Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) over supplementary motor area (SMA) improves upper limb movement in individuals with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most debilitating aspects of Parkinson's disease (PD) is slowness of reactions and movements, termed bradykinesia. Previous studies have shown functional improvements following the application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique. For example, in healthy participants, reaction time (RT) was significantly facilitated following tDCS applied over supplementary motor area (SMA). Therefore, we investigated the influence of tDCS applied over the SMA in individuals with PD. Ten volunteers with idiopathic PD presenting with freezing of gait (FoG) were asked to perform two RT tasks as quickly as possible following an auditory go-signal: 1) an upper limb movement requiring a 20° right elbow extension, and 2) gait initiation from a quiet standing position. Participants performed 20 RT trials of the elbow extension task followed by 10 gait initiation trials. After these first blocks of trials, participants either received sham- or anodal-tDCS over the SMA (counterbalanced), and then performed a second set of trials in each task after an 8 minute rest period. Participants performed the same testing one week later but received the other tDCS protocol. For both tasks, no significant RT differences were found due to tDCS. However, in the upper limb task there was a significant effect of tDCS on kinematic parameters, whereby in post-anodal trials participants showed significantly shorter movement time (p=.002) and shorter time to peak displacement (p=.006). These results provide evidence that anodal-tDCS over SMA may contribute to improvements in upper limb movement quality for individuals with PD.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC and the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".