TY - GEN
T1 - An evaluation of clustering techniques to classify dexterous manipulation of individuals with and without dysfunction
AU - Lawrence, Emily L.
AU - Fassola, Isabella
AU - Dayanidhi, Sudarshan
AU - Leclercq, Caroline
AU - Valero-Cuevas, Francisco J.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - The rehabilitation of manipulation ability in orthopedic (e.g., thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis-CMC OA) and neurological (e.g., Parkinson's disease-PD) conditions depends critically on our ability to detect dysfunction and quantify its evolution and response to treatment. The Strength-Dexterity (SD) test is a validated indicator of dynamic dexterous manipulation function, but its ability to categorize clinical populations has not been tested. We 1) used the SD test to compare manipulation ability among patients with OA and PD and healthy age-matched elderly control subjects; and 2) compared and evaluated the ability of different clustering techniques to classify subjects into clinical or control groups and calculate their respective cluster centroids. We considered five clustering methods (three hard and two fuzzy): K-means, K-medoids, Gaussian expectation-maximization (GEM), Subtractive, and Fuzzy C-means clustering. We found the centroids of the SD test scores differed significantly between the clinical and control groups. Of the five methods considered, the GEM clustering algorithm most accurately classified SD test performance between these two groups.
AB - The rehabilitation of manipulation ability in orthopedic (e.g., thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis-CMC OA) and neurological (e.g., Parkinson's disease-PD) conditions depends critically on our ability to detect dysfunction and quantify its evolution and response to treatment. The Strength-Dexterity (SD) test is a validated indicator of dynamic dexterous manipulation function, but its ability to categorize clinical populations has not been tested. We 1) used the SD test to compare manipulation ability among patients with OA and PD and healthy age-matched elderly control subjects; and 2) compared and evaluated the ability of different clustering techniques to classify subjects into clinical or control groups and calculate their respective cluster centroids. We considered five clustering methods (three hard and two fuzzy): K-means, K-medoids, Gaussian expectation-maximization (GEM), Subtractive, and Fuzzy C-means clustering. We found the centroids of the SD test scores differed significantly between the clinical and control groups. Of the five methods considered, the GEM clustering algorithm most accurately classified SD test performance between these two groups.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897680991&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897680991&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/NER.2013.6696168
DO - 10.1109/NER.2013.6696168
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84897680991
SN - 9781467319690
T3 - International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, NER
SP - 1254
EP - 1257
BT - 2013 6th International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, NER 2013
T2 - 2013 6th International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, NER 2013
Y2 - 6 November 2013 through 8 November 2013
ER -