The role of the striatum and hippocampus in planning: A PET activation study in Parkinson's disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has identified the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and striatum as participating in the planning and selection of movements. We compared the brain activation patterns during planning in Parkinson's disease patients and age-matched controls using H(2)(15)O-PET and the Tower of London (TOL) task. In this study, our mildly affected Parkinson's disease group performed as well as the control group but showed a different pattern of neuronal activation. In the two groups, overlapping areas of the PFC were activated but, whereas the right caudate nucleus was activated in the control group, this was not evident in the Parkinson's disease patients. This suggests that normal normal frontal lobe activation can occur in Parkinson's disease despite abnormal processing within the basal ganglia. Moreover, right hippocampus activity was suppressed in the controls and enhanced in the Parkinson's disease patients. This could represent a shift to the declarative memory system in Parkinson's disease during performance of the TOL task, possibly resulting from insufficient working memory capacity within the frontostriatal system.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it