Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Outcome measures in Angelman syndrome

Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders volume 16, Article number: 6 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by severe intellectual disability, little to no expressive speech, visual and motor problems, emotional/behavioral challenges, and a tendency towards hyperphagia and weight gain. The characteristics of AS make it difficult to measure these children’s functioning with standard clinical tests. Feasible outcome measures are needed to measure current functioning and change over time, in clinical practice and clinical trials.

Aim

Our first aim is to assess the feasibility of several functional tests. We target domains of neurocognitive functioning and physical growth using the following measurement methods: eye-tracking, functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), indirect calorimetry, bio-impedance analysis (BIA), and BOD POD (air-displacement plethysmography). Our second aim is to explore the results of the above measures, in order to better understand the AS phenotype.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 28 children with AS aged 2–18 years. We defined an outcome measure as feasible when (1) at least 70% of participants successfully finished the measurement and (2) at least 60% of those participants had acceptable data quality. Adaptations to the test procedure and reasons for early termination were noted. Parents rated acceptability and importance and were invited to make recommendations to increase feasibility. The results of the measures were explored.

Results

Outcome measures obtained with eye-tracking and BOD POD met the definition of feasibility, while fNIRS, indirect calorimetry, and BIA did not. The most important reasons for early termination of measurements were showing signs of protest, inability to sit still and poor/no calibration (eye-tracking specific). Post-calibration was often applied to obtain valid eye-tracking results. Parents rated the BOD POD als most acceptable and fNIRS as least acceptable for their child. All outcome measures were rated to be important. Exploratory results indicated longer reaction times to high salient visual stimuli (eye-tracking) as well as high body fat percentage (BOD POD).

Conclusions

Eye-tracking and BOD POD are feasible measurement methods for children with AS. Eye-tracking was successfully used to assess visual orienting functions in the current study and (with some practical adaptations) can potentially be used to assess other outcomes as well. BOD POD was successfully used to examine body composition.

Trial registration

Registered d.d. 23-04-2020 under number ‘NL8550’ in the Dutch Trial Register: https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/23075

Background

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a rare neurogenetic disorder characterized by severe intellectual disability, little or no expressive speech, and motor difficulties. Children with AS frequently have epilepsy, sleeping problems, and behavioral issues such as hyperactivity, attention problems, and anxiety [1]. The symptoms of AS are caused by a loss-of-function of the UBE3A gene on the maternal chromosome 15q11-q13. This loss-of-function is the result of a chromosomal microdeletion (60–70%), a pathogenic variant of the UBE3A gene (15%), a uniparental paternal disomy (UPD; 5–10%), or an imprinting center defect (ICD; 5–10%) [2].

Some of the characteristics of AS make it difficult to measure functioning in these children. Commonly used tests for children with AS often rely on a certain level of cognitive, attentional, communicative, and motor skills. Test instructions are not always understood by a child with AS. If a child with AS knows a certain answer, it may be impossible for them to communicate this due to problems with expressive language or motor functioning. Behavioral issues such as hyperactivity, attention problems, anxiety, and sensitivity to sensory stimuli can interfere with taking a measurement or impact validity of the results. As a consequence of the above, suitable outcome measures are scarce for children with AS. Since suitable outcome measures allow us to measure the current functioning of a child with AS, and possible changes over time, they are necessary and of great importance. In clinical practice, this will result in better identification of the child’s strengths and difficulties and earlier identification of health problems. It will also allow evaluation of the effect of interventions. Ultimately, this will lead to improved guidance and treatment of the child. In scientific research, the availability of suitable outcome measures will facilitate in-depth phenotyping. In addition, outcome measures are important for clinical trials to measure the potential effects and side effects of new treatments. Phase 1/2 clinical trials are currently underway to measure the safety of an antisense-oligonucleotide treatment in people with AS (e.g., [3]). This is the first treatment targeting the cause of AS, and pre-clinical studies have shown promising results in a mouse model [4]. Future clinical trials are expected to investigate the effectiveness of these and other treatments. Therefore, there is an urgent need for suitable outcome measures in AS, as supported by other studies [5, 6]. Previous initiatives in the search for suitable outcome measures focused on outcome domains such as gait [7, 8], sleep/EEG [6, 8,9,10], and communication [6, 11, 12].

The current study examined five novel measures of neurocognitive functioning and physical growth in children with AS that may lead to creative and out-of-the-box solutions, namely:

  • Eye-tracking

  • Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)

  • Indirect calorimetry

  • Bio-impedance analysis (BIA)

  • Whole body air-displacement plethysmography (BOD POD)

Eye-tracking

Eye-tracking is a noninvasive instrument to measure gaze location on a screen. It is a promising measurement tool for children with AS, as it does not rely on understanding test instructions or verbal communication of the answer, nor does it require the child to push a button or make a motor response (other than eye-movements). The technique can be used to measure a variety of outcomes depending on the task paradigm provided. Three recent eye-tracking studies have been conducted in individuals with AS, measuring social attention [13, 14], and language comprehension [15]. Success rates were highly variable, ranging from 47 to 83 percent, and data quality was not reported. In the current study, eye-tracking was used to measure (1) visual orienting functions and (2) social preference. Orienting responses to basic visual stimuli (1), such as contrast, form, and motion, were measured to quantify the first steps in visual processing [16]. Adequate orienting responses are a prerequisite for guiding visual attention to new features in one’s environment. It was shown in a previous study that children with AS have impairments in basic visual functions [17]. When integrated in a larger functional brain network, such as the what and where pathways [18], visual processing becomes the starting point of perception, visually augmented communication (e.g., pictograms), and social interactions. Second, we tested social preference (2), namely, preference for faces in comparison to non-social stimuli. The effect that faces capture and maintain children’s attention more than non-social stimuli has been shown to exist from as early as 6 months of age in the general population [19].

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)

fNIRS is a safe and non-invasive neuroimaging method to measure cortical activity using only a wireless head cap. For children with AS, laying still in a noisy and closed MRI scanner is nearly impossible, and the only way to conduct an MRI scan is under general anesthesia (e.g., [20]). fNIRS offers a non-invasive alternative to fMRI and is therefore a promising measurement method for children with AS. Unlike fMRI, fNIRS measurements are silent (do not make noise) and can take place at almost every location. There is no need for head fixation or lying still on a bed. fNIRS paradigms can be “passive” in the sense that they do not rely on language and motor functioning, nor do they require a specific level of intellectual functioning. fNIRS has successfully been applied in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [21], autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [22], prenatal alcohol abuse [23], and Down syndrome [24], but has not yet been evaluated in AS. The outcome measured with fNIRS is cortical activation in response to a social paradigm. This paradigm was previously proven to elicit a robust cortical response in the superior temporal sulcus in typically developing children and was able to differentiate between infants at risk for ASD and low-risk controls [25,26,27,28].

Indirect calorimetry, bio-impedance analysis (BIA), and BOD POD

In this study, indirect calorimetry was used to measure resting metabolic rate (RMR; the energy used to sustain vital functions at rest), while BIA and BOD POD were used to measure body composition (fat and fat-free mass). Overweight and obesity occur in approximately 40% of children with AS [29]. Outcome measures on body composition and RMR in children with AS are needed to identify children with high bodyfat (at risk for secondary health issues) and to give individualized nutrition advice based on measured RMR. In addition, outcome measures on metabolism and fat percentage are important for research on the pathogenesis of overweight and obesity in AS. Finally, they could serve as outcome measures for treatment studies, as restoring UBE3A function rescues the overweight seen in AS mice models [30, 31].

Aim

The first aim of this study is to test the feasibility of eye-tracking, fNIRS, indirect calorimetry, BIA, and BOD POD in children with AS. Each measure was evaluated in terms of success rate (successfully finished yes/no) and data quality. In addition, we described reasons for early termination, adaptations to measurement procedures, recommendations given by parents, and acceptability as rated by parents. The second aim of this study was to explore the results of the above measures, in order to better understand the AS phenotype.

Methods

Participants

All patients under care of the Expertise Centre for AS at the Erasmus Medical Centre Sophia Children’s Hospital were invited to participate in this study. Inclusion criteria for the child were having an age between 2 and 18 years and having a genetically confirmed diagnosis of AS (details on the process of molecular diagnostics can be found in reference [29]). An inclusion criterion for the parent/caregiver was having an adequate understanding of the Dutch or English language. Exclusion criteria for the child were having a current non-convulsive status epilepticus or inter-current somatic illness influencing daily functioning, the presence of a mosaic form of AS, or current participation in a disease-modifying treatment study. In total, 81 children with AS were invited to participate in this study. One-third of them participated. Figure 1 shows the flow chart of (potential) participants and the reasons for not participating. The current study sample consisted of 28 participants. Demographical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Participants did not differ significantly from non-participants on age (T (79) = 0.33, p = 0.741), sex (Χ2 (1) = 0.16, p = 0.686), or genotype (Χ2 (3) = 2.89, p = 0.410).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of (potential) participants

Full size image
Table 1 Demographical and phenotypical characteristics of the study sample (n = 28)
Full size table

Procedure

The Rotterdam Outcome Study for children with Angelman syndrome (ROSA) was an experimental cross-sectional study conducted by the Expertise Centre for AS (part of ENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders) at the Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. This study was approved by the medical ethical board of the Erasmus MC (MEC-2020-0489). All participants (their legal representatives) signed informed consent. Data was collected between May 2021 and August 2022.

Preparation of study visits

Before the study visits, parents were sent a leaflet with pictograms to inform and prepare their child for the study visits. Further, a “practice fNIRS cap” (swimming cap) was sent home. During a phone call, the study procedure were explained, suggestions on how to prepare their child were given, and any questions were answered.

Study visit 1: eye-tracking and fNIRS

The first study visit took place in the Sophia Research Bus [32], a campervan especially equipped for scientific research. The Sophia Research Bus contains a desk with the fNIRS and eye-tracking set up and is made accessible for children in a wheelchair using a lift. The researcher drove the Sophia Research Bus to a location of the parent’s choosing, allowing us to visit all participants close to their home or school, minimizing the burden of participation while still having the benefit of performing the assessment in a standardized environment. In addition, not needing to travel minimized potential fatigue and sensory overload at the moment of testing of the participants, thereby facilitating them to perform the tests to the best of their abilities. One researcher performed all measurements, in the presence of a parent/caregiver. The total duration of the measurements in the Sophia Research Bus was 30 to 45 min.

Study visit 2: indirect calorimetry, BIA, and BOD POD

The indirect calorimetry, BOD POD, and BIA measurements were conducted during a second study visit to the Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital. Participants did not eat or drink for at least 2 h before the measurements. They were also instructed to refrain from physical effort during this period. A dietician performed the measurements, while the researcher and parent/caregiver were present for additional support. The total duration of this second study visit was 2 to 3 h, but this also included breaks and several measurements that were not part of the current study.

Measures

Eye-tracking

Gaze location was measured using a Tobii TX300 eye-tracker with a 23″ screen (Tobii Corporation, Danderyd, Sweden) and a five-point calibration procedure. This eye-tracker uses video sensors to assess the location of the pupil center and the centers of reflections of one or several near-infrared illuminators. Participants were required to sit on a chair facing the screen, paying attention to the screen and sitting relatively still. The Visual Orienting Functions (VOF) task was developed by Kooiker et al. [16] (see original article for full description) and lasted approximately 7 min. Tobii Studio was used to display a set of images and movies to measure basic visual processing functions: form coherence processing, local motion processing, global motion processing, contrast detection, and color detection. In addition, a high salient cartoon stimulus presented all different types of visual information at once, to measure the efficiency of simultaneous visual information processing. The social attention task was developed by Gliga et al. [19] (see original article for full description) and had a duration of 2 min. E-prime 2 and E-prime Extensions for Tobii 2 were used to assess attention capture and sustained attention to faces in comparison to non-social stimuli. Additional information on the eye-tracking measures is given in Appendix 1.

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)

Changes in hemodynamic response signal in the superior temporal sulcus region were measured using the Brite 23 with Oxysoft software (Artinis Medical Systems, 2017). The working mechanism behind fNIRS is its use of near-infrared light through optodes on the scalp, which is differentially absorbed by oxy- and deoxygenated hemoglobin. The optodes were attached to a tight headcap. Participants wore the cap for 10 to 15 min, during which they sat on a chair facing a screen. Light counts were optimized by removing hair underneath the optodes using a pointed comb. A video-based method was used to estimate the position of fNIRS optodes on the scalp [33]. A passive social block-design task designed by Lloyd-Fox et al. [27] was displayed by E-prime 2. The task showed dynamic visual and auditory social stimuli, contrasted to a baseline of non-social stimuli (duration approx. 6 min). A full description of the task can be found in the original paper. Appendix 1 provides additional information on the current study’s fNIRS measurement.

Indirect calorimetry

RMR was assessed using an indirect calorimeter (Q-NRG+, Cosmed, Italy). This device analyzes the composition of the air that participants breathe in and out, i.e., how much oxygen was consumed and how much carbon dioxide was produced. Participants laid on a bench, when a plastic hood was put over their head in which they could breathe normally. The measurement took approximately 30 min. The result is most reliable if the participant is fully in rest (i.e., lays still). The measure is intended for use with subjects above 15 kg.

Bio-impedance analysis (BIA)

Fat- and fat-free percentage was measured using an InBodyS10. Two electrodes were attached to each hand and foot using stickers or clips. Impedance was measured by a weak electrical current that cannot be felt. Participants had to sit or lay still with their arms and legs wide, not touching the torso or conductive materials. After attaching the stickers and clips, the measurement duration was approximately 1 min.

BOD POD (air-displacement plethysmography)

A BOD POD® (COSMED USA, Inc. Concord, CA) device measured body composition by air displacement plethysmography. Participants wore tight underwear and a swimming cap. Before the measurement, participants had to stand on the scale attached to the BOD POD for 10 s (no wheelchair or balance support option). Following, participants sat in the closed BOD POD for 2 or 3 min. The measurement is most reliable when the participant sits still.

Weight and height were measured prior to the measurements. Weight was measured to the nearest 0.01 kg using calibrated scales. Standing height was obtained by a stadiometer in children who are able to stand, and in lying position with a measuring tape in children who were unable to stand.

Data analyses

We defined a measure as feasible when (1) at least 70% of all participants that started a particular measurement, successfully finished the measurement and (2) at least 60% of the participants that finished a measurement, contributed to data of acceptable quality. As there is no golden standard for the definition of feasibility in children with intellectual disabilities, these numbers were defined in advance during an expert consensus meeting (with authors KBdH, LtH, MCdW, GD, SM, and DH), based on previous literature on eye-tracking and EEG in AS [13, 34, 35]. For the other outcome measures, no previous studies in AS were available. Furthermore, the criteria were presented to and approved by the medical ethical board (including a methodologist/statistician).

A detailed description of data quality assessment per measurement instrument can be found in Appendix 2. Additional feasibility points were as follows:

  • Percentage of participants (their legal representatives) that refused to participate in this specific measurement beforehand, and the reason for refusing

  • Reasons for early termination of the measurement

  • Adaptations made to the measurements

  • Acceptability and importance of the measure/paradigm as rated by participants’ legal representatives by three questions (rated on a ten-point scale):

    • ◦ “How much do you think your child enjoyed the measurement?”(where 0 means no enjoyment at all and 10 means much enjoyment)

    • ◦ “How stressful do you think the measurement was for your child?” (where 0 means not stressful at all and 10 means very stressful)

    • ◦ “To what extend do you think this task measures an important/relevant aspect of your child’s functioning?” (where 0 means not important/relevant at all and 10 means very important/relevant)

  • Recommendations by parents to make the task more feasible for their child

For aim 2, results were explored in order to better understand the AS phenotype. The outcomes of the eye-tracking VOF task were the percentage of detected stimuli, fastest reaction time, and average reaction time. Z-scores were calculated using reference data from typically developing peers [36]. The eye-tracking social attention task was evaluated using the percentage of first looks to faces (attention capture) and total looks to faces (sustained attention). For fNIRS, oxy- and deoxygenated hemoglobin concentration changes of social versus non-social conditions were analyzed. The outcome of indirect calorimetry was the percentage difference between predicted and measured RMR, while the outcome of the BIA and BOD POD was percentage body fat. In addition, body mass index standard deviation scores (BMI SDS) were calculated. Appendix 3 gives a more elaborate description of the outcome variables and analyses used for each measurement instrument.

Results

Feasibility: success rate and data quality (aim 1)

The feasibility of all outcome measures is depicted in Table 2 and Fig. 2. The eye-tracking VOF task and the BOD POD were found to be feasible outcome measures for children with AS. Both feasibility criteria were met: More than 70% of participants who started the measurement also finished the measurement (89 and 91%, respectively), and more than 60% of those who finished also contributed data of acceptable quality (68 and 67%, respectively). In contrast, the eye-tracking social preference task and the indirect calorimetry were not feasible, as not enough participants finished the measurement (46 and 58%, respectively). However, most participants who finished the measurements did have acceptable data quality (82 and 64%, respectively). BIA and fNIRS were not feasible for children with AS: Not enough participants finished the measurement (48 and 55%), and not enough participants contributed data of acceptable quality (45 and 13% - average Signal Quality Index = 2.42). Appendix 4 describes the feasibility per participant linked to genotype, age, sex, comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, medication use, vision, waking/standing abilities, and several measures of functioning. No clear association could be detected, except that most participants with UBE3A mutations successfully completed measures with acceptable data quality. Additional information on data quality is given in Appendix 5.

Table 2 Feasibility of outcome measures
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow chart of the feasibility of outcome measures

Full size image

The reasons for early termination of measurements are presented in Table 3. What stands out is that for the eye-tracking social preference task, failed calibration was the only reason participants could not finish the task. All participants that passed calibration were able to finish the task. Calibration failed because the child was not looking at the screen or the eye-tracker could not measure their gaze (for example, due to posture anomalies). In addition, indirect calorimetry finished early because participants pulled off the hood, or could not lay still for 20–30 min. During the BIA measurements, participants shook off the wires and clips. The fNIRS measurement was terminated early because participants pulled off the headcap and showed signs of distress. Four additional participants were able to finish the fNIRS measure, but did show significant signs of distress, which prevented them from paying attention to the screen. For all these participants, stress was a confounder that hindered us from measuring brain activity in response to social stimuli. Therefore, and in accordance with the code of conduct to the expression of objection by minors and people with intellectual disabilities, the fNIRS measurement was halted after the 20th participant and outcomes were not analyzed.

Table 3 Reasons for early termination of measurements
Full size table

Feasibility: adaptations and ratings by parents (aim 1)

Table 4 describes adaptations made to the measurements. The most important adaptation was the use of the pre-set and post-calibration method for the eye-tracking VOF task. Twenty of 28 participants failed calibration at the first attempt (71%), after which the task was started using a pre-set calibration, and the data were calibrated after the measurement using a post-calibration method. This method entails scaling the center of the gaze positions to a corresponding target position (i.e., the center of the quadrant in which a stimulus is presented) [17]. For the eye-tracking social preference task, post-calibration was not possible due to software constraints and the nature of the task. Further adaptations were having participants sit in their own (wheel)chair, and providing distraction in the form of videos on a tablet. The BOD POD measurement was conducted without a swimming cap in some participants. The fNIRS measurement was started without fully optimizing light counts (removal of hair underneath the optodes).

Table 4 Adaptations made to the measurements
Full size table

Acceptability and importance of the measurements/paradigms were rated by parents on a ten-point scale (see Table 5). The most acceptable measure was the BOD POD. Parents thought that this measure was experienced by their child as the most enjoyable (mean = 7.05, SD = 2.31) and least stressful (mean = 4.18, SD = 3.32). fNIRS was rated least enjoyable, with a mean grade of 3.33 (SD = 2.68), and most stressful, with a mean grade of 7.28 (SD = 2.20). All outcomes were considered important by parents (average grades 7.8 to 8.2). Recommendations given by parents to make the measurements more feasible are stated in Table 6. The most frequently mentioned recommendations were to make the stimuli more interesting and to skip calibration during the eye-tracking measurements. This could be achieved by using more attention-grabbing videos and sounds, personalizing the stimuli to the participant, and making the task interactive using a touchscreen.

Table 5 Acceptability and importance reported by parents on a ten-point scale. Reported values are mean (SD)
Full size table
Table 6 Recommendations by parents to make the task more feasible for their child
Full size table

Explorative results of outcome measures (aim 2)

Eye-tracking visual orienting functions (VOF) task

Table 7 shows that participants with AS had exceptionally slow reaction times to high salient stimuli (cartoon and contrast) in comparison to typically developing peers, with average Z-scores ranging from 7.45 to 10.21. Of note, participants’ reaction times to low salient stimuli (color and global motion) were less different from their peers than reaction times to high salient stimuli, with Z-scores ranging from 0.26 to 2.48. In addition, what stands out in Table 7 is that high salient cartoons were detected less often (57%) than intermediate-salient forms (60%) and local motion patterns (71%).

Table 7 Eye-tracking visual orienting functions task: percentage detected stimuli and reaction times
Full size table

Eye-tracking social preference task

Only three participants had acceptable data for the assessment of attention capture (first looks) to faces. On average, participants dedicated their first fixations towards faces 41.67% of the time (SD = 38.19), but this was not significantly above the 20% chance level (t (2) = 0.98 and p = 0.215), likely due to the small sample size and large standard deviation. The analysis was repeated in a larger sample (N = 8) with data that was considered acceptable using only the second quality criterium (“moved their gaze to one of the five stimuli in the first three seconds of trial onset”; Appendix 2). Similar to the smaller group, participants had first fixations towards faces 41.46% of the time (SD = 16.94). This time, the difference to the 20% chance level was significant (t (7) = 3.58 and p = 0.004). Earlier studies using the same paradigm showed that typically developing infants had an average of 50.5% of first fixations towards faces [37].

Nine participants had acceptable data quality for the analysis of sustained attention (total fixation duration) to faces. The duration of fixations towards faces as a percentage of the total fixation duration (including non-social stimuli) was 22.88% (SD = 12.66), which did not differ significantly from the 20% chance level (t (8) = 0.68, p = 0.257). For comparison, typically developing infants dedicated around 41.5% of total fixations towards faces [37].

Body mass index (BMI), indirect calorimetry, bio-impedance analysis (BIA), and BOD POD

Table 8 shows the results of the nineteen participants that successfully finished either the indirect calorimetry, BIA, or BOD POD measurement with data of acceptable quality. Their mean BMI SDS was 0.70 (SD = 1.62, range −1.52 to 3.36). Eleven participants were classified as having normal BMI (58%), five participants had overweight BMI (26%), and three participants had obese BMI (16%).

Table 8 BMI, BOD POD, bio-impedance analysis, and indirect calorimetry outcome per participant
Full size table

Nine participants had accurate data quality for indirect calorimetry. The mean difference (%) between the predicted and measured resting metabolism rate (RMR) was −1.32 (SD = 13.94), indicating that participants have 1.32% lower RMR than what would be expected based on their height and weight. However, the difference ranged from −23% to +13%. Two participants were classified as having hypometabolism, five had normal metabolism, and two had hypermetabolism.

For the BIA, five participants had data of acceptable quality. The mean percentage body fat (PBF) measured by the BIA was 33.08 (SD = 12.46). Fourteen participants had BOD POD data of acceptable quality. According to the BOD POD measurements, the mean PBF was 31.49 (SD = 12.71, range 18–63). For BOD POD and BIA, BPF was classified as “overfat/obese” in 57 to 80% of participants, respectively, in comparison to typically developing peers [38]. In addition, the amount of body fat was higher than what would be expected based on the BMI SDS in approximately 40% of participants.

Discussion

The current study investigated the feasibility and explored the results of five innovative candidate outcome measures on neurocognitive functioning and physical growth for children with AS, namely, eye-tracking (VOF task and social preference task), functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), indirect calorimetry, bio-impedance analysis (BIA), and BOD POD. Results show that the eye-tracking VOF task and the BOD POD were feasible in children with AS, as approximately 90 percent finished the measurements and approximately 65 percent of them contributed data of acceptable quality. In contrast, not enough participants were able to finish the eye-tracking social preference task (46%) and the indirect calorimetry measurement (58%), but those who finished generally did have data of acceptable quality (82% and 64%). fNIRS and BIA were not feasible for children with AS, as not enough participants finished the measurements (55% and 48%), and the data were not of acceptable quality (13% and 45%). The most common reasons for early termination of measurements were failed calibration during eye-tracking and participants showing signs of protest during fNIRS, BIA, and indirect calorimetry. The most important adaptation made to our measurement was using a pre-set and post-calibration method for eye-tracking. Parents rated the BOD POD as the most acceptable measure for their child, while fNIRS was reported to be the least acceptable. All outcomes were rated as important by parents. Exploratory outcomes of the eye-tracking VOF task indicated that children with AS have longer reaction times in detecting high salient visual stimuli than typically developing peers. Eye-tracking further showed that social stimuli (faces) captured participants’ attention considerably more often than non-social stimuli, but sustained attention was not different for social versus non-social stimuli. Concerning body composition, a high proportion of fat was measured in 57–80 percent of participants. For approximately 40 percent of participants, the amount of body fat was higher than what would be expected based on the BMI SDS.

Our finding that the eye-tracking VOF task was feasible for children with AS, but the eye-tracking social preference task was not, highlights the importance of a good calibration procedure. The eye-tracking VOF task had the possibility for post-calibration, while the social preference task did not. Previous studies on eye-tracking in AS also reported calibration difficulties as the main reason for the early termination of the measurement [13, 14]. Differences in calibration procedure may explain the varying success rates of 47 to 83 percent reported in earlier studies [13,14,15]. We propose that the possibility of adapting the calibration procedure to the AS group, in our case by means of a post-calibration method, is crucial for the success of the measurement. Parents suggested that further improvement of eye-tracking tasks for children with AS could be achieved by incorporating more attention-grabbing videos and sounds, personalizing stimuli to the participant, and making the task interactive using a touch-screen.

Importantly, our finding that the BOD POD is a feasible outcome measure for children with AS emphasizes the fact that feasibility cannot always be predicted in advance. Although the BOD POD is proven a more precise and reliable technique than BIA in obese and non-obese children [39], the BOD POD requires participants to sit still in a small closed pod for 3 min in their underwear with a swimming cap on, making it prone to participant anxiety and discomfort. We expected the BOD POD to be less feasible than BIA, but were surprised by the success rate and acceptability of the BOD POD.

Finally, fNIRS, BIA, and indirect calorimetry were not feasible in their current form for most children in our sample. One similarity between these measurements is that they all involve the attachment of a measurement instrument (headcap, clips, or mask) to the participant’s body. Earlier studies indicated that individuals with AS show particular signs of hyper-responsiveness to tactile stimuli, with 64% showing distress while being cared for [40]. These findings suggest that instruments involving any pressure on the body may be less suitable for children with AS. However, we appreciate the possibility that more extensive practice with the fNIRS cap or testing a group with other patient characteristics (e.g., older individuals with less behavioral issues) might yield better results in terms of feasibility. In addition, for those participants that did endure the indirect calorimetry measure, data quality was sufficient, and results were usable.

Exploring the outcome of the eye-tracking VOF task, we saw that children with AS have longer reaction times in detecting high salient visual stimuli. In line with this finding is the knowledge that children with intellectual disabilities have slower information processing speed [41]. It also corroborates recent findings from another AS eye-tracking study that found delayed reaction times in detecting a named object visually, which they attributed to delayed language processing and attention problems [15]. A surprising finding of the current study was that participants’ reaction times to low salient stimuli were less different from their peers than their reaction time to high salient stimuli. This could be because high salient stimuli elicit the fastest possible reaction time, while reaction times to low salient stimuli show more variation and stabilize at a higher age than reaction times to high salient stimuli [36].

The eye-tracking social preference task indicated that faces capture attention in children with AS more than non-social objects, similarly as in typically developing peers. Previous studies have reported high prevalence of autism symptoms in AS [42], whereas other studies reported high sociability [43, 44]. The current finding might be interpreted as evidence for high sociability. On the other hand, lower attention capture of faces in children with ASD has been found in some studies using the same paradigm [45], but not all [37], indicating that this may not be a robust early marker of autism. In contrast to our first finding of normal attention capture for social stimuli in AS, our second finding indicated that sustained attention (total fixation duration) was not higher for social stimuli than for non-social stimuli. This could indicate less preference for social stimuli in AS, consistent with other studies focusing on sustained attention to social stimuli [13, 14]. Finally, children with high autistic features may have been less likely to participate in the current study than children with low autistic features. Replication in a larger sample is required.

With respect to body composition as measured by the BOD POD, we found high percentages of body fat in comparison to typically developing peers in 57% of participants and percentages of body fat that were higher than expected on the basis of BMI SDS in 43% of participants. From earlier studies, we know that overweight and obesity is more prevalent in children with AS compared to their neurotypical peers [29, 46] and that reinstatement of UBE3A reverses overweight in an AS mouse model [30, 31]. An explanation for the fat percentage being higher than expected on the basis of BMI may be that some children with AS have lower muscle mass [47]. Of note, seven out of 28 of the children in our study sample have AS due to the UPD genotype (25%). This is higher than in the general AS population, were 5 to 10% present with the UPD genotype [2]. Some studies indicate that children with the UPD genotype have a higher BMI than children with AS due to other genotypes [48], although other studies do not confirm this difference [49]. We recommend future studies to investigate body composition in a larger sample.

Strengths of the current study are the use of innovative outcome measures that are largely new in AS research. In addition, using our mobile research lab in a camper van made it possible to visit participants close to their home. Participants not needing to travel minimized the burden of participation, as well as fatigue and sensory overload at the moment of testing, while still having the benefit of a standardized and quiet testing environment. Further strong points are the involvement of parents who gave recommendations and rated acceptability, the preparation of participants with pictograms and practice caps, and the flexibility induced by allowing for adaptations to measurements along the way. A major limitation of this study is the potential bias in our research sample. Eleven parents stated that they did not want to participate because they thought the chances of success were small or the measures may induce stress on their child. Possibly, this causes a bias in results in the direction of overly positive feasibility findings. Nevertheless, participants did not differ from non-participants on age, sex, or genotype. In addition, having an eye-tracker on an arm that is rotatable in three dimensions was not possible in our mobile set up, which made it impossible to account for all posture variations in children with AS. Also, in the ASD literature, the use of a static social preference paradigm for eye-tracking less consistently elicits differences in social preference between ASD groups and control groups than the use of a complex social video with an interesting non-social background [50]. Although the current simple and short paradigm served like a good “proof of principle” for the feasibility of eye-tracking in AS, future studies should consider using a dynamic paradigm. Lastly, the current study did not aim to measure construct validity, as there are no golden standards or existing measures of the same construct in the AS population, and considering our small sample size. We recommend future studies to broadly investigate the possible correlation between the measures found feasible in this study and measures of related constructs.

The findings of this study have important practical implications, stated in Table 9. In addition, we propose that eye-tracking is a promising measurement instrument for children with AS when using alternative or adaptable calibration methods. Task stimuli should include attention-grabbing movies and sounds and ideally be adaptable to age and personal preferences of the participant. The eye-tracker arm should be rotatable in three dimensions to account for all posture variations in AS. Eye-tracking can potentially be used to measure a variety of outcomes, such as basic visual functions, social preference, or understanding of language. Exploratory outcomes showed longer reaction times to visual stimuli. This indicates that when offering visual information to a child with AS, researchers, parents, or teachers should give them more time to process the information and produce a response. In addition, the BOD POD is a feasible way to measure body composition in children with AS and is suitable for use in clinical practice and research. We measured high levels of body fat in children with AS, also when the BMI was normal. These findings warrant further (larger) studies on growth and metabolism in this population and suggest that clinical nutritional assessment should receive attention in clinical practice. Body composition and metabolism could serve as additional outcome measures for future therapy trials, as restoring UBE3A function leads to reversal of increased body weight in AS mice [30, 31].

Table 9 Practical implications
Full size table

Conclusions

This study shows that eye-tracking and BOD POD are feasible outcome measures for children with AS. These measures offer potential for clinical practice, research, and medication trials. fNIRS, bio-impedance analysis, and indirect calorimetry were not feasible for children with AS. Exploring the results of the eye-tracking measurements showed longer reaction times to salient visual stimuli. Concerning body composition, exploratory results demonstrated a high percentage of body fat in the majority of participants, indicating that the assessment of weight and body composition should receive attention.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy/ethical reasons, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ADHD:

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

AOI:

Area of interest

AS:

Angelman syndrome

ASD:

Autism spectrum disorder

BIA:

Bio-impedance analysis

BMI:

Body mass index

fNIRS:

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

IC:

Indirect calorimetry

ICD:

Imprinting center defect

PBF:

Percentage body fat

RMR:

Resting metabolism rate

ROSA:

Rotterdam outcome study for children with Angelman syndrome

SDS:

Standard deviation score

SQI:

Signal quality index

(UBE3A) mutation:

Pathogenic variant of the UBE3A gene

UPD:

Uniparental paternal disomy

VOF:

Visual orienting functions

References

  1. Williams CA, Beaudet AL, Clayton-Smith J, Knoll JH, Kyllerman M, Laan LA, et al. Angelman syndrome 2005: updated consensus for diagnostic criteria. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140A(5):413–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lossie AC, Whitney MM, Amidon D, Dong HJ, Chen P, Theriaque D, et al. Distinct phenotypes distinguish the molecular classes of Angelman syndrome. J Med Genet. 2001;38:834–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier NCT04259281, a study of the safety and tolerability of GTX-102 in children with Angelman syndrome. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine (US); 2006; [about 6 screens]. Available from: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04259281. Cited 2023 Jun 28.

  4. Milazzo C, Mientjes EJ, Wallaard I, Rasmussen SV, Erichsen KD, Kakunuri T, et al. Antisense oligonucleotide treatment rescues UBE3A expression and multiple phenotypes of an Angelman syndrome mouse model. JCI Insight. 2021;6(15):e145991.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Grieco JC, Romero B, Flood E, Cabo R, Visootsak J. A conceptual model of Angelman syndrome and review of relevant clinical outcomes assessments (COAs). Patient. 2019;12(1):97–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tjeertes J, Bacino CA, Bichell TJ, Bird LM, Bustamante M, Crean R, et al. Enabling endpoint development for interventional clinical trials in individuals with Angelman syndrome: a prospective, longitudinal, observational clinical study (FREESIAS). J Neurodev Disord. 2023;15(1):22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kraan CM, Date P, Rattray A, Sangeux M, Bui QM, Baker EK, et al. Feasibility of wearable technology for ‘real-world’ gait analysis in children with Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2022;66(8–9):717–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duis J, Skinner A, Carson R, Gouelle A, Annoussamy M, Silverman JL, et al. Quantitative measures of motor development in Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2023;191(7):1711–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Martinez LA, Born HA, Harris S, Regnier-Golanov A, Grieco JC, Weeber EJ, et al. Quantitative EEG analysis in Angelman syndrome: candidate method for assessing therapeutics. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2023;54(2):203–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bindels-de Heus K, Hooven-Radstaake MT, Legerstee JS, Hoopen LWT, AS EEf, Dieleman GC, et al. Sleep problems in children with Angelman syndrome: the effect of a behavioral intervention program. Res Dev Disabil. 2023;135:104444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grieco JC, Bahr RH, Schoenberg MR, Conover L, Mackie LN, Weeber EJ. Quantitative measurement of communication ability in children with Angelman syndrome. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2018;31(1):e49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zigler CK, Lin L, McFatrich M, Lucas N, Gordon KL, Jones HN, Berent A, Panagoulias J, Evans P, Reeve BB. Validation of the observer-reported communication ability (ORCA) measure for individuals with Angelman syndrome. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2023;128(3):204–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hong MP, Guilfoyle JL, Mooney LN, Wink LK, Pedapati EV, Shaffer RC, et al. Eye gaze and pupillary response in Angelman syndrome. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;68:88–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Micheletti S, Vivanti G, Renzetti S, Lanaro MP, Martelli P, Calza S, et al. Social attention and social-emotional modulation of attention in Angelman syndrome: an eye-tracking study. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):3375.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Key AP, Roth S, Venker C. Spoken language comprehension in children and adults with Angelman Syndrome. J Commun Disord. 2022;100:106272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kooiker MJ, Pel JJ, van der Steen-Kant SP, van der Steen J. A method to quantify visual information processing in children using eye tracking. J Vis Exp. 2016(113):e54031 [Online].

  17. Galli J, Loi E, Strobio C, Micheletti S, Martelli P, Merabet LB, et al. Neurovisual profile in children affected by Angelman syndrome. Brain Dev. 2023;45(2):117–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mishkin M, Ungerleider LG, Macko KA. Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neurosci. 1983;6:414–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gliga T, Elsabbagh M, Andravizou A, Johnson MH. Faces attract infants’ attention in complex displays. Infancy. 2009;14(5):550–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoon HM, Jo Y, Shim WH, Lee JS, Ko TS, Koo JH, et al. Disrupted functional and structural connectivity in Angelman syndrome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020;41(5):889–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gu Y, Miao S, Han J, Zeng K, Ouyang G, Yang J, et al. Complexity analysis of fNIRS signals in ADHD children during working memory task. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):829.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang F, Roeyers H. Exploring brain functions in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) studies. Int J Psychophysiol. 2019;137:41–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kable JA, Coles CD. Prefrontal cortical responses in children with prenatal alcohol-related neurodevelopmental impairment: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128(11):2099–109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Imai M, Watanabe H, Yasui K, Kimura Y, Shitara Y, Tsuchida S, et al. Functional connectivity of the cortex of term and preterm infants and infants with Down’s syndrome. Neuroimage. 2014;85(Pt 1):272–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lloyd-Fox S, Volein A, Blasi A, Everdell NL, Elwell C, Johnson MH. Social perception in infancy: a near infrared spectroscopy study. Child Dev. 2009;80(4):986–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lloyd-Fox S, Blasi A, Mercure E, Elwell CE, Johnson MH. The emergence of cerebral specialization for the human voice over the first months of life. Soc Neurosci. 2012;7(3):317–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lloyd-Fox S, Blasi A, Elwell CE, Charman T, Murphy D, Johnson MH. Reduced neural sensitivity to social stimuli in infants at risk for autism. Proc Biol Sci. 2013;280(1758):20123026.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lloyd-Fox S, Begus K, Halliday D, Pirazzoli L, Blasi A, Papademetriou M, et al. Cortical specialisation to social stimuli from the first days to the second year of life: a rural Gambian cohort. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2017;25:92–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bindels-de Heus GCB, Herrman-Mous SE, ten Hooven-Radstaake M, van Iperen-Kolk BM, Navis C, Rietman AB, et al. An overview of health issues and development in a large clinical cohort of children with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;1(182):53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. van Woerden GM, Harris KD, Hojjati MR, Gustin RM, Qiu S, de Avila FR, et al. Rescue of neurological deficits in a mouse model for Angelman syndrome by reduction of alphaCaMKII inhibitory phosphorylation. Nat Neurosci. 2007;10(3):280–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Meng L, Ward AJ, Chun S, Bennett CF, Beaudet AL, Rigo F. Towards a therapy for Angelman syndrome by targeting a long non-coding RNA. Nature. 2015;518(7539):409–12.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital. Sophia bus. Erasmus MC; 2023. Available from: https://www.erasmusmc.nl/nl-nl/sophia/pages/sophia-bus#cb0a51c5-90b0-449b-b5e9-b3bf9b2faf64.

  33. Erel Y, Jaffe-Dax S, Yeshurun Y, Bermano A. STORM-Net: simple and timely optode registration method for functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). BioRxiv [Preprint]. 2020:15. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.29.424683. Cited 2023 Jun 28.

  34. Key AP, Jones D, Peters S, Dold C. Feasibility of using auditory event-related potentials to investigate learning and memory in nonverbal individuals with Angelman syndrome. Brain Cogn. 2018;128:73–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Vendrame M, Loddenkemper T, Zarowski M, Gregas M, Shuhaiber H, Sarco DP, et al. Analysis of EEG patterns and genotypes in patients with Angelman syndrome. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;23(3):261–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kooiker MJ, van der Steen J, Pel JJ. Development of salience-driven and visually-guided eye movement responses. J Vis. 2016;16(5):18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Elsabbagh M, Gliga T, Pickles A, Hudry K, Charman T, Johnson MH, et al. The development of face orienting mechanisms in infants at-risk for autism. Behav Brain Res. 2013;251:147–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. McCarthy HD, Cole TJ, Fry T, Jebb SA, Prentice AM. Body fat reference curves for children. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006;30(4):598–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Azcona C, Koek N, Fruhbeck G. Fat mass by air-displacement plethysmography and impedance in obese/non-obese children and adolescents. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2006;1(3):176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Walz NC, Baranek GT. Sensory processing patterns in persons with Angelman syndrome. Am J Occup Ther. 2006;60:472–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Palix J, Giuliani F, Sierro G, Brandner C, Favrod J. Temporal regularity of cerebral activity at rest correlates with slowness of reaction times in intellectual disability. Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131(8):1859–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Richards C, Jones C, Groves L, Moss J, Oliver C. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder phenomenology in genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(10):909–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Peters SU, Goddard-Finegold J, Beaudet AL, Madduri N, Turcich M, Bacino CA. Cognitive and adaptive behavior profiles of children with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;128A(2):110–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Adams D, Horsler K, Oliver C. Age related change in social behavior in children with Angelman syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(6):1290–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Masedu F, Vagnetti R, Pino MC, Valenti M, Mazza M. Comparison of visual fixation trajectories in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder and typical development: a Markov chain model. Brain Sci. 2021;12(1):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Tan WH, Bacino CA, Skinner SA, Anselm I, Barbieri-Welge R, Bauer-Carlin A, et al. Angelman syndrome: mutations influence features in early childhood. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(1):81–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Dagli A, Buiting K, Williams CA. Molecular and clinical aspects of Angelman syndrome. Mol Syndromol. 2012;2(3–5):100–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mertz LG, Christensen R, Vogel I, Hertz JM, Ostergaard JR. Eating behavior, prenatal and postnatal growth in Angelman syndrome. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(11):2681–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bindels-de Heus K, Hagenaar DA, Dekker I, van der Kaay DCM, Kerkhof GF, Encore Expertise Center For A, et al. Hyperphagia, growth, and puberty in children with Angelman syndrome. J Clin Med. 2023;12(18):5981.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Speer LL, Cook AE, McMahon WM, Clark E. Face processing in children with autism: effects of stimulus contents and type. Autism. 2007;11(3):265–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Donati G, Davis R, Forrester GS. Gaze behaviour to lateral face stimuli in infants who do and do not gain an ASD diagnosis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13185.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mercure E, Quiroz I, Goldberg L, Bowden-Howl H, Coulson K, Gliga T, et al. Impact of language experience on attention to faces in infancy: evidence from unimodal and bimodal bilingual infants. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1943.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Sappia MS, Hakimi N, Colier W, Horschig JM. Signal quality index: an algorithm for quantitative assessment of functional near infrared spectroscopy signal quality. Biomed Opt Express. 2020;11(11):6732–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. McClave SA, Spain DA, Skolnick JL, Lowen CC, Kieber MJ, Wickerham PS, et al. Achievement of steady state optimizes results when performing indirect calorimetry. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2003;27(1):16–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Smallwood CD, Mehta NM. Accuracy of abbreviated indirect calorimetry protocols for energy expenditure measurement in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(6):693–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Schaik J, Burghard M, Lequin MH, van Maren EA, van Dijk AM, Takken T, et al. Resting energy expenditure in children at risk of hypothalamic dysfunction. Endocr Connect. 2022;11(8):e220276.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hessels RS, Niehorster DC, Kemner C, Hooge ITC. Noise-robust fixation detection in eye movement data: identification by two-means clustering (I2MC). Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(5):1802–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hessels RS, Kemner C, van den Boomen C, Hooge IT. The area-of-interest problem in eyetracking research: a noise-robust solution for face and sparse stimuli. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48(4):1694–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schofield WN. Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1985;39(Suppl 1):5–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hessels RS, Hooge ITC. Eye tracking in developmental cognitive neuroscience - the good, the bad and the ugly. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2019;40:100710.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants and their families for the time and effort invested in these measurements. Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge all master students that helped to conduct this study, and in particular Eline Lens, Hadassa Kwetsie, and Charlotte van Wageningen.

Funding

This study received funding from the Erasmus MC Sophia Foundation (grant number B17-04A) and foundation “Stichting de Merel.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Doesjka A. Hagenaar, Karen G. C. B. Bindels-de Heus, Louise van den Berg, Leontine W. ten Hoopen, Philine Affourtit, Henriëtte A. Moll, Marie-Claire Y. de Wit, Gwen C. Dieleman & Sabine E. Mous

  2. Department of Child- and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Doesjka A. Hagenaar, Louise van den Berg, Leontine W. ten Hoopen, Manon H. J. Hillegers, Gwen C. Dieleman & Sabine E. Mous

  3. Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Doesjka A. Hagenaar, Karen G. C. B. Bindels-de Heus & Henriëtte A. Moll

  4. Vestibular and Oculomotor Research Group, Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Maud M. van Gils & Johan J. M. Pel

  5. Department of Dietetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Philine Affourtit

  6. Division of Pediatric ICU, Department of Neonatal and Pediatric ICU, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Koen F. M. Joosten

  7. Department of Neurology and Paediatric Neurology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marie-Claire Y. de Wit

Authors
  1. Doesjka A. Hagenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen G. C. B. Bindels-de Heus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maud M. van Gils
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Louise van den Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leontine W. ten Hoopen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philine Affourtit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Johan J. M. Pel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Koen F. M. Joosten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Manon H. J. Hillegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Henriëtte A. Moll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Marie-Claire Y. de Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gwen C. Dieleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sabine E. Mous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DH contributed to the design of the study, conducted part of the measurements, coordinated the study, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. KBdH contributed to the design of the study, conducted part of the measurements, and substantially revised the manuscript. MvG analyzed the eye-tracking VOF data, contributed to interpreting the eye-tracking VOF data, and substantially revised the manuscript. LvdB helped conducting measurements, contributed to analyzing the eye-tracking social preference data, and substantially revised the manuscript. PA conducted part of the measurements; contributed to interpreting the BIA, BOD POD, and indirect calorimetry data; and substantially revised the manuscript. JP designed the eye-tracking VOF task, contributed to interpreting the eye-tracking VOF data, and substantially revised the manuscript. KJ contributed to interpreting the BIA, BOD POD, and indirect calorimetry data and substantially revised the manuscript. LtH, MH, HM, and MCW contributed to the design of the study and substantially revised the manuscript. HM, GD, and SM were responsible for acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication. GD and SM contributed to the design of the study and substantially revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doesjka A. Hagenaar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the medical ethical board of the Erasmus MC (MEC-2020-0489). All legal representatives participants (their legal representatives) signed informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MCdW is the Erasmus MC study site leader for the Roche Tangelo study, and the hospital received funding for this study. The hospital also received compensation for advice to Roche and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. The department of Child- and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology (Erasmus MC) is the Dutch distributer of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) measurement instruments, which include the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL). The department receives financial compensation for selling the measurement instruments. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 10 Additional information on eye-tracking and fNIRS measures
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 11 Methods for data quality assessment
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 12 Outcome variables and analysis methods
Full size table

Appendix 4

Table 13 Description of feasibility linked to phenotypical information: part A
Full size table
Table 14 Description of feasibility linked to phenotypical information: part B
Full size table

Appendix 5

This appendix gives additional information on the quality of the eye-tracking tasks.

Table 15 Additional data quality measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagenaar, D.A., Bindels-de Heus, K.G.C.B., van Gils, M.M. et al. Outcome measures in Angelman syndrome. J Neurodevelop Disord 16, 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-024-09516-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-024-09516-1

Keywords

Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders

ISSN: 1866-1955

Contact us