Gait characteristics and gaze behaviours during a modified timed "Up & Go" (TUG) test: a comparison of older adults and Parkinson's disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TUG test is a reliable and valid test for quantifying functional mobility (Podsiadlo & Richardson, 1991). Parkinson's disease (PD) patients face many mobility challenges as well as attention deficits. In order to test both mobility and attention, the current study had both PD patients (N=10, 62.8 + 10.5 yrs) and healthy age-matched adults (N=12, 65.7 + 6.3 yrs) perform the TUG test with a dual task. Dual task paradigms determine the amount of interference a secondary task has on the performance of a primary task. The participants were instructed to rise from a chair and walk towards a counter three metres away. Hidden behind a curtain on the counter was either: 1) nothing, 2) an empty tray, or 3) a tray with glasses (TWG). After reaching and grabbing the item located behind the curtain, the participants were ask to turn around and walk back. Kinematic data was collected using an Optotrak system and gaze behaviours (fixations) were collected using an ASL Mobile Eye Tracker. Results showed that during the approach and return, both velocity and step length were significantly lower (p<0.05) in PDs compared to the healthy participants, independent of the condition. Gaze behaviours showed that PDs took more time to process visual information; they had fewer fixations but longer fixation durations than the healthy participants. Although both groups of participants directed more attention (total fixation duration) towards the tray during the TWG condition than other conditions, only the PDs demonstrated a significant (p<0.05) decrease in stability. This decrease in stability was due to the PDs inability to properly re-direct sufficient amounts of attention towards task-relevant objects, which may be the reason for mobility challenges within this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".