Visual cueing: Does it produce an acute improvement in turning in a Parkinsonian sample?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<P>Anticipatory eye movement promotes cranio-caudal sequencing during walking turns, reducing the risk of falls. Individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD) have difficulty producing anticipatory eye movements which may limit cranio-caudal rotation sequencing during turning. Visual cues have the potential to promote anticipatory eye movement and cranio-caudal sequencing by guiding the eyes into the turn. The purpose of this study was to examine if discrete external visual cues could train anticipatory eye movement and cranio-caudal rotations during walking turns. We hypothesized that visual cues would have limited effects on a sample of neurotypical young adults (NYA), but would improve anticipatory eye movement and cranio-caudal sequencing in a sample group with PD.</p>\n<p>10 NYA (20-30 years) and 6 PD (45-75 years; Hoehn and Yahr 1-3) completed three blocks of walking trials with a 90-degree left turn. Trials were blocked by visual condition: non-cued baseline turns (5 trials), visually cued turns (10 trials), and non-cued retention turns (5 trials). A Delsys Trigno (Delsys, Boston, MA) captured horizontal saccades at 1024 Hz via electrooculography (EOG). Two Optotrak cameras (Northern Digital Inc., ON, Canada) captured head, trunk, pelvis and feet kinematics at 120 Hz. Timing of segment rotation with respect to ipsilateral foot contact (IFC1) prior to the turn was calculated using angular displacement and velocity about the vertical axis.</p>\n<p>As expected, NYA produced typical cranio-caudal rotation sequences during baseline walking turns. Eyes led (407 ms prior to IFC1), followed by the head (99 ms prior to IFC1), and trunk (151 ms after IFC 1). Onset time between adjacent segments was significantly different (p = 0.018 and p = 0.021 respectively). Effects of visual cuesin NYA were minimal with some coupling of the eyes and head occurring (210 ms and 237 ms prior to IFC1) due to requirements to follow visual targets on approach to the turn. Trunk segment rotation remained significantly later (p = 0.001; 149 ms after IFC1). In contrast, PD produced no anticipatory eye or segment movement in baseline trials. Head rotation began 57 ms after IFC1 followed by the eyes and trunk (97ms and 323 ms after IFC1) with no significant differences between segments. However, following visual cue training (during retention trials), PD produced cranio-caudal rotation with anticipatory eyes movement at 161 ms prior to IFC1, followed by the head 106 ms prior to IFC1 and trunk 289 ms after IFC1 with a significant difference between head and trunk segments (p=0.048).</p>\n<p>Results suggest discrete external visual cues during walking turns assist PD in producing cranio-caudal rotation sequencing in trials following visual cue training. Interestingly, when visual cues are present, greater coupling between the eyes and head occur with the head often leading eye movement. Therefore, appearance of visual targets and instructions to follow visual targets are critical to consider when evaluating their use for turning movements. These findings provide an interesting starting point for the use of visual cues to specifically promote cranio-caudal segment coordination during walking\nturns to reduce risk of falls.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".