushara PereraThe Bionics Institute of Australia , Melbourne, VIC , Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Mary JonesDepartment of Neurology, St Vincent's Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Richard PeppardDepartment of Neurology, St Vincent's Hospital , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
Colette M McKayThe Bionics Institute of Australia , Melbourne, VIC , Australia ; Department of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC , Australia.
St Vincent's Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUBionics Institute · AUHertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeep 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.

objectiveTo examine the effect of DBS on speech in patients receiving stimulation to the posterior sub-thalamic area (PSA) via randomized manipulation of amplitude parameters.

methodsSix 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.

resultsSpeech 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.

conclusionIntra-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.

Indexed as

acoustic analysisbrain stimulationdysarthriaoptimizationside effectsspeech

Identifiers

PMID26236707
PMCPMC4500958
OpenAlexW1542662587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.