Dopaminergic modulation of timing control and variability in the gait of Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basal ganglia have been implicated in timing control, yet the nature of timing disturbances in Parkinson's disease (PD) is poorly understood. We evaluated the influence of timing cues on spatiotemporal aspects of gait control and its variability, and the impact of dopaminergic treatment on timing. Three separate groups: 19 PD (OFF state); 24 PD (ON state); and 30 control participants were tested. Participants walked on a computerized carpet at four randomized and metronome-controlled rates: self-paced, 60, 80, or 100 steps/min. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that medicated PD patients had poorer timing control than patients withdrawn from medication and healthy participants when modulating timing to an external stimulus. Increased step-to-step timing variability and deficits in mean temporal gait characteristics revealed that the medicated PD group (in contrast to nonmedicated PD group) performed least like healthy participants. This was observable in externally-cued conditions, but not during self-paced gait. Similar to previous research, step length contributed to overall slowness in PD, while temporal characteristics of gait did not. Interestingly, healthy participants increased stride length with each increase in cue rate, whereas both PD groups locked their step length regardless of temporal demand. Step-to-step variability differences between PD and healthy (e.g. step and double-support time measurements) may be indicative of specific basal ganglia involvement in temporal control 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".