Forward and backward spatial recall in Parkinson's disease and matched controls: A 1-year follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibit a domain-general visuospatial dysfunction; however, no previous study has examined changes over time in forward and backward spatial recall in PD against controls. To evaluate changes in short-term (STM) and working memory (WM) dysfunction in PD, the current study assessed performance on a computer-modified version of the Corsi Block-Tapping Test (forward and backward recall) at two-time points 1 year apart, while simultaneously exploring associations with potentially relevant demographic and clinical variables. We enrolled 38 patients with PD and 38 controls matched for age, sex, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total scores. Linear mixed-effects models analyzed the primary measured variables (forward and backward scores). At baseline, the dysfunction effect sizes were as follows: forward recall (−0.45, 95% CI [−0.90, 0.01]) and backward recall (−0.26, 95% CI [−0.71, 0.19]). At follow-up, patients exhibited substantially greater difficulties in backward recall (−0.65, 95% CI [−1.18, −0.13]) compared to the baseline assessment, whereas the forward dysfunction effect size remained almost the same (−0.43, 95% CI [−0.94, 0.09]). Age (p = .005, f = 0.35) and total scores on MoCA (p = .017, f = 0.18), irrespective of group and recall condition, were significant predictors of spatial block scores. The pattern of dysfunction effect sizes indicates that, in contrast to forward recall, backward recall dysfunction in PD worsened 1-year after the baseline assessment, presumably reflecting the progression of PD-related visuospatial WM dysfunction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".