The contribution of Oculomotor and Motor Deficits in The Assessment of Executive Function in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) was first described in 1964 and is associated with motor, oculomotor, and cognitive deficits. Cognitive assessments often assume intact physical function. Some tests like The Trail Making Test (TMT), a measure of executive function may be impacted by oculomotor and motor impairments. Our aim was to investigate the impact of oculomotor impairments and arm dysfunction on the TMT. Method 71 patients from the Rossy PSP Center that met criteria for probable PSP and underwent a neuropsychological test battery, the Toronto Cognitive Assessment (TorCA), were included. Data from the following tests and assessments were used for this study: TMT A and B time, digit forwards and backwards, verbal and animal fluency, Benson copy, and Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) delayed recall, PSP Rating Scale (PSPRS) total score and its oculomotor subscore, MDS‐Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS‐UPDRS part III) subscore of the dominant hand was used to rate the motor impairment. We performed spearman correlations and used false discovery rate test correction for multiple comparisons. Result The PSP patients (60.6% male, mean age 71.3+/‐6.61) had mean PSPRS score of 41.5+/‐15, PSPRS‐oculomotor subscore 8.0+/‐3, and MDS‐UPDRS III subscore dominant hand 6.5+/‐3.3. We found a positive correlation between PSPRS‐oculomotor subscore and TMT A (r = 0.43 p = 0.005) and TMT B (r = 0.35 p = 0.008). We also found negative correlations between PSPRS‐oculomotor subscore and digits backward (r = ‐0.39 p = 0.005), Benson copy (r = ‐0.39 p = 0.005), CERAD delayed recall (r = ‐0.29 p = 0.034), and animal fluency (r = ‐0.44 p = 0.004). No tests were related to MDS‐UPDRS part III subscore of the dominant hand. Conclusion Oculomotor but not motor function affect TMT A and B. However, oculomotor function also relates to other executive and non‐executive tests that do not require visual scanning. Although important to factor in physical deficits when doing cognitive assessments, the TMT appears to be a reliable test for assessing cognitive function in patients with PSP who can perform the test.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".