ArticleClinical parkinsonism & related disorders2026
A comparative study of video-based and electromyography-based detection of tics.
Article in Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning for Automated Tic Detection and Prediction in Tourette Syndrome Using Electromyography and Video.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tourette Syndrome (TS) is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by motor and vocal tics that vary widely across individuals. Current clinical assessments primarily rely on subjective rating scales, limiting the precision of tic evaluation and treatment outcome monitoring. To improve clinical decision-making, objective, reliable detection methods are needed. Objectives: This study compared the tic-detection performance of video and electromyography (EMG)-based algorithms. We hypothesized that there would be similar accuracy across modalities and that applying multimodal integration would yield potential benefits. Methods: A total of 286 video and EMG sessions were recorded synchronously from 14 participants over three months. Recordings were labeled as "Rest," "Tic," and "Move" using a video object detection algorithm and by applying an EMG double-threshold method. Video-based detection was used as the reference for comparison. Results: Overall agreement between modalities was 71.8%. EMG achieved 61.7% accuracy for "Rest" (precision: 72.4%, recall: 75.3%, F1-score: 73.8%). Despite an 81.6% accuracy, EMG performed poorly in detecting tics (precision: 15.1%, recall: 5.3%, F1-score: 7.9%) and voluntary movement (accuracy: 72.2%, precision: 14.5%, recall: 21.7%, F1-score: 17.4%). A Pearson correlation of 0.14 was found between tic frequencies captured by both EMG and video detectors, suggesting a weak positive relationship. Conclusion: While EMG shows promise for detecting tics at rest, its overall stand-alone performance for tic identification was limited. These findings highlight the potential benefits of integrating video and EMG modalities to improve the accuracy and reliability of tic detection and monitoring in the setting of TS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.