Multimodal Freezing of Gait Detection

Analyzing the Benefits and Limitations of Physiological Data

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

Po Kai Yang (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Benjamin Filtjens (Vector Institute, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, University of Toronto, University Health Network)

Pieter Ginis (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Maaike Goris (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Alice Nieuwboer (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Moran Gilat (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Peter Slaets (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Bart Vanrumste (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2025.3545110 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Journal title
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
Volume number
33
Pages (from-to)
956-965
Downloads counter
156
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Freezing of gait (FOG) is a debilitating symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD), characterized by an absence or reduction in forward movement of the legs despite the intention to walk. Detecting FOG during free-living conditions presents significant challenges, particularly when using only inertial measurement unit (IMU) data, as it must be distinguished from voluntary stopping events that also feature reduced forward movement. Influences from stress and anxiety, measurable through galvanic skin response (GSR) and electrocardiogram (ECG), may assist in distinguishing FOG from normal gait and stopping. However, no study has investigated the fusion of IMU, GSR, and ECG for FOG detection. Therefore, this study introduced two methods: a two-step approach that first identified reduced forward movement segments using a Transformer-based model with IMU data, followed by an XGBoost model classifying these segments as FOG or stopping using IMU, GSR, and ECG features; and an end-to-end approach employing a multi-stage temporal convolutional network to directly classify FOG and stopping segments from IMU, GSR, and ECG data. Results showed that the two-step approach with all data modalities achieved an average F1 score of 0.728 and F1@50 of 0.725, while the end-to-end approach scored 0.771 and 0.759, respectively. However, no significant difference was found compared to using only IMU data in both approaches (p-values: 0.466 to 0.887). In conclusion, adding physiological data did not provide a statistically significant benefit in distinguishing between FOG and stopping. The limitations may be specific to GSR and ECG data, and may not generalize to other physiological modalities.