A positive influence of vision on motor symptoms during sensory attention focused exercise for Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of increased attention to sensory feedback during exercise. Two 12-week exercise programs that differed only in the presence (PD SAFEx) or absence (non-SAFE control group) of increased attention focused on sensory feedback were compared. Participants were assessed symptomatically using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) before the start of the exercise program, immediately following the 12-week program and after a 6-week nonexercise washout period. Secondary outcome measures included the Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG), Grooved Pegboard (GP) and velocity and step length of self-paced gait. Both groups significantly improved on the TUG, GP, velocity, and step length, and this was maintained after a 6-week washout period. Of additional interest, only the PD SAFEx program significantly improved motor symptoms (UPDRS). These gains were maintained in the PD SAFEx group 6 weeks after the exercise was stopped, while motor symptoms significantly worsened in the non-SAFE group. These results suggest that increasing awareness of sensory feedback may be a critical factor that specifically impacts motor symptoms. Future work should strive to uncover the underlying neurophysiological mechanism behind this effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".