Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 5–7% of school-age children. ADHD is usually marked by an ongoing pattern of inattention or hyperactivity–impulsivity, leading to functioning or developmental problems. A common ADHD assessment tool is the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham (SNAP) questionnaire. However, such scales provide only a subjective perspective, and most of them are used to evaluate therapeutic effects at least 3–12 months after medication initiation. Therefore, we employed an objective assessment method to provide more accurate evaluations of therapeutic effects in 25 children with ADHD (23 boys and 2 girls). To evaluate the participants’ improvement and treatment’s effectiveness, the pixel subtraction technique was used in video analysis. We compared the efficacy of 1-month Ritalin or Concerta treatment by evaluating the movement in each video within 3 h of medication administration. The movement value was defined as the result of a calculation when using the pixel subtraction technique. Based on behavior observation and SNAP scores, both parent- and teacher-reported scores decreased after 1 month of medication (reduction rates: 19.61% and 16.38%, respectively). Specifically, the parent-reported hyperactivity subscale and teacher-reported oppositional subscale decreased more significantly. By contrast, the reduction rate was 39.27%, as evaluated using the average movement value (AMV). Considering symptomatic improvement as a >25% reduction in scores, the result revealed that the AMV decreased in 18 patients (72%) compared with only 44% and 56% of patients based on parent- and teacher-reported hyperactivity subscale scores. In conclusion, the pixel subtraction method can serve as an objective and reliable evaluation of the therapeutic effects of ADHD medication in the early stage.

Background: Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) is a degenerative disease that impairs cognitive function, initially, and then motor or other function, eventually. Motor coordination function impairment usually accompanies cognition impairment but it is seldom examined whether it can reflect the clinical outcomes of AD. Methods: 113 clinically diagnosed AD patients with a mean age of 78.9 ± 6.9 years underwent an annual neuropsychological assessment using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), the Sum of Boxes of Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR-SB), and the CDR. The cerebral coordination function was evaluated through correlations among 15 joints with a kinetic depth sensor annually. An intra-individual comparison of both cognitive and motor coordination functions was performed to examine their correlations. Results: The changes in coordination function in the lower limbs can significantly reflect the clinical outcomes, MMSE (p < 0.001), CASI (p = 0.006), CDR (p < 0.001), and CDR-SB (p < 0.001), but the changes in upper limbs can only reflect the clinical outcome in CDR (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of a kinetic depth sensor to determine the coordination between joints, especially in lower limbs, can significantly reflect the global functional and cognitive outcomes in AD. Such evaluations could be another biomarker used to evaluate non-cognitive outcomes in AD for clinical and research purposes.