mPulse Mobile Sensing Model for Passive Detection of Impulsive Behavior: Exploratory Prediction Study.

digital phenotyping impulse control impulsivity mHealth mobile health mobile sensing self-control self-regulation

Journal

JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 18 10 2020
accepted: 18 12 2020
revised: 29 11 2020
entrez: 27 1 2021
pubmed: 28 1 2021
medline: 28 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Mobile health technology has demonstrated the ability of smartphone apps and sensors to collect data pertaining to patient activity, behavior, and cognition. It also offers the opportunity to understand how everyday passive mobile metrics such as battery life and screen time relate to mental health outcomes through continuous sensing. Impulsivity is an underlying factor in numerous physical and mental health problems. However, few studies have been designed to help us understand how mobile sensors and self-report data can improve our understanding of impulsive behavior. The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of using mobile sensor data to detect and monitor self-reported state impulsivity and impulsive behavior passively via a cross-platform mobile sensing application. We enrolled 26 participants who were part of a larger study of impulsivity to take part in a real-world, continuous mobile sensing study over 21 days on both Apple operating system (iOS) and Android platforms. The mobile sensing system (mPulse) collected data from call logs, battery charging, and screen checking. To validate the model, we used mobile sensing features to predict common self-reported impulsivity traits, objective mobile behavioral and cognitive measures, and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of state impulsivity and constructs related to impulsive behavior (ie, risk-taking, attention, and affect). Overall, the findings suggested that passive measures of mobile phone use such as call logs, battery charging, and screen checking can predict different facets of trait and state impulsivity and impulsive behavior. For impulsivity traits, the models significantly explained variance in sensation seeking, planning, and lack of perseverance traits but failed to explain motor, urgency, lack of premeditation, and attention traits. Passive sensing features from call logs, battery charging, and screen checking were particularly useful in explaining and predicting trait-based sensation seeking. On a daily level, the model successfully predicted objective behavioral measures such as present bias in delay discounting tasks, commission and omission errors in a cognitive attention task, and total gains in a risk-taking task. Our models also predicted daily EMA questions on positivity, stress, productivity, healthiness, and emotion and affect. Perhaps most intriguingly, the model failed to predict daily EMA designed to measure previous-day impulsivity using face-valid questions. The study demonstrated the potential for developing trait and state impulsivity phenotypes and detecting impulsive behavior from everyday mobile phone sensors. Limitations of the current research and suggestions for building more precise passive sensing models are discussed. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03006653; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03006653.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Mobile health technology has demonstrated the ability of smartphone apps and sensors to collect data pertaining to patient activity, behavior, and cognition. It also offers the opportunity to understand how everyday passive mobile metrics such as battery life and screen time relate to mental health outcomes through continuous sensing. Impulsivity is an underlying factor in numerous physical and mental health problems. However, few studies have been designed to help us understand how mobile sensors and self-report data can improve our understanding of impulsive behavior.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of using mobile sensor data to detect and monitor self-reported state impulsivity and impulsive behavior passively via a cross-platform mobile sensing application.
METHODS METHODS
We enrolled 26 participants who were part of a larger study of impulsivity to take part in a real-world, continuous mobile sensing study over 21 days on both Apple operating system (iOS) and Android platforms. The mobile sensing system (mPulse) collected data from call logs, battery charging, and screen checking. To validate the model, we used mobile sensing features to predict common self-reported impulsivity traits, objective mobile behavioral and cognitive measures, and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) of state impulsivity and constructs related to impulsive behavior (ie, risk-taking, attention, and affect).
RESULTS RESULTS
Overall, the findings suggested that passive measures of mobile phone use such as call logs, battery charging, and screen checking can predict different facets of trait and state impulsivity and impulsive behavior. For impulsivity traits, the models significantly explained variance in sensation seeking, planning, and lack of perseverance traits but failed to explain motor, urgency, lack of premeditation, and attention traits. Passive sensing features from call logs, battery charging, and screen checking were particularly useful in explaining and predicting trait-based sensation seeking. On a daily level, the model successfully predicted objective behavioral measures such as present bias in delay discounting tasks, commission and omission errors in a cognitive attention task, and total gains in a risk-taking task. Our models also predicted daily EMA questions on positivity, stress, productivity, healthiness, and emotion and affect. Perhaps most intriguingly, the model failed to predict daily EMA designed to measure previous-day impulsivity using face-valid questions.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrated the potential for developing trait and state impulsivity phenotypes and detecting impulsive behavior from everyday mobile phone sensors. Limitations of the current research and suggestions for building more precise passive sensing models are discussed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03006653; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03006653.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33502330
pii: v8i1e25019
doi: 10.2196/25019
pmc: PMC7875694
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03006653']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e25019

Informations de copyright

©Hongyi Wen, Michael Sobolev, Rachel Vitale, James Kizer, JP Pollak, Frederick Muench, Deborah Estrin. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 27.01.2021.

Références

Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Mar 7;7(3):e1053
pubmed: 28267146
J Pers. 2018 Oct;86(5):841-852
pubmed: 29125631
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021 Jan 22;9(1):e25018
pubmed: 33480854
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2017 May 8;13:23-47
pubmed: 28375728
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 29;19(6):e232
pubmed: 28663162
J Vis Exp. 2016 Jan 09;(107):
pubmed: 26779747
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 04;9(6):e98312
pubmed: 24896252
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 5;381(10):956-968
pubmed: 31483966
JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1215-1216
pubmed: 28973224
J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Mar;71(2):121-43
pubmed: 10220927
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Jul;43(8):1660-1666
pubmed: 29511333
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2005 Dec;4(4):262-81
pubmed: 16585800
J Behav Addict. 2018 Jun 1;7(2):252-259
pubmed: 29895183
Psychol Assess. 2015 Dec;27(4):1129-46
pubmed: 25822833
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Nov;11(6):838-854
pubmed: 27899727
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):538-43
pubmed: 26977102
Psychol Rev. 2020 Sep 24;:
pubmed: 32969672
Ann Behav Med. 2018 May 18;52(6):446-462
pubmed: 27663578
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Jul 15;17(7):e175
pubmed: 26180009
Addiction. 2006 Sep;101(9):1323-32
pubmed: 16911732
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Jun;8(2):75-84
pubmed: 12075692
Psychiatry Res. 2014 Jun 30;217(1-2):124-7
pubmed: 24679993
Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst. 2016 May;2016:4489-4501
pubmed: 28058409
Psychol Assess. 2014 Jun;26(2):339-49
pubmed: 24274047
J Clin Psychol. 1995 Nov;51(6):768-74
pubmed: 8778124
J Clin Psychol. 1988 Jan;44(1):33-6
pubmed: 3343359
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016 Jun;41(7):1691-6
pubmed: 26818126
Science. 1989 May 26;244(4907):933-8
pubmed: 2658056
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;149:93-102
pubmed: 19745474

Auteurs

Hongyi Wen (H)

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.

Michael Sobolev (M)

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.
Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, United States.

Rachel Vitale (R)

The Partnership to End Addiction, New York, NY, United States.

James Kizer (J)

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.

J P Pollak (JP)

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.

Frederick Muench (F)

The Partnership to End Addiction, New York, NY, United States.

Deborah Estrin (D)

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY, United States.

Classifications MeSH