↓ Skip to main content

Does the Clock Tick Slower or Faster in Parkinson’s Disease? – Insights Gained From the Synchronized Tapping Task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Does the Clock Tick Slower or Faster in Parkinson’s Disease? – Insights Gained From the Synchronized Tapping Task
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shin-ichi Tokushige, Yasuo Terao, Shunichi Matsuda, Toshiaki Furubayashi, Takuya Sasaki, Satomi Inomata-Terada, Akihiro Yugeta, Masashi Hamada, Shoji Tsuji, Yoshikazu Ugawa

Abstract

The rhythm of the internal clock is considered to be determined by the basal ganglia, with some studies suggesting slower internal clock in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, patients may also show motor hastening when they walk (festination) or are engaged in repetitive tapping, indicating faster ticking of the internal clock. Is the internal clock slower or faster in PD? The purpose of this study was to answer this question, i.e., how fast and slow a rhythm they can synchronize with, especially with reference to the limit of sensorimotor synchronization or temporal integration, representing the threshold of slower pace they can entrain into their motor actions, which is known to lie between 2 and 3 s in normal subjects but not yet studied in PD. We employed a synchronized tapping task that required subjects to tap the key in synchrony with repetitive tones at fixed interstimulus intervals (ISI) between 200 and 4800 ms. Twenty normal subjects and sixteen PD patients were enrolled, who were classified into early and advanced PD groups by UPDRS-III (early: 15 or less, advanced: more than 15). The ISI at which the response changes from synchronizing with the tones to lagging behind them was considered to be the limit of temporal integration. Early PD patients responded ahead of the tones (negative asynchrony), which became more apparent with repeated tapping. This suggested "faster" ticking clock even in the presence of the pacing tones. In normal subjects, the limit of temporal integration was around 2-3 s: below this, subjects could synchronize with the tones, while above it they had difficulty in synchronization. In early PD patients, the limit of temporal integration was significantly longer than in normal subjects, pointing to their enhanced ability to synchronize also with slower paces of tones, but advanced PD patients had significantly shortened limits, suggesting that advanced patients lost this ability. In conclusion, the limit of temporal integration is initially longer but gets shorter as the disease progresses. It can be explained by the hastening of the internal clock at the earlier stages of PD, followed by the loss of temporal integration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 33%
Psychology 5 15%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 30%
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 28 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,980,413
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,883
of 30,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,058
of 326,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#585
of 722 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 326,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 722 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.