Comparing the biopsychosocial impact of group singing and yoga activities in older adults living with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on group singing has demonstrated numerous benefits to wellbeing including boosts in mood, increases in social bonding, and reductions in stress. These benefits can be achieved by individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD), a group that is especially at risk for social isolation given the typical decline in mobility and communication that accompanies neuromotor degeneration. Several mechanisms of action have been proposed to explain the benefits to wellbeing, with one prominent hypothesis emphasizing that interpersonal movement synchrony enhances feelings of social bonding. In the current study, we explore this hypothesis by comparing group singing to yoga, another popular activity among people living with PD that confers a temporary boost in wellbeing. Critically, yoga tends to have low levels of interpersonal movement synchrony compared with group singing that requires precise temporal alignment and the shared goal of synchronization. Twenty individuals living with PD were recruited from pre-existing community programs: ten from a weekly choir, and ten from a weekly yoga class. We compared these activities through a biopsychosocial lens, including acute measurements of mood, social bonding, cortisol, and oxytocin before and after the group activity. The results revealed that while both activities enhanced mood and decreased cortisol, group singing was associated with greater overall social closeness and significant increases in oxytocin. Although the absence of demographic data represents a limitation, the findings nonetheless offer valuable insight into the potential of group singing to foster social bonds and enhance wellbeing, indicating interpersonal movement synchrony and the release of oxytocin as possible mechanisms driving this effect.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".