The Modality Effect on Delayed Free Recall in Non-demented Patients With Mild Parkinson’s Disease Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The modality effect plays the central role in learning and memory functions. Retrieval failure constitutes a common memory impairment that occurs among patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, little knowledge exists about the relation between modality effect and delayed recall impairment in PD. The primary goal of this study was to compare delayed free recall performance between three different memory modalities (verbal, visual, and cross visual-verbal) in a sample of non-demented patients with mild PD progression. The secondary goal was to explore the frequency of deficient performance on the basis of normative comparisons on each of the three delayed free-recall measures. Method: A total of 71 non-demented patients with mild Parkinson’s disease progression were recruited for the administration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), the Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT), and the Greek Version of Face-Name Associative Memory Examination (GR-FNAME12). Results: The percentages of deficient-performances for the three delayed free recall measures were 45.1% (32/71), 39.4% (28/71) and 31% (22/71) for the GR-FNAME12, ROFCT and RAVLT, respectively. The results indicated no significant difference between performances of the GR-FNAME12 and ROCFT, both of which were significantly lower than performance on the RAVLT. Conclusions: In conclusion, delayed free recall appears to be more severely affected in the cross visual-verbal and visual memory modalities than in verbal-memory modalities in the early phase of PD progression.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".