Conflicting and non-conflicting visual cues lead to error in gait initiation and gait inhibition in individuals with freezing of gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We asked whether conflicting visual cues influences gait initiation, gait inhibition and postural control in Parkinson's disease (PD) between freezers, non-freezers and healthy older adults. METHODS: Twenty-five PD participants on dopaminergic medication and 17 healthy older adults were asked to initiate or refrain gait depending on visual cues: green GO (GG), green STOP (GS), red GO (RG), red STOP (RS). Center of pressure (CoP) displacement, variability and mean velocity (VCoP) in the anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) directions and movement time (MT) were measured. RESULTS: Gait initiation: Both freezers and non-freezers were different from controls in GG and GS. In GS, freezers had smaller CoP displacement and velocity in both directions (p<0.01), while non-freezers had smaller VCoP in AP and ML (p<0.01). AP CoP displacement in GS was smaller in freezers compared to non-freezers (p<0.05). Freezers had longer MT compared to controls in GG and compared to both groups in GS (p<0.01). Gait inhibition: Controls and freezers had larger CoP displacement variability (p<0.05) and velocity (p<0.01) in both directions in RG compared to RS. No differences were seen in non-freezers. Three freezers initiated walking during the RG or RS conditions. CONCLUSION: Freezers were in general slower at initiating gait, displayed a more restrictive postural strategy and were more affected by the conflicting conditions compared to both controls and non-freezers. In freezers, the conflicting visual cues may have increased the cognitive load enough to provoke delays in processing the visual information and implementing the appropriate motor program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".