Reaching and stepping respond differently to medication and cueing in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basal ganglia contribute to internal timekeeping, and dopaminergic medication has been observed to moderate timing deficits associated with Parkinson's Disease (PD) during single joint movements. However, it is unclear whether similar effects can be observed in multi-joint movements. Twenty-five people with PD and twelve healthy peers performed repetitive reaching and stepping-in-place tasks with and without auditory cues at their self-selected maximal cadence. The PD group was measured ON and OFF medication. Reduced cadence error was found for both groups and tasks when cued, and ON PD exhibited decreased cadence compared to OFF PD. Overall timing variability was no different from controls, but differences were found in estimates of clock and motor variance using the Wing-Kristofferson model of interval timing. A medication and cueing interaction during the reaching task produced increased clock variance in uncued, ON PD. During the stepping task, clock and motor variance of the PD group were unaffected by cues, in contrast to the control group. Serial lag-one correlation was reduced in both groups for cued reaching, but was unaffected by cueing or medication in the PD group when stepping-in-place. These findings suggest that overall timing variability may not capture timing deficits 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".