Loudness perception deficits during altered and absent auditory feedback in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) present with speech difficulties including abnormal speech intensity regulation. It is possible that the neural circuitry in speech may be unique and more complex compared to the other major motor symptoms. The current study aimed to provide a better understanding of the sensorimotor integration and loudness perception deficits in PD using an altered intensity feedback (AIF) paradigm. Twenty-six participants with PD and 26 neurologically healthy control participants completed a magnitude production task (normal loudness, 2× louder, 4× louder, and max loudness) while being presented with AIF and background noise. The task was repeated in complete masking noise and loudness perception ratings were obtained in all conditions (no noise and background noise). Results suggest that unlike previous studies in other sensorimotor domains, individuals with PD display a reduced reliance on auditory sensory feedback such that during a speech magnitude production task, their perception of those productions may rely less on the auditory sensory feedback being received. Loudness perception results in the absence of auditory feedback suggest a modulating effect of sensory feedback on somatosensation or sense of effort 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".