Orienting Attention in Aging and Parkinson's Disease: Distinguishing Modes of Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research on attentional orienting and Parkinson's disease (PD) has been compromised because the experimental paradigms tended to confound different forms of orienting. We sought to overcome this by examining the attentional orienting of three distinct groups (PD-patients, age-matched controls, and young controls) on five different tasks, four of which isolated pure forms of orienting. On two covert orienting tasks PD patients oriented volitional (Experiment 1) and reflexive (Experiment 2) covert attention in a healthy and normal manner for their age. On two overt orienting tasks, PD patients were found to execute volitional eye movements that were prone to undershoot their target goal (Experiment 3), and reflexive eye movements that were unusually fast (Experiment 4). When required to perform an antisaccade task (Experiment 5), which combines reflexive and volitional modes of overt orienting, PD patients performed normally. This indicates that using a task which combines different modes of orienting creates a situation that is more than the sum of its parts. Together our study supports the thesis that it is crucial to isolate and investigate different modes of attentional control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".