Automatic Online Motor Control Is Intact in Parkinson’s Disease With and Without Perceptual Awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the double-step paradigm, healthy human participants automatically correct reaching movements when targets are displaced. Motor deficits are prominent in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. In the lone investigation of online motor correction in PD using the double-step task, a recent study found that PD patients performed unconscious adjustments appropriately but seemed impaired for consciously-perceived modifications. Conscious perception of target movement was achieved by linking displacement to movement onset. PD-related bradykinesia disproportionately prolonged preparatory phases for movements to original target locations for patients, potentially accounting for deficits. Eliminating this confound in a double-step task, we evaluated the effect of conscious awareness of trajectory change on online motor corrections in PD. On and off dopaminergic therapy, PD patients (n= 14) and healthy controls (n= 14) reached to peripheral visual targets that remained stationary or unexpectedly moved during an initial saccade. Saccade latencies in PD are comparable to controls’. Hence, target displacements occurred at equal times across groups. Target jump size affected conscious awareness, confirmed in an independent target displacement judgment task. Small jumps were subliminal, but large target displacements were consciously perceived. Contrary to the previous result, PD patients performed online motor corrections normally and automatically, irrespective of conscious perception. Patients evidenced equivalent movement durations for jump and stay trials, and trajectories for patients and controls were identical, irrespective of conscious perception. Dopaminergic therapy had no effect on performance. In summary, online motor control is intact in PD, unaffected by conscious perceptual awareness. The basal ganglia are not implicated in online corrective responses.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".