Action and event-based lexical-semantic processing in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that Parkinson’s disease (PD) impairs verbs’ event structures and/or sensory-motor semantic features, as suggested by theories of grounded cognition. Nineteen participants with PD and 16 age-matched Controls produced verbs and used a Likert scale to rate verbs’ event-based association with instruments (e.g. fork – eating versus bathing) and locations (e.g. airport – waiting versus singing). When producing instrument-related verbs, PD participants responded slower and had a lower proportion of relevant responses than Controls. Yet PD participants showed a relatively intact ability to produce location-related verbs and to rate instrument- and location-related verbs. Greater motor disease primarily impacted instrument-related verb production. 4/19 PD participants had mild cognitive impairment (per Movement Disorders Society criteria), which affected both instrument- and location-related verb production and ratings. Overall, results were consistent with “weak” grounded cognition theories that propose that sensory-motor simulation may enrich action-semantic processing but is not strictly necessary for action-semantic processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".