Tasks of Attention Augment Rigidity in Mild Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether tasks involving effortful attention would cause augmentation of rigidity in patients with mild Parkinson disease. METHODS: In 17 subjects with mild Parkinson disease, rigidity in a single arm was assessed during various experimental conditions by a blinded movement disorders neurologist. Rigidity was scored separately at the wrist and the elbow using an ordinal scale. In three of the conditions, sustained attention was directed toward visual, auditory or movement-related stimuli. Two varieties of Froment maneuver served as positive controls: contralateral hand opening-closing or ipsilateral foot tapping. In addition, rigidity was assessed twice with subjects resting. The examiner was unaware of the sequence of experimental conditions and this was changed for each subject. Mean rigidity scores for the various experimental conditions were compared against the baseline state (an average of both trials with the patient resting) using a repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons test. RESULTS: Rigidity was significantly increased from baseline with each of the attentional tasks (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001) and also with the two Froment maneuvers (p < 0.001). Rigidity augmentation with contralateral hand opening-closing was significantly greater than with any of the attentional tasks (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Tasks of effortful attention did appear to augment rigidity in patients with mild Parkinson disease. We speculate that the greater augmentation seen with the Froment maneuver could have an anatomic basis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".