MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116226581 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2009.10.0171

Obstacle crossing among people with Parkinson disease is influenced by concurrent music

2010· article· en· W2116226581 on OpenAlexafffund
Lesley A. Brown, Natalie de Bruin, Jon B. Doan, Oksana Suchowersky, Bin Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObstaclePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAudiologyGaitActive listeningMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multitasking situations exacerbate gait impairments and increase the risk of falling among people with Parkinson disease (PD). This study compared obstacle negotiation among 10 subjects with PD and 10 nonparkinsonian control (CTRL) subjects in two test conditions differentiated by the presence of music played through a personal music player. Subjects walked the length of a 10 m walkway at a self-selected pace, crossing a 0.15 m obstacle placed at the midpoint of the walkway. The results indicated that subjects with PD crossed the obstacle slower than CTRL subjects and that concurrent music differentially altered obstacle crossing behaviors for the CTRL subjects and subjects with PD. Subjects with PD further decreased obstacle-crossing velocities and maintained spatial parameters in the music condition. In contrast, CTRL subjects maintained all spatiotemporal parameters of obstacle crossing with music. The alterations to crossing behaviors observed among the subjects with PD support our previous suggestion that listening to music while walking may be an attentionally demanding task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207