Evaluating dopaminergic system contributions to cued pattern switching during bimanual coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Switching between different coordinated movements has been shown to be slow, with delayed responses and even freezing deficits in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). While it is well accepted that the dopaminergic system responds to dopamine replacement to ameliorate overall slowness (bradykinesia) and other motor symptoms of PD, it is unknown whether the dopaminergic system can influence overall coordination between limbs and if this may be impacted by the availability of sensory feedback. In the current study, PD and healthy age-matched control participants performed a rhythmic coordination task that required a cued voluntary switch between movement patterns (in-phase and anti-phase). PD participants performed the task first after overnight withdrawal ('off'), and subsequently after administration ('on') of dopamine replacement. Coordinated movements were performed while paced by an auditory metronome in two sensory conditions: 'no vision' or 'normal vision'. Measures of voluntary switch time and delayed responses revealed that PD 'off' required significantly more time than healthy participants to switch between movement patterns. Interestingly, PD 'off' demonstrated disrupted coordination, as revealed by mean (accuracy) and standard deviation (stability) of absolute error of relative phase. Dopamine replacement improved the time needed to switch and amount of delayed responses in PD participants, but had no influence on coordination itself. It is concluded that although modulation of the dopaminergic system improves the slowness during switching, coordination deficits may be the result of secondary impairments (possibly attention-related) that cannot be improved with dopamine replacement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".