Marr and Reductionism

David Marr's three-level method for completely understanding a cognitive system and the importance he attaches to the computational level are so familiar as to scarcely need repeating. Fewer seem to recognize that Marr defends his famous method by criticizing the “reductionistic approach.” This sets up a more interesting relationship between Marr and reductionism than is usually acknowledged. I argue that Marr was correct in his criticism of the reductionists of his time—they were only describing (cellular activity), not explaining (cognitive functions). But a careful metascientific account of reductionistic neuroscience over the past two decades reveals that Marr's criticisms no longer have force. Contemporary neuroscience now explains cognition directly, although in a fashion—causal-mechanistically—quite different than Marr recommended. So while Marr was correct to reject the reductionism of his day and offer an alternative method for genuinely explaining cognition, contemporary cognitive scientists now owe us a new defense of Marr's famous method and the advantages of its explanations over the type now pursued successfully in current reductionist neuroscience. There are familiar reasons for thinking that this debt will not be paid easily.     

经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术的快速康复外科护理

目的 探讨快速康复外科 （FTS）理念在经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术围术期患者护理中的应用效果。方法 选择2018年1月~2019年1月我院收治并行经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压患者100例，随机分成观察组和对照组，每组50例。对照组应用常规方法进行围术期护理，观察组应用FTS理念进行围术期护理。比较两组焦虑情况、术后并发症发生率、平均住院日及平均住院费用。结果 观察组轻度焦虑多于对照组，中、重度焦虑少于对照组（P＜0.05）；观察组术后并发症发生率低于对照组[恶心呕吐（4.00% vs 16.00%）、尿路感染（4.00% vs 18.00%）、颅内感染（0 vs 8.00%）、颅内血肿（2.00% vs 14.00%）和术后应激性疼痛（16.00% vs 34.00%）]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；观察组平均住院日和平均住院费用均低于对照组[（9.13±1.14）d vs（12.44±0.89）d]；[（2.15±0.66）万元 vs （3.05±0.61）万元]，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 应用FTS理念能缓解经后颅窝乙状窦后入路三叉神经微血管减压术患者术前紧张恐惧的心理，减少术后并发症，缩短患者住院日，降低住院费用，护理效果较好。     

Intrathecal catheterisation after observed accidental dural puncture in labouring women: update of a meta-analysis and a trial-sequential analysis

BackgroundOur meta-analysis from 2013 showed that inserting a catheter intrathecally after an observed accidental dural puncture can reduce the need for epidural blood patch in labouring women requesting epidural analgesia. We updated our conventional meta-analysis and added a trial-sequential analysis (TSA).MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that compared inserting the catheter intrathecally with an epidural catheter re-site or with no intervention. The extracted data were pooled and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the incidence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) was calculated, using the random effects model. A contour-enhanced funnel plot was constructed. A TSA was performed and the cumulative Z score, monitoring and futility boundaries were constructed.ResultsOur search identified 13 studies, reporting on 1653 patients, with a low risk of bias. The RR for the incidence of PDPH was 0.82 (95%CI 0.71 to 0.95) and the RR for the need for epidural blood patch was 0.62 (95%CI 0.49 to 0.79); heterogeneity of both analyses was high. The TSA showed that the monitoring or futility boundaries were not crossed, indicating insufficient data to exclude a type I error of statistical analysis. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were symmetric, suggesting no publication bias.ConclusionsConventional meta-analyses showed for the first time that intrathecal catheterisation can reduce the incidence of PDPH. However, TSA did not corroborate this finding. Despite increasing use in clinical practice there is no firm evidence on which to base a definite conclusion.     

Patients' expectations,experience and acceptability of postoperative analgesia: a nested qualitative study within a randomised controlled trial comparing rectus sheath catheter and thoracic epidural analgesia

Adequate postoperative analgesia is a key element of enhanced recovery programmes. Thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with superior postoperative analgesia but can lead to complications. Rectus sheath catheter analgesia may provide an alternative. In a nested qualitative study (within a two-year randomised controlled trial) focussing on the acceptability, expectations and experiences of receiving the interventions, participants (n = 20) were interviewed 4 weeks post-intervention using a grounded theory approach. Constant comparative analysis, with patient and public involvement, enabled emerging findings to be pursued through subsequent data collection. We found no notable differences regarding postoperative acceptability or the experience of pain management. Pre-operatively, however, thoracic epidural analgesia was a source of anticipatory fear and anxiety. Both interventions resulted in some experienced adverse events (proportionately more with thoracic epidural analgesia). Participants had negative experiences of the insertion of thoracic epidural analgesia; others receiving the rectus sheath catheter lacked confidence in staff members' ability to manage the local anaesthetic infusion pump. The anticipation of the technique of thoracic epidural analgesia, and concerns about its impact on mobility, represented an additional, unpleasant experience for patients already managing an illness experience, anticipating a life-changing operation and dealing with concerns about the future. The anticipation of rectus sheath catheter analgesia was not associated with such anxieties. Patients' experiences start far earlier than the experience of the intervention itself through anticipatory anxieties and fears about receiving a technique and its potential implications. Complex pain packages can take on greater meaning than their actual efficacy in relieving postoperative pain. Future research into patient acceptability and experience should not focus solely on efficacy of pain relief but should include anticipatory fears, anxieties and experiences.