Spatially defined disruption of motor imagery performance in people with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether motor imagery performance is disrupted in patients with painful knee OA and if this disruption is specific to the location of the pain. METHODS: Twenty patients with painful knee OA, 20 patients with arm pain and 20 healthy pain-free controls undertook a motor imagery task in which they made left/right judgements of pictured hands and feet. Accuracy and reaction time of judgements were compared between groups and pain locations (side: left vs right; site: upper vs lower). RESULTS: Patients with knee pain were less accurate (P < 0.01) than healthy controls, but not different from people with arm pain (all P > 0.11). There were no differences in reaction time between groups (P = 0.64). Further, there was no effect of side or site of pain on reaction time (P = 0.43, 0.54, respectively) and no effect of site of pain on accuracy of left/right judgements (P = 0.12). However, there was an interaction effect of side of pain on accuracy of left vs right images (P = 0.03). If left-sided pain was present, accuracy was lower when images showed left hands/feet than when images showed right hands/feet. CONCLUSION: Motor imagery performance is disrupted in patients with knee OA, but is also disrupted in patients with arm pain. Accuracy of left/right judgements is disrupted in a spatially defined manner, raising the important possibility that brain-grounded maps of peripersonal space contribute to the cortical proprioceptive representation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".