Vertical saccades and antisaccades: complementary markers for motor and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies provide partly contradictory results about the characteristics of saccades in PD and the possible effects of levodopa, which may be attributed to different study design regarding disease stages, medication state or cognitive functioning. We studied horizontal and vertical visually guided saccades (VGS) and antisaccades (AS) in 40 patients with PD with and without postural instability in On and Off medication state as well as in 20 healthy controls (HC). Motor and cognitive performance were assessed using UPDRS, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). The PD group showed decreased VGS amplitudes and increased vertical VGS and AS latencies. Only relatively few studies had assessed vertical saccades in PD so far. However, our results indicate that vertical saccadic amplitude may be a supportive marker in diagnosing PD since upwards gain demonstrated an AUC of 0.85 for the discrimination of PD and HC. Only more advanced patients in Hoehn & Yahr stage 3 executed higher numbers of AS errors than HC. Since the AS error rate correlated with FAB and MoCA scores, AS performance seems to reflect cognitive ability in PD. Furthermore, the correlation of AS latency with the UPDRS axial subscore promotes the recently highlighted connection between postural control and executive function in PD. Levodopa did not alter saccade amplitudes and had opposing effects on the initiation of VGS and AS: Levodopa intake prolonged VGS latency, but decreased AS latency. Possible mechanisms by which levodopa may be capable of partially reversing the impaired balance between voluntary and reflexive cortical saccade initiation of PD are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".