Does the impaired postural control in Parkinson's disease affect the habituation to non-sequential external perturbation trials?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: How people with Parkinson's disease habituate their postural response to unpredictable translation perturbation is not totally understood. We compared the capacity to change the postural responses after unexpected external perturbation and investigated the habituation plateaus of postural responses to non-sequential perturbation trials in people with Parkinson's disease and healthy older adults. METHODS: In people with Parkinson's disease (n = 37) and older adults (n = 20), sudden posterior support-surface translational were applied in 7 out of 17 randomized trials to ensure perturbation unpredictability. Electromyography and center of pressure parameters of postural response were analyzed by ANOVAs (Group vs. Trials). Two simple planned contrasts were performed to determine at which trial the responses first significantly habituate, and by which trials the habituation plateaus. FINDINGS: Older adults demonstrated a first response change in trial 5 and habituation plateaus after trial 4, while for people with Parkinson's disease, the first change occurred in trial 2 and habituation plateau after trial 5 observed by center of pressure range. People with Parkinson's disease demonstrated a greater center of pressure range in trial 1 compared to older adults. Independent of trial, people with Parkinson's disease vs. older adults demonstrated a greater ankle muscle co-activation and recovery time. INTERPRETATION: Despite the greater center of pressure range in the first trial, people with Parkinson's disease can habituate to unpredictable perturbations. This is reflected by little, to no difference in the time-course of adaptation for all but 2 parameters that showed only marginal differences between people with Parkinson's disease and older adults.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".