Dissociating between sensory and perceptual deficits in PD: More than simply a motor deficit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Parkinson's disease (PD) is traditionally considered a motor output disorder, recent evidence suggests that people with PD may have sensory and perceptual impairments that may underlie movement impairments. Yet there has not been any direct testing of perceptual judgments, especially when manipulating the sensory feedback on which these judgments are made. The present study investigated how perception might be influenced by sensory feedback to contribute to height estimations and obstacle stepping in PD relative to healthy age-matched control participants. Perceptual judgment accuracy was evaluated by judging 3 typically encountered obstacle heights in 2 sensory feedback conditions: (1) vision of foot available and (2) without vision of foot (reliance on proprioceptive feedback to estimate height). Then participants proceeded to walk and step over the obstacle. Fifteen individuals with PD and 15 healthy control participants completed the task. As seen with toe elevation, toe elevation variability, and toe error measures, individuals with PD overestimated the obstacle height and were significantly more variable when relying solely on proprioception (in contrast to when vision was available) compared with healthy controls, although no differences between groups in obstacle crossing were found. These results support the notion that sensory deficits may contribute to inaccuracy of perceptual judgment and has the potential to contribute to gait behaviors such as tripping and falling, especially when vision is not available. Future studies should carefully consider the impact of sensory and perceptual deficits that might contribute to movement planning problems and consequentially movement impairments.
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".