Investigating Therapies for Freezing of Gait Targeting the Cognitive, Limbic, and Sensorimotor Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Freezing of gait (FOG) is arguably the most disabling motor symptom experienced with Parkinson's disease (PD), but treatments are extremely limited due to our poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Three cortical domains are postulated in recent research (ie, the cognitive, limbic, and sensorimotor domains), thus, treatments targeting these mechanisms of FOG may potentially be effective. Cognitive training, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT, a well-known anxiety intervention), and proprioceptive training may address the cognitive, limbic, and sensorimotor domains, respectively. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether these 3 treatments could improve functional outcomes of FOG. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomized crossover design, 15 individuals with PD and FOG were randomized into different, counterbalanced orders of receiving the interventions. Each consisted of eight 1-hour sessions, twice weekly for 4 weeks. FOG severity was assessed as the primary outcome using a novel gait paradigm that was aimed at evoking FOG when the cognitive, limbic, or sensorimotor domains were independently challenged. RESULTS: FOG severity significantly improved after the cognitive intervention, with strong trends toward improvement specifically in the baseline and cognitive-challenge assessment conditions. CBT, as the anxiety intervention, resulted in significantly worse FOG severity. In contrast, proprioceptive training significantly improved FOG severity, with consistent trends across all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The cognitive and proprioceptive treatments appeared to improve different aspects of FOG. Thus, either of these interventions could potentially be a viable treatment for FOG. However, although the results were statistically significant, they could be sensitive to the relatively small number of participants in the study. Considering the significant results together with nonsignificant trends in both FOG and gait measures, and given equal time for each intervention, proprioceptive training produced the most consistent indications of benefits in this study. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03065127).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".