Cross-modal visuo-haptic mental rotation: comparing objects between senses

The simple experience of a coherent percept while looking and touching an object conceals an intriguing issue: different senses encode and compare information in different modality-specific reference frames. We addressed this problem in a cross-modal visuo-haptic mental rotation task. Two objects in various orientations were presented at the same spatial location, one visually and one haptically. Participants had to identify the objects as same or different. The relative angle between viewing direction and hand orientation was manipulated (Aligned versus Orthogonal). In an additional condition (Delay), a temporal delay was introduced between haptic and visual explorations while the viewing direction and the hand orientation were orthogonal to each other. Whereas the phase shift of the response time function was close to 0° in the Aligned condition, we observed a consistent phase shift in the hand’s direction in the Orthogonal condition. A phase shift, although reduced, was also found in the Delay condition. Counterintuitively, these results mean that seen and touched objects do not need to be physically aligned for optimal performance to occur. The present results suggest that the information about an object is acquired in separate visual and hand-centered reference frames, which directly influence each other and which combine in a time-dependent manner.     

A first step to assess harm and benefit in clinical trials in one scale

ObjectiveTo develop a simple system to assess benefit and harm of treatment on a single scale. Harm and benefit signals from trials need to be placed in the proper perspective to decide on the value of a treatment. Several systems have been developed for assessment, but few attempt to incorporate both benefit and risk in the same metric while retaining enough simplicity to aid patients and clinicians in their decision making.Study Design and SettingWe designed a very simple 3 × 3 table (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology [OMERACT] 3 × 3) that comprises three ranks for both beneficial and harm outcomes: for benefit, these are “none,” “substantial,” and “(near) remission”; for harm, these are “none,” “severe,” and “(near) death.” Patients are ranked both for benefit and harm and subsequently counted in a 3 × 3 table.ResultsThe system was feasible when applied to one trial dataset (patient-level information) and a meta-analysis. To become applicable as a tool, several issues need to be resolved in further development, especially the definitions and cutoffs for the ranks.ConclusionA simple 3 × 3 table to rank both benefit and harm outcomes is feasible. For rheumatology this will be further developed in the context of the OMERACT initiative.     

Feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews in routine outcome monitoring of substance abuse treatment

Aims   Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is receiving growing attention. However, follow-up interviews are time-consuming and costly. This study examines the feasibility and validity of low-budget telephonic follow-up interviews for ROM in a substance abuse treatment centre (SATC).
Design   Observational study using data collected for routine outcome monitoring.
Setting   The study was performed in a SATC in an urban area in the Netherlands.
Participants   Feasibility and validity were assessed on data of 2325 patients.
Measurements   Data on pre-treatment socio-demographic and clinical characteristics were collected using electronic patient records (EPRs) and the European version of the Addiction Severity Index (EuropASI). Data on intensity of treatment were also collected through the EPRs. Telephonic follow-up interviews were conducted between 9 and 10 months after intake.
Findings   A 53% follow-up rate was achieved; 35% of the patients could not be contacted, 3% explicitly refused and in 8% other reasons accounted for non-participation. About 50% of the interviews took place in the intended time-frame. Costs were €40 ($57) per completed interview. There were indications of selection bias, because patients with cocaine as their primary problem and patients with polysubstance abuse were under-represented in the follow-up sample; the presence of these disorders is associated with negative treatment outcome.
Conclusions   Implementing telephonic low-budget follow-up interviews for ROM is feasible, but selection bias threatens internal validity of data, limiting generalization to the total treatment population. Increased efforts to track patients for follow-up may improve generalization.