Disentangling perceptual judgment and online feedback deficits in Parkinson’s freezing of gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the underlying mechanisms of freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease (PD) are not fully understood, impaired sensory-perceptual processing has been proposed as an important contributor to freezing episodes. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to disentangle how sensory-perceptual deficits involved in planning (prior to movement) and sensory-perceptual feedback processing (during movement execution) contribute to freezing of gait in narrow spaces. Thirteen PD participants with freezing (PD FOG), 14 PD participants without freezing (PD non-FOG), and 15 healthy individuals made a perceptual estimate of the width of the distal opening of a corridor in two conditions: parallel and narrowing walls. Gait characteristics and number of freezing episodes were then compared while participants walked in baseline (no corridor), and through parallel walls and narrowing walls corridors. Visuospatial abilities were also assessed using neuropsychological tests. PD FOG had lower scores in the copy of the pentagons (p = 0.044) and had greater error variability in the perceptual judgment task (p = 0.008) than healthy participants. Although a similar number of freezing episodes occurred in both corridor conditions, PD FOG had greater step length variability while walking through the parallel walls corridor compared to healthy (p < 0.001) and PD non-FOG (p = 0.017) participants. Regression analysis revealed that error variability in perceptual judgment predicted the percentage of time spent in double support (R (2) = 0.347) only in the narrowing walls condition for PD FOG. These results support the notion that sensory-perceptual deficits both prior to movement planning and during movement execution are important factors contributing to freezing of gait.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".