Predictive language comprehension in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verb and action knowledge deficits are reported in persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), even in the absence of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. However, the impact of these deficits on combinatorial semantic processing is less well understood. Following on previous verb and action knowledge findings, we tested the hypothesis that PD impairs the ability to integrate event-based thematic fit information during online sentence processing. Specifically, we anticipated persons with PD with age-typical cognitive abilities would perform more poorly than healthy controls during a visual world paradigm task requiring participants to predict a target object constrained by the thematic fit of the agent-verb combination. Twenty-four PD and 24 healthy age-matched participants completed comprehensive neuropsychological assessments. We recorded participants' eye movements as they heard predictive sentences (The fisherman rocks the boat) alongside target, agent-related, verb-related, and unrelated images. We tested effects of group (PD/control) on gaze using growth curve models. There were no significant differences between PD and control participants, suggesting that PD participants successfully and rapidly use combinatory thematic fit information to predict upcoming language. Baseline sentences with no predictive information (e.g., Look at the drum) confirmed that groups showed equivalent sentence processing and eye movement patterns. Additionally, we conducted an exploratory analysis contrasting PD and controls' performance on low-motion-content versus high-motion-content verbs. This analysis revealed fewer predictive fixations in high-motion sentences only for healthy older adults. PD participants may adapt to their disease by relying on spared, non-action-simulation-based language processing mechanisms, although this conclusion is speculative, as the analyses of high- vs. low-motion items was highly limited by the study design. These findings provide novel evidence that individuals with PD match healthy adults in their ability to use verb meaning to predict upcoming nouns despite previous findings of verb semantic impairment in PD across a variety of tasks.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".