Augmentation in restless legs syndrome: an eye tracking study on emotion processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess emotional processing and alexithymia in patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS) with augmentation versus those who never had augmentation. METHODS: We recruited 26 patients who had a history of augmentation (AUG), either current or past, 27 RLS patients treated with dopamine agonists who never had augmentation (RLS controls), and 21 healthy controls (HC). All participants were screened for impulse control disorders (ICDs). Alexithymia was assessed by means of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale - 20 (TAS-20). Facial emotion recognition was tested through an eye-tracking task. Furthermore, all participants performed neuropsychological tests assessing global cognitive status, impulsivity, anxiety, and depression. RESULTS: ICD symptoms occurred more frequently in AUG patients than in RLS controls (P = 0.047). Patients with AUG scored higher on the TAS-20 (P = 0.007) and the attentional subdomain of an impulsivity scale (BIS-11; P = 0.015) compared to HC. Patients with AUG also performed worse on the facial emotion recognition task relative to RLS controls (P = 0.009) and HC (P = 0.003). We found a group difference for the time to first fixation and the fixation count in the mouth region (P = 0.019 and P = 0.021, respectively). There were no other differences in the eye tracking examination. INTERPRETATION: This study showed evidence of poorer emotional processing in patients who had augmentation compared to RLS patients without augmentation and healthy controls. The altered exploration pattern of faces and the higher alexithymia scores suggest abnormalities in emotion processing in patients with augmentation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".