Cognitive correlates of antisaccade behaviour across multiple neurodegenerative diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oculomotor tasks generate a potential wealth of behavioural biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases. Overlap between oculomotor and disease-impaired circuitry reveals the location and severity of disease processes via saccade parameters measured from eye movement tasks such as prosaccade and antisaccade. Existing studies typically examine few saccade parameters in single diseases, using multiple separate neuropsychological test scores to relate oculomotor behaviour to cognition; however, this approach produces inconsistent, ungeneralizable results and fails to consider the cognitive heterogeneity of these diseases. Comprehensive cognitive assessment and direct inter-disease comparison are crucial to accurately reveal potential saccade biomarkers. We remediate these issues by characterizing 12 behavioural parameters, selected to robustly describe saccade behaviour, derived from an interleaved prosaccade and antisaccade task in a large cross-sectional data set comprising five disease cohorts (Alzheimer’s disease/mild cognitive impairment, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular disease; n = 391, age 40–87) and healthy controls (n = 149, age 42–87). These participants additionally completed an extensive neuropsychological test battery. We further subdivided each cohort by diagnostic subgroup (for Alzheimer’s disease/mild cognitive impairment and frontotemporal dementia) or degree of cognitive impairment based on neuropsychological testing (all other cohorts). We sought to understand links between oculomotor parameters, their relationships to robust cognitive measures, and their alterations in disease. We performed a factor analysis evaluating interrelationships among the 12 oculomotor parameters and examined correlations of the four resultant factors to five neuropsychology-based cognitive domain scores. We then compared behaviour between the abovementioned disease subgroups and controls at the individual parameter level. We theorized that each underlying factor measured the integrity of a distinct task-relevant brain process. Notably, Factor 3 (voluntary saccade generation) and Factor 1 (task disengagements) significantly correlated with attention/working memory and executive function scores. Factor 3 also correlated with memory and visuospatial function scores. Factor 2 (pre-emptive global inhibition) correlated only with attention/working memory scores, and Factor 4 (saccade metrics) correlated with no cognitive domain scores. Impairment on several mostly antisaccade-related individual parameters scaled with cognitive impairment across disease cohorts, while few subgroups differed from controls on prosaccade parameters. The interleaved prosaccade and antisaccade task detects cognitive impairment, and subsets of parameters likely index disparate underlying processes related to different cognitive domains. This suggests that the task represents a sensitive paradigm that can simultaneously evaluate a variety of clinically relevant cognitive constructs in neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular diseases and could be developed into a screening tool applicable to multiple diagnoses.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".