Apathy scores in Parkinson’s disease relate to EEG components in an incentivized motor task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apathy is one of the most prevalent non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease and is characterized by decreased goal-directed behaviour due to a lack of motivation and/or impaired emotional reactivity. Despite its high prevalence, the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying apathy in Parkinson's disease, which may guide neuromodulation interventions, are poorly understood. Here, we investigated the neural oscillatory characteristics of apathy in Parkinson's disease using EEG data recorded during an incentivized motor task. Thirteen Parkinson's disease patients with apathy and 13 Parkinson's disease patients without apathy as well as 12 healthy controls were instructed to squeeze a hand grip device to earn a monetary reward proportional to the grip force they used. Event-related spectral perturbations during the presentation of a reward cue and squeezing were analysed using multiset canonical correlation analysis to detect different orthogonal components of temporally consistent event-related spectral perturbations across trials and participants. The first component, predominantly located over parietal regions, demonstrated suppression of low-beta (12-20 Hz) power (i.e. beta desynchronization) during reward cue presentation that was significantly smaller in Parkinson's disease patients with apathy compared with healthy controls. Unlike traditional event-related spectral perturbation analysis, the beta desynchronization in this component was significantly correlated with clinical apathy scores. Higher monetary rewards resulted in larger beta desynchronization in healthy controls but not Parkinson's disease patients. The second component contained gamma and theta frequencies and demonstrated exaggerated theta (4-8 Hz) power in Parkinson's disease patients with apathy during the reward cue and squeezing compared with healthy controls (HCs), and this was positively correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores. The third component, over central regions, demonstrated significantly different beta power across groups, with apathetic groups having the lowest beta power. Our results emphasize that altered low-beta and low-theta oscillations are critical for reward processing and motor planning in Parkinson's disease patients with apathy and these may provide a target for non-invasive neuromodulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".