MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167548169 · doi:10.1002/mds.20657

Sensory timing cues improve akinesia of grasping movements in Parkinson's disease: A comparison to the effects of subthalamic nucleus stimulation

2005· article· en· W2167548169 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis A. Nowak, Stephen Tisch, Marwan Hariz, Patricia Limousin, Helge Topka, John C. Rothwell

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusNeuroscienceStimulationPsychologyDeep brain stimulationBasal gangliaParkinson's diseaseSensory systemMedicineCentral nervous systemDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five parkinsonian subjects with chronic bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus and five sex- and age-matched healthy controls grasped, lifted, and held an instrumented object. The grip-lift task was either performed at self-determined speed or in response to an auditory cuing signal. Parkinsonian subjects performed the task with subthalamic nucleus stimulation switched ON and OFF. In Parkinson's disease, stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus and the presentation of auditory timing cues improved akinesia of both the grasp and lift components of the task. The finding that auditory timing cues improve akinesia in the absence of subthalamic nucleus stimulation suggests that the basal ganglia are less involved in the control of movements made in response to environmental cues. However, subthalamic nucleus stimulation caused parkinsonian subjects to apply excessive grip forces, regardless of whether the movement was made under self-determined or externally guided speed conditions. This implies that subthalamic nucleus stimulation produces a generalized upregulation in the gain of all components of a movement without the subtlety of focused control that is required to normalize performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207