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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, 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