Impaired virtual space-tilting perception in Parkinson's disease with Pisa syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The mechanism of Pisa syndrome in Parkinson's disease (PD) is unclear. We aimed to analyze the spatial perception of patients with PD with Pisa syndrome using virtual reality. METHODS: In total, 16 patients with Pisa syndrome, 16 age-matched patients without Pisa syndrome, and 16 age-matched controls were included. They viewed the virtual room gradually tilting to different 8 directions randomized across trials. The 75% discrimination threshold angle and the mean tilting discrimination angle for each direction were evaluated. Participants' lateral trunk deviation was measured using Kinect. Neuropsychological status was evaluated, using the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), the Japanese version of the Montreal-Cognitive Assessment, Frontal Assessment Battery, and the color-word interference task of the Stroop test. Visuospatial abilities were assessed using Benton Judgement of Line Orientation, and vestibular function was evaluated using Subjective Visual Vertical (SVV). RESULTS: The 75% discrimination threshold in the tilting discrimination angle was larger in all directions for those in the Pisa syndrome group compared to patients in the without Pisa syndrome group and those in the control group. There were significant differences between the three groups for Front-Right, Right, and Back. Patients with Pisa syndrome showed a significantly worse performance in these tests compared with controls and tended to have worse SVV performance compared with patients without Pisa syndrome. CONCLUSION: The present findings support the hypothesis of visuo-spatial disability and/or attentional impairment in patients with Pisa syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".