MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988491410 · doi:10.1097/wco.0b013e328304b6a3

Motor sequence learning and movement disorders

2008· review· en· W1988491410 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Doyon

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)Motor learningMovement disordersSequence (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSequence learningNeurosciencePsychologyCommunicationMedicineBiologyPhysicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: New insights into the psychophysiological determinants of performance changes and brain plasticity associated with motor sequence learning have recently been gained through behavioral and imaging studies in healthy individuals. In addition, using a variety of motor sequential paradigms in groups of patients affected by a movement disorder, major advances have been achieved in our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases, as well as primary forms of dystonia. RECENT FINDINGS: This review begins by describing the latest findings in normal participants with regards to the dynamic alterations in neural networks observed across the different phases of motor sequence learning. It then focuses on the hotly debated issue of motor memory consolidation, highlighting the results of novel studies that investigated the role of both day and night sleep, the neural substrates and the developmental evolution mediating this process. Finally, this paper addresses current work looking at motor sequence learning in movement disorders that helps to better comprehend the functional contribution of basal ganglia structures to this type of memory, to assess the impact of such diseases on related patterns of brain activation, as well as to identify the neuronal compensatory mechanisms educed by these basal ganglia disorders. SUMMARY: Such advances have major implications, not only for optimizing ways to learn new skilled behaviors in real-life situations, but also for guiding therapeutic approaches in patients with movement disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations190
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207