280 Is blue-enriched light more effective than red light to enhance vigilance and cognitive performance in Parkinson’s Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Approximately 50% (between 16–74%) of adults with Parkinson’s disease (PD) show excessive daytime sleepiness. Besides its important role for vision, light conveys a powerful stimulating signal for alertness and cognition. Recent research has demonstrated that the blue part of light spectrum is the most efficient in enhancing vigilance and cognitive performance in young and older healthy individuals, thanks to a specific photoreception system within the eye which is particularly sensitive to blue wavelength. The aim of this pilot study was to compare the effects of blue-enriched light exposure (BL) and red-light placebo exposure (RL) on psychomotor vigilance and cognitive performance in adults with PD. Methods Sixteen participants with idiopathic PD (64.0±5.5 yrs, 6 women, Hoehn and Yahr status: 2) completed a brief neuropsychological assessment to exclude dementia, self-reported questionnaires and a complete eye examination in screening visits. The one-day experimental procedure included 1.25 h period of baseline dim-light exposition, followed by two light conditions presented in a counterbalanced design and separated by 15 minutes in dim-light: 1.25 h of BL at 959lux and 1.25 h of placebo RL condition at 472lux. Both light conditions were delivered by Luminette®. Data were normalized according to baseline dim-light evaluation. Mixed analyses of variance (2 light conditions X 2 orders) were performed to compare performance on an auditory psychomotor vigilance task (A-PVT) and an auditory 2-back cognitive tasks (A-2-back) during light exposure. Results We observed no significant effect of light conditions, orders and no interaction on reaction time (RT) and number of correct answers for the A-2-Back task. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between BL and RL on A-PVT performance including median RT, shift in optimum RT (i.e.,mean RT from fastest 10% RT), and duration of response in the lapse domain (i.e.,mean RT from slowest 10% RT). Conclusion These preliminary results do not support the notion that blue-enriched white light exposure is more efficient than red light exposure to stimulate psychomotor vigilance and cognitive performance in adults with PD. Next steps of analyses will compare the effects of BL and RL on subjective sleepiness and EEG cortical activation in the same population. Support (if any) CIHC & QPN
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".