↓ Skip to main content

Modeling Accuracy and Variability of Motor Timing in Treated and Untreated Parkinson’s Disease and Healthy Controls

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modeling Accuracy and Variability of Motor Timing in Treated and Untreated Parkinson’s Disease and Healthy Controls
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2011.00081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine R. G. Jones, Daniel O. Claassen, Minhong Yu, Jeffrey R. Spies, Tim Malone, Georg Dirnberger, Marjan Jahanshahi, Michael Kubovy

Abstract

Parkinson's disease (PD) is characterized by difficulty with the timing of movements. Data collected using the synchronization-continuation paradigm, an established motor timing paradigm, have produced varying results but with most studies finding impairment. Some of this inconsistency comes from variation in the medication state tested, in the inter-stimulus intervals (ISI) selected, and in changeable focus on either the synchronization (tapping in time with a tone) or continuation (maintaining the rhythm in the absence of the tone) phase. We sought to re-visit the paradigm by testing across four groups of participants: healthy controls, medication naïve de novo PD patients, and treated PD patients both "on" and "off" dopaminergic medication. Four finger tapping intervals (ISI) were used: 250, 500, 1000, and 2000 ms. Categorical predictors (group, ISI, and phase) were used to predict accuracy and variability using a linear mixed model. Accuracy was defined as the relative error of a tap, and variability as the deviation of the participant's tap from group predicted relative error. Our primary finding is that the treated PD group (PD patients "on" and "off" dopaminergic therapy) showed a significantly different pattern of accuracy compared to the de novo group and the healthy controls at the 250-ms interval. At this interval, the treated PD patients performed "ahead" of the beat whilst the other groups performed "behind" the beat. We speculate that this "hastening" relates to the clinical phenomenon of motor festination. Across all groups, variability was smallest for both phases at the 500-ms interval, suggesting an innate preference for finger tapping within this range. Tapping variability for the two phases became increasingly divergent at the longer intervals, with worse performance in the continuation phase. The data suggest that patients with PD can be best discriminated from healthy controls on measures of motor timing accuracy, rather than variability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 33%
Neuroscience 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2012.
All research outputs
#18,303,566
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#689
of 852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,918
of 180,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#29
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.