Standing Repetitive Pointing Task In Individuals With And Without Parkinson'S Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[ These data refer to a manuscript currently under revision in PlosOne. In this MS we aimed to determine the effects of levodopa medication on the performance of a repetitive pointing task while standing, and to investigate the optimal trial duration in individuals with Parkinson’s disease, and older adults. Seventeen individuals with Parkinson’s disease (5 freezers) and 9 older adults stood on force platforms for 30 s and 120 s while performing a bilateral repetitive pointing task, tracked by motion capture. Participants with Parkinson’s disease were assessed on and off medication and older adults were also assessed on separate days. The main findings were that: 1) on medication, participants with Parkinson’s exhibited greater center of pressure root mean square in the medial-lateral direction, greater velocity in the medial-lateral and anterior-posterior directions, and greater range in the medial-lateral direction than off medication; 2) longer trial durations resulted in greater center of pressure range in the medial-lateral and anterior-posterior directions and greater coefficient of variation in finger pointing on the least affected side; 3) Parkinson’s participants exhibited larger range in the medial-lateral direction compared to older adults; 4) off medication, freezers presented with less range and root mean square in the anterior-posterior direction than non-freezers; and 5) a correlation emerged between the freezing of gait questionnaire and pointing asymmetry and the coefficient of variation of pointing on the most affected side. Therefore, Parkinson’s medication may increase instability during a repetitive pointing task. Longer trials may provide a better depiction of sway by discriminating between those with and without neurological impairment. Individuals with Parkinson’s were less stable than older adults, supporting that they are at a greater risk for falls. The greater restrictive postural strategy in freezers compared to non-freezers is likely a factor that augments fall-risk. Lastly, the link between freezing of gait and upper-limb movement indicates that freezing may manifest first in the lower-limbs. Add description ]
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".