MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Into the groove: Can rhythm influence Parkinson's disease?

2013· review· en· W2115889330 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Nombela, Laura E. Hughes, Adrian M. Owen, Jessica A. Grahn

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceRhythmPsychologyParkinson's diseasePerceptionNeuroimagingBasal gangliaSupplementary motor areaDiseaseMovement disordersPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMedicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has noted that music can improve gait in several pathological conditions, including Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease and stroke. Current research into auditory-motor interactions and the neural bases of musical rhythm perception has provided important insights for developing potential movement therapies. Specifically, neuroimaging studies show that rhythm perception activates structures within key motor networks, such as premotor and supplementary motor areas, basal ganglia and the cerebellum - many of which are compromised to varying degrees in Parkinson's disease. It thus seems likely that automatic engagement of motor areas during rhythm perception may be the connecting link between music and motor improvements in Parkinson's disease. This review seeks to describe the link, address core questions about its underlying mechanisms, and examine whether it can be utilized as a compensatory mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations319
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience & Biobehavioral ReviewsSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207