Rhythmic abilities and musical training in Parkinson’s disease: do they help?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rhythmic auditory cues can immediately improve gait in Parkinson’s disease. However, this effect varies considerably across patients. The factors associated with this individual variability are not known to date. Patients’ rhythmic abilities and musicality (e.g., perceptual and singing abilities, emotional response to music, and musical training) may foster a positive response to rhythmic cues. To examine this hypothesis, we measured gait at baseline and with rhythmic cues in 39 non-demented patients with Parkinson’s disease and 39 matched healthy controls. Cognition, rhythmic abilities and general musicality were assessed. A response to cueing was qualified as positive when the stimulation led to a clinically meaningful increase in gait speed. We observed that patients with positive response to cueing ( n = 17) were more musically trained, aligned more often their steps to the rhythmic cues while walking, and showed better music perception as well as poorer cognitive flexibility than patients with non-positive response ( n = 22). Gait performance with rhythmic cues worsened in six patients. We concluded that rhythmic and musical skills, which can be modulated by musical training, may increase beneficial effects of rhythmic auditory cueing in Parkinson’s disease. Screening patients in terms of musical/rhythmic abilities and musical training may allow teasing apart patients who are likely to benefit from cueing from those who may worsen their performance due to the stimulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".