4.4 Article

Rule-based category learning is impaired in patients with Parkinson's disease but not in patients with cerebellar disorders

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 707-723

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/0898929053747630

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH59196] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS33504, NS40813, NS30256] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basal ganglia and cerebellum have both been implicated in motor skill acquisition. Recent hypotheses concerning cognitive functions of the basal ganglia and cerebellum have emphasized that these subcortical structures may also contribute to nonmotor learning. To explore this issue, patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and patients with cerebellar lesions (CB) were tested on two category-learning tasks. Identical stimulus displays were used for the two tasks, consisting of a reference line and target line. In the length task, the two categories were defined based on the length of the target line. In the distance task, the two categories were defined by the distance between the target and reference lines. Thus, both categories could be defined by a simple rule in which attention must be restricted to a single relevant dimension. Consistent with previous results, the patients with PD were impaired on both tasks compared with neurologically healthy controls. In contrast, the CB patients performed similar to the control participants. Model-based analyses indicate that the patients with PD were able to select the appropriate categorization rule, but that they adopted suboptimal category boundaries in both conditions and were more variable in the application of the selected rule. These results provide an important neuropsychological dissociation on a non-motor-learning task between the effects of basal ganglia and cerebellar lesions. Moreover, the modeling work suggests that at least part of the Parkinson patients' impairment on these tasks reflect a tendency to exhibit strong response biases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据