Still Functional but Limited Postural Adaptation for Individuals With Parkinson's Disease in Goal‐Directed Visual Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) notably exhibit impairments in posture and visual attention. The objective of the present study was to determine whether PD patients were able to exhibit adaptive postural control in a goal-directed visual task. We hypothesized that the patients would reduce their centre of pressure (COP) movement and/or postural sway to a lesser extent than age-matched controls in the goal-directed visual (search) task, compared with the control free-viewing task (i.e., a lower degree of relative postural adaptation). We also expected the PD patients to sway more than controls in the goal-directed task (i.e., a lower degree of absolute adaptive postural control). The study included 39 PD patients (mean age: 59; mean Hoehn and Yahr stage: 2.1; mean Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score: 22; mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment score: 28 (on-drug)) and 40 age-matched adults (mean age: 62 years). The participants gazed at domestic ecological images (visual angle: 100°). Movements of the COP, head, upper back and lower back and variations in pupil dilatation were analysed. As expected, PD patients exhibited greater COP and body sway than controls in both tasks (p < 0.05). Unexpectedly, the difference in COP and/or body sway between the two tasks was greater in PD patients than in controls (p < 0.05). Our results showed that PD patients are able to exhibit adaptive postural control for goal-directed visual tasks. On a practical level and at a more general level, our findings emphasize the likely benefits of rehabilitation with goal-directed tasks requiring a visual attentional focus (walking on footprints on the ground, etc.).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".