Observation and imitation of object-directed hand movements in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action observation and imitation may facilitate movement in Parkinson's disease (PD). People with PD have been found to imitate intransitive actions similarly to neurologically healthy older adults, but their imitation of object-directed hand movements has not previously been investigated using kinematic measures. The present study examined observation and imitation of object-directed hand movements in 18 participants with PD and 21 neurologically healthy age-matched control participants. Participants observed and immediately imitated sequences showing a human hand reaching for and transferring an object between horizontal positions. Both groups significantly modulated their finger movements, showing higher vertical amplitude when imitating elevated compared to direct trajectories. In addition, movements were lower in vertical amplitude and higher in velocity when imitating the reaching segment than the transfer segment. Eye-tracking revealed that controls made smaller saccades when observing predictable than unpredictable elevated movements, but no effects of predictability on eye movements were found for the PD group. This study provides quantitative evidence that people with mild to moderate PD can imitate object-directed hand movement kinematics, although their prediction of such movements may be reduced. These findings suggest that interventions targeting object-directed actions may capitalize on the ability of people with PD to imitate kinematic parameters of a demonstrated movement.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".