MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994449806 · doi:10.2174/1874230000802010001

Behavioural Correlates of Cognitive Skill Learning in Parkinson's Disease

2008· article· en· W1994449806 on OpenAlexafffund
Miriam H. Beauchamp, Alain Dagher, Michel Panisset, Julien Doyon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Behavioral Science Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalCentre for Movement DisordersMcGill UniversityHôtel-Dieu de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWorking memoryNeuropsychologyPsychologyCognitionProcedural memoryTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyBasal gangliaMemory spanDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of basal ganglia dysfunction on cognitive skill learning was explored using a learning version of the Tower of London (TOL) task, which places a heavy load on working memory and is not confounded by declarative memory, as have been previous tasks.Two subgroups of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients were assessed and also completed a selection of neuropsychological tests: the first was unmedicated (de novo, n=12) and the second included patients normally receiving L-DOPA, but tested off medication (n=12).Overall, neither subgroup was impaired when learning the task compared to control participants (n=22).Six patients, however, failed to improve their performance with practice.Their learning deficit could not be explained in terms of their functional status; instead, it was related to deficits on span tests.Thus, the inability to acquire a new cognitive skill in PD may not be due to learning impairments per se, but rather, it appears to be secondary to working memory deficits.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Behavioral Science JournalSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207