Preserved motor memory in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Patients with Parkinson’s disease, who lose the dopaminergic projections to the striatum, are impaired in certain aspects of motor learning. Recent evidence suggests that, in addition to its role in motor performance, the striatum plays a key role in the memory of motor learning. Whether Parkinson’s patients have impaired motor memory and whether motor memory is modulated by dopamine at the time of initial learning is unknown. To address these questions, we measured memory of a learned motor sequence in Parkinson’s patients who were either On or Off their dopaminergic medications. We compared them to a group of older and younger controls. Contrary to our predictions, motor memory was not impaired in patients compared to older controls, and was not influenced by dopamine state at the time of initial learning. To probe post-learning consolidation processes, we also tested whether learning a new sequence shortly after learning the initial sequence would interfere with later memory. We found that, in contrast to younger adults, neither older adults nor patients were susceptible to this interference. These findings suggest that motor memory is preserved in Parkinson’s patients and raise the possibility that motor memory in patients is supported by compensatory non-dopamine sensitive mechanisms. Furthermore, given the similar performance characteristics observed in the patients and older adults and the absence of an effect of dopamine, these results raise the possibility that aging and Parkinson’s disease affect motor memory in similar ways.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".