EEG dynamical features during variable-intensity cycling exercise in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is increasingly recognized as a beneficial intervention for Parkinson's disease (PD), yet the optimal type and intensity of exercise remain unclear. This study investigated the relationship between exercise intensity and neural responses in PD patients, using electroencephalography (EEG) to explore potential neural markers that could be ultimately used to guide exercise intensity. Method: EEG data were collected from 14 PD patients (5 females) and 8 healthy controls (HC) performing stationary pedaling exercises at 60 RPM with resistance adjusted to target heart rates of 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70% of maximum heart rate. Subjects pedaled for 3 min at each intensity level in a counterbalanced order. Canonical Time-series Characteristics (Catch-22) features and Multi-set Canonical Correlation Analysis (MCCA) were utilized to identify common profiles of EEG features at increasing exercise intensity across subjects. Results: -value<0.0001), related to the autocorrelation of the EEG. Analysis revealed a consistent trend across features: six features increased with intensity, indicating heightened rhythmic engagement and sustained neural activation, while three features decreased, suggesting reduced variability and enhanced predictability in neural responses. Notably, PD patients exhibited more rigid, consistent response patterns compared to healthy controls (HC), who showed greater flexibility and variability in their neural adaptation across intensities. Conclusion: This study highlights the feasibility of using EEG-derived features to track exercise intensity in PD patients, identifying specific neural markers correlating with varying intensity levels. PD subjects demonstrate less inter-subject variability in motor responses to increasing intensity. Our results suggest that EEG biomarkers can be used to assess differing brain involvement with the same exercise of increasing intensity, potentially useful for guiding targeted therapeutic strategies and maximizing the neurological benefits of exercise 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".