Rhythmic auditory cues shape neural network recruitment in Parkinson's disease during repetitive motor behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established clinically that rhythmic auditory cues can improve gait and other motor behaviors in Parkinson's disease (PD) and other disorders. However, the neural systems underlying this therapeutic effect are largely unknown. To investigate this question we scanned people with PD and age-matched healthy controls using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). All subjects performed a rhythmic motor behavior (right hand finger tapping) with and without simultaneous auditory rhythmic cues at two different speeds (1 and 4 Hz). We used spatial independent component analysis (ICA) and regression to identify task-related functional connectivity networks and assessed differences between groups in intra- and inter-network connectivity. Overall, the control group showed greater intra-network connectivity in perceptual and motor related networks during motor tapping both with and without rhythmic cues. The PD group showed greater inter-network connectivity between the auditory network and the executive control network, and between the executive control network and the motor/cerebellar network associated with the motor task performance. We interpret our results as indicating that the temporal rhythmic auditory information may assist compensatory mechanisms through network-level effects, reflected in increased interaction between auditory and executive networks that in turn modulate activity in cortico-cerebellar networks.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".