Stereopsis and Eye Movement Abnormalities in Parkinson’s Disease and Their Clinical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is not exclusively a motor disorder. Among non-motor features, patients with PD possess sensory visual dysfunctions. Depth perception and oculomotor deficits can significantly impact patients' motor performance. Stereopsis and eye behavioral study using 3D stimuli may help determine their implications in disease status. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate stereopsis and eye movement abnormalities in PD with reliable tools and their correlation with indicators of PD severity. We hypothesize that patients with PD exhibit different eye behaviors and that these differences may correlate to the severity of motor symptoms and cognitive status. METHODS: Control and PD participants were first evaluated for visual acuity, visual field, contrast acuity, and stereo perception with 2D and Titmus stereotests, followed by the assessment with a 3D active shutter system. Eye movement behaviors were assessed by a Tobii X2-60 eye tracker. RESULTS: Screening visual tests did not reveal any differences between the PD and control groups. With the 3D active shutter system, the PD group demonstrated significantly worse stereopsis. The preserved cognitive function was correlated to a more intact stereo function. Patients with PD had longer visual response times, with a higher number of fixations and bigger saccade amplitude, suggesting fixation stabilization difficulties. Such changes showed a positive correlation with the severity of motor symptoms and a negative correlation with normal cognitive status. CONCLUSION: We assessed stereopsis with a 3D active shutter system and oculomotor behaviors with the Tobii eye tracker. Patients with PD exhibit poorer stereopsis and impaired oculomotor behaviors during response time. These deficits were correlated with PD motor and cognitive status. The visual parameters may potentially serve as the clinical biomarkers for PD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".