Bimanual coordination deficits with Parkinson's disease: The influence of movement speed and external cueing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous coordinated movement of the upper limbs performed at different movement frequencies, and with different external timing conditions, was examined in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) and healthy, age- and gender-matched controls. Participants performed symmetric in-phase movements toward and away from the midline of the body, and isodirectional anti-phase movements at one of three metronome speeds (0.75, 1.25, and 1.75 Hz), and in two different auditory cueing conditions (cue present, cue absent). Measures of relative phase accuracy (absolute mean error) and stability (standard deviation) revealed that individuals with PD performed in-phase movements as well as the controls, while anti-phase movements were performed with greater mean error and variability. The adverse effects of PD on the anti-phase task were also reflected by freezing (8.1% of anti-phase trials) and hypometric deficits (5.1% of anti-phase trials) during movement. None of these PD-related impairments occurred during in-phase trials. The overall accuracy or stability of movement coordination was not improved with the presence of external pacing cues, suggesting that although execution impairments of individuals with PD may be dramatically influenced by attention, external cueing does not necessarily improve movement performance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".