Robot-assisted investigation of sensorimotor control in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensorimotor control (SMC) is a complex function that involves sensory, cognitive, and motor systems working together to plan, update and execute voluntary movements. Any abnormality in these systems could lead to deficits in SMC, which would negatively impact an individual's ability to execute goal-directed motions. Recent studies have shown that patients diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) have dysfunctions in sensory, motor, and cognitive systems, which could give rise to SMC deficits. However, SMC deficits in PD and how they affect a patient's upper-limb movements have not been well understood. The objective of the study was to investigate SMC deficits in PD and how they affect the planning and correction of upper-limb motions. This was accomplished using a robotic manipulandum equipped with a virtual-reality system. Twenty age-matched healthy controls and fifty-six PD patients (before and after medication) completed an obstacle avoidance task under dynamic conditions (target and obstacles in moving or stationary form, with and without mechanical perturbations). Kinematic information from the robot was used to extract eighteen features that evaluated the SMC functions of the participants. The findings show that the PD patients before medication were 32% slower, reached 16% fewer targets, hit 41% more obstacles, and were 26% less efficient than the control participants, and the difference in these features was statistically significant under dynamic conditions. In addition to the motor deficits, the PD patients also showed deficits in handling high cognitive loads and interpreting sensory cues. Further, the PD patients after medication exhibited worse sensory and cognitive performance than before medication under complex testing conditions. The PD patients also showed deficits in following the computational models leading to poor motor planning.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".