Dopamine Alters Tactile Perception in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal somatosensory processing may contribute to motor impairments observed in Parkinson's disease (PD). Dopaminergic medications have been shown to alter somatosensory processing such that tactile perception is improved. In PD, it remains unclear whether the temporal sequencing of tactile stimuli is altered and if dopaminergic medications alter this perception. METHODS: Somatosensory tactile perception was investigated using temporal order judgment in patients with Parkinson's disease on and off dopaminergic medications and in aged-matched healthy controls. Measures of temporal order judgment were acquired using computer controlled stimulation to digits 2 and 3 on the right hand and subjects were required to determine which stimuli occurred first. Two experimental tasks were compared, temporal order judgment without and with synchronization whereby digits 2 and 3 were vibrated synchronously in advance of the temporal order judgment sequence of stimuli. RESULTS: Temporal order judgment in PD patients of and on medications were similar to controls. Temporal order judgment preceded by synchronous vibration impaired tactical acuity in controls and in PD patients off medications to similar degrees, but this perceptual impairment by synchronous vibration was not present in PD patients on medications. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that dopamine in PD reduces cortico-cortical connectivity with SI and this leads to changes in tactical sensitivity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".