Impaired Temporal Processing of Tactile and Proprioceptive Stimuli in Cerebellar Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance of timed motor sequences relies on the cerebellum and basal ganglia, which integrate proprioceptive information during the motor task and set internal timing mechanisms. Accordingly, these structures are also involved in other temporal processes, such as the discrimination of the different afferent information in the domain of time. In the present study we tested temporal processing of proprioceptive and tactile stimuli in 20 patients with neurodegenerative cerebellar ataxia and 20 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects. Tactile temporal discrimination threshold was defined as the value at which subjects recognized the two stimuli as asynchronous. Temporal discrimination movement threshold of the first dorsal interosseous and flexor carpi radialis was defined as the shortest interval between two paired electrical stimuli in which the subjects blindfolded perceived two separate index finger abductions and wrist flexions. Both tactile and movement temporal discrimination thresholds were higher in patients with cerebellar ataxia. No correlation was found with disease duration and severity. Our study demonstrates that temporal processing of tactile and proprioceptive stimuli is impaired in patients with cerebellar neurodegeneration and highlights the involvement of cerebellum in temporal processing of somatosensory stimuli of different type.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".