The role of the striatum and hippocampus in planning: A PET activation study in Parkinson's disease
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".