{"title":"帕金森氏病患者与健康对照者身体各部分内隐运动学习的评估。","authors":"Matteo Rizzo, Paola Ortelli, Alberto Bottari, Alessandra Scarton, Federica Bombieri, Mirta Fiorio, Luca Sebastianelli, Davide Ferrazzoli, Silvia Pogliaghi","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-21321-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alterations in motor learning are associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Possible body segment-specificity remains unexplored and could have practical implications for testing and rehabilitation. Our aim was to investigate sequence-specific implicit motor learning differences in alternative task movements in people with early stages PD vs. age-matched healthy controls (HCs). Thirty participants with PD (67.6 ± 8.0 yrs, 1.9 ± 0.7 H&Y) and 30 HC (69.6 ± 5.2 yrs) performed three Serial Reaction Time Tasks (SRTTs), which differed for the body segment used to perform it: Hands, Arms, and Feet testing. Visual-motor reaction time was recorded in response to visual stimuli. For each task, eight blocks, each consisting of 4 repetitions of a 12-stimuli sequence, were presented: random sequence order was practiced in block one and eight (R1, R8); a fixed 12-stimuli sequence order was performed in blocks from 2 to 7 (S2-S7). Reaction Times were corrected for errors (RT) and reprocessed as percentage values, where the mean RT of R1 represented 100% (RT<sub>R1</sub>%). RT at R1 (RT<sub>R1</sub>), overall RT (RT<sub>global</sub>) and the magnitude of implicit motor learning (<sub>i</sub>ML, calculated as % difference between R8 and S7) were compared among body segments and PD vs. HCs groups by mixed two-way RM-ANOVA. The learning responses (RT<sub>R1-R8</sub>Curve) and the errors curves were compared among body segments, groups and blocks (R1, R8 and S2-S7) by mixed three-way RM-ANOVA. While PD patients showed the characteristic bradykinesia, our data indicate that they are able to gain an identical sequence-specific implicit motor learning magnitude, with a similar timing, compared to HCs. Moreover, the magnitude and timing of the learning response is consistent across different body segments. This suggests that SRTT, conducted with different body segments, could be considered a valuable tool for studying motor learning in PD and HCs in neurorehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"36287"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12532993/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of implicit motor learning across body segments in Parkinson's disease vs. healthy controls.\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Rizzo, Paola Ortelli, Alberto Bottari, Alessandra Scarton, Federica Bombieri, Mirta Fiorio, Luca Sebastianelli, Davide Ferrazzoli, Silvia Pogliaghi\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-21321-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Alterations in motor learning are associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Possible body segment-specificity remains unexplored and could have practical implications for testing and rehabilitation. Our aim was to investigate sequence-specific implicit motor learning differences in alternative task movements in people with early stages PD vs. age-matched healthy controls (HCs). Thirty participants with PD (67.6 ± 8.0 yrs, 1.9 ± 0.7 H&Y) and 30 HC (69.6 ± 5.2 yrs) performed three Serial Reaction Time Tasks (SRTTs), which differed for the body segment used to perform it: Hands, Arms, and Feet testing. Visual-motor reaction time was recorded in response to visual stimuli. For each task, eight blocks, each consisting of 4 repetitions of a 12-stimuli sequence, were presented: random sequence order was practiced in block one and eight (R1, R8); a fixed 12-stimuli sequence order was performed in blocks from 2 to 7 (S2-S7). Reaction Times were corrected for errors (RT) and reprocessed as percentage values, where the mean RT of R1 represented 100% (RT<sub>R1</sub>%). RT at R1 (RT<sub>R1</sub>), overall RT (RT<sub>global</sub>) and the magnitude of implicit motor learning (<sub>i</sub>ML, calculated as % difference between R8 and S7) were compared among body segments and PD vs. HCs groups by mixed two-way RM-ANOVA. The learning responses (RT<sub>R1-R8</sub>Curve) and the errors curves were compared among body segments, groups and blocks (R1, R8 and S2-S7) by mixed three-way RM-ANOVA. While PD patients showed the characteristic bradykinesia, our data indicate that they are able to gain an identical sequence-specific implicit motor learning magnitude, with a similar timing, compared to HCs. Moreover, the magnitude and timing of the learning response is consistent across different body segments. This suggests that SRTT, conducted with different body segments, could be considered a valuable tool for studying motor learning in PD and HCs in neurorehabilitation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"36287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12532993/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21321-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-21321-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of implicit motor learning across body segments in Parkinson's disease vs. healthy controls.
Alterations in motor learning are associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). Possible body segment-specificity remains unexplored and could have practical implications for testing and rehabilitation. Our aim was to investigate sequence-specific implicit motor learning differences in alternative task movements in people with early stages PD vs. age-matched healthy controls (HCs). Thirty participants with PD (67.6 ± 8.0 yrs, 1.9 ± 0.7 H&Y) and 30 HC (69.6 ± 5.2 yrs) performed three Serial Reaction Time Tasks (SRTTs), which differed for the body segment used to perform it: Hands, Arms, and Feet testing. Visual-motor reaction time was recorded in response to visual stimuli. For each task, eight blocks, each consisting of 4 repetitions of a 12-stimuli sequence, were presented: random sequence order was practiced in block one and eight (R1, R8); a fixed 12-stimuli sequence order was performed in blocks from 2 to 7 (S2-S7). Reaction Times were corrected for errors (RT) and reprocessed as percentage values, where the mean RT of R1 represented 100% (RTR1%). RT at R1 (RTR1), overall RT (RTglobal) and the magnitude of implicit motor learning (iML, calculated as % difference between R8 and S7) were compared among body segments and PD vs. HCs groups by mixed two-way RM-ANOVA. The learning responses (RTR1-R8Curve) and the errors curves were compared among body segments, groups and blocks (R1, R8 and S2-S7) by mixed three-way RM-ANOVA. While PD patients showed the characteristic bradykinesia, our data indicate that they are able to gain an identical sequence-specific implicit motor learning magnitude, with a similar timing, compared to HCs. Moreover, the magnitude and timing of the learning response is consistent across different body segments. This suggests that SRTT, conducted with different body segments, could be considered a valuable tool for studying motor learning in PD and HCs in neurorehabilitation.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.