Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39281864›Full record

ArticleResearch square2024

Noninvasive brain stimulation during EEG improves machine learning classi

Rishishankar E Suresh, M S Zobaer, Matthew J Triano, Brian F Saway, Nathan C Rowland

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Rishishankar E SureshMedical University of South Carolina.
M S ZobaerMedical University of South Carolina.
Matthew J TrianoMedical University of South Carolina.
Brian F SawayMedical University of South Carolina.
Nathan C RowlandMedical University of South Carolina.

Funding

Treating Depression and Enhancing Locomotor Recovery Post-strokeP20GM109040 · NIGMS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI KAUTZ, STEVEN A. · 2014 to 2024
$23.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In individuals with chronic stroke and hemiparesis, noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may be used as an adjunct to therapy for improving motor recovery. Specific states of movement during motor recovery are more responsive to brain stimulation than others, thus a system that could auto-detect movement state would be useful in correctly identifying the most effective stimulation periods. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of different machine learning models in classifying movement periods during EEG recordings of hemiparetic individuals receiving noninvasive brain stimulation. We hypothesized that transcranial direct current stimulation, a form of NIBS, would modulate brain recordings correlating with movement state and improve classification accuracies above those receiving sham stimulation. Methods: Electroencephalogram data were obtained from 10 participants with chronic stroke and 11 healthy individuals performing a motor task while undergoing transcranial direct current stimulation. Eight traditional machine learning algorithms and five ensemble methods were used to classify two movement states (a hold posture and an arm reaching movement) before, during and after stimulation. To minimize compute times, preprocessing and feature extraction were limited to z-score normalization and power binning into five frequency bands (delta through gamma). Results: Classification of disease state produced significantly higher accuracies in the stimulation (versus sham) group at 78.9% (versus 55.6%, p < 0.000002). We observed significantly higher accuracies when classifying stimulation state in the chronic stroke group (77.6%) relative to healthy controls (64.1%, p < 0.0095). In the chronic stroke cohort, classification of hold versus reach was highest during the stimulation period (75.2%) as opposed to the pre- and post-stimulation periods. Linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, and decision tree algorithms classified movement state most accurately in participants with chronic stroke during the stimulation period (76.1%). For the ensemble methods, the highest classification accuracy for hold versus reach was achieved using low gamma frequency (30-50 Hz) as a feature (74.5%), although this result did not achieve statistical significance. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms demonstrated sufficiently high movement state classification accuracy in participants with chronic stroke performing functional tasks during noninvasive brain stimulation. tDCS improved disease state and movement state classification in participants with chronic stroke.

Indexed as

chronic strokeelectroencephalogrammachine learningnoninvasive brain stimulationtranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39281864
PMCPMC11398570

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.