Are non-literal language comprehension deficits related to a theory of mind deficit in Parkinson's disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory of mind (TOM), i.e. the capacity to attribute mental states to oneself and others, would be impaired in Parkinson's disease (PD). Nonliteral language (NLL) comprehension would also be impaired in this disease. The goal of this study was to verify the presence of an association between the TOM and NLL comprehension deficits. We assessed 15 individuals in the early stages of PD and 17 healthy controls (HC), comparable on gender, age and education. Each subject completed a TOM evaluation task and a NLL task (i.e. metaphor comprehension). They also completed executive functioning (mental flexibility, inhibition and working memory) evaluation tasks. Our results showed that patients with PD had significant difficulties in the TOM and NLL comprehension tasks compared to HC participants. A significant relationship was found between TOM and NLL comprehension results. Moreover, NLL scores were associated with a task evaluating mental flexibility. Thus, PD might cause both TOM and NLL comprehension deficit even in the early stages of the disease. Our results showed that there would be a close relationship between TOM and NLL in people with PD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".