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.
We present a sceptical view of multimodal multistability-drawing most of our examples from the relation between audition and vision. We begin by summarizing some of the principal ways in which audio-visual binding takes place. We review the evidence that unambiguous stimulation in one modality may affect the perception of a multistable stimulus in another modality. Crossmodal influences of one multistable stimulus on the multistability of another are different: they have occurred only in speech perception. We then argue that the strongest relation between perceptual organization in vision and perceptual organization in audition is likely to be by way of analogous Gestalt laws. We conclude with some general observations about multimodality.
We provide a test of Patel's [( 2003 ). Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 674-681] shared syntactic integration resources hypothesis by investigating the competition between determinants of rhythmic parsing and linguistic parsing using a sentence-rhythm Stroop task. We played five-note rhythm patterns in which each note is replaced with a spoken word of a five-word sentence and asked participants to indicate the starting point of the rhythm while they disregarded which word would normally be heard as the first word of the sentence. In Study 1, listeners completed the task in their native language. In Study 2, we investigated whether this competition is weakened if the sentences were in a listener's non-native language. In Study 3, we investigated how much language mastery is necessary to obtain the effects seen in Studies 1 and 2. We demonstrate that processing resources for rhythmic parsing and linguistic parsing overlap with one another, particularly when the task is demanding. We also show that the tendency for language to bias processing does not require deep knowledge of the language.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations –citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.