Motor Memory Consolidation Deficits in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to encode and consolidate motor memories is essential for persons with Parkinson's disease (PD), who usually experience a progressive loss of motor function. Deficits in memory encoding, usually expressed as poorer rates of skill improvement during motor practice, have been reported in these patients. Whether motor memory consolidation (i.e., motor skill retention) is also impaired is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether motor memory consolidation is impaired in PD compared to neurologically intact individuals. METHODS: We conducted a pre-registered systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020222433) following PRISMA guidelines that included 46 studies. RESULTS: Meta-analyses revealed that persons with PD have deficits in retaining motor skills (SMD = -0.17; 95% CI = -0.32, -0.02; p = 0.0225). However, these deficits are task-specific, affecting sensory motor (SMD = -0.31; 95% CI -0.47, -0.15; p = 0.0002) and visuomotor adaptation (SMD = -1.55; 95% CI = -2.32, -0.79; p = 0.0001) tasks, but not sequential fine motor (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI = -0.05, 0.39; p = 0.1292) and gross motor tasks (SMD = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.25, 0.33; p = 0.7771). Importantly, deficits became non-significant when augmented feedback during practice was provided, and additional motor practice sessions reduced deficits in sensory motor tasks. Meta-regression analyses confirmed that deficits were independent of performance during encoding, as well as disease duration and severity. CONCLUSION: Our results align with the neurodegenerative models of PD progression and motor learning frameworks and emphasize the importance of developing targeted interventions to enhance motor memory consolidation in PD.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".