Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41306821›Full record

ArticleBrain communications2025

Psychomotor and non-motor correlates of cognition in spinocerebellar ataxias Types 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Louisa P Selvadurai, Sheryl Gullia, James Morgan, Sarah Wallis, Kishore R Kumar, David J Szmulewicz, Ian H Harding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Louisa P SelvaduraiDepartment of Neuroscience, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3840-9736
Sheryl GulliaSchool of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
James MorganDepartment of Neuroscience, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia.
Sarah WallisDepartment of Neuroscience, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia.
Kishore R KumarMolecular Medicine Laboratory and Department of Neurology, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Concord, NSW 2139, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3482-6962
David J SzmulewiczBalance Disorders & Ataxia Service, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia.
Ian H HardingDepartment of Neuroscience, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing evidence of cognitive deficits in spinocerebellar ataxias, with the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale (CCAS-S) an increasingly common measure of this dysfunction. There remain ongoing questions as to how Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale performance relates to day-to-day cognitive function, non-motor and motor features of spinocerebellar ataxias and demographic factors. Via an online study, we evaluated Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale performance amongst individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia Type 1 (n = 14), Type 2 (n = 16), Type 3 (n = 18), and Type 6 (n = 26) relative to demographically-matched control groups. Furthermore, amongst individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia, we examined associations between performance and (i) age and education, (ii) ataxia motor severity, (iii) psychomotor function measured by computerized finger tapping and reaction time tasks and (iv) self-rated cognition, depression, emotional regulation, psychosocial function and fatigue. Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale performance was significantly reduced in spinocerebellar ataxia Types 2, 3, and 6 compared to controls, although substantial inter-individual variability in performance was observed in the spinocerebellar ataxia cohort (43.2%/24.3%/21.6%/10.8% met criteria for Definite, Probable, Possible, and No CCAS). Performance in individuals with spinocerebellar ataxias correlated significantly with self-reported ataxia motor severity, fine motor speed, psychomotor trial-by-trial variability, and one of two measures of day-to-day cognitive function. Significant correlations were not observed against age, education, age at disease onset, disease duration, psychomotor reaction time, depression, emotional regulation, psychosocial function, or fatigue. We present evidence that motor function and psychomotor variability are more important correlates of inter-individual variability in cognitive performance amongst people with spinocerebellar ataxia Types 1, 2, 3 and 6, compared to demographic factors, fatigue, or emotional function. Importantly, formalized cognitive testing using the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale correlates with self-reported cognitive functioning. This study highlights cognitive dysfunction as a functionally impactful feature of certain spinocerebellar ataxias, and motivates further investigation into the disease- and individual-specific profiles of cognitive impairment in this population.

Indexed as

ataxiacerebellar cognitive affective syndromecognitioncognitive assessmentspinocerebellar ataxia

Identifiers

PMID41306821
PMCPMC12646072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.