Design and Implementation of a Low Cost Virtual Rugby Decision Making Interactive

The paper describes the design and implementation of a novel low cost virtual rugby decision making interactive for use in a visitor centre. Original laboratory-based experimental work in decision making in rugby, using a virtual reality headset [1] is adapted for use in a public visitor centre, with consideration given to usability, costs, practicality and health and safety. Movement of professional rugby players was captured and animated within a virtually recreated stadium. Users then interact with these virtual representations via use of a lowcost sensor (Microsoft Kinect) to attempt to block them. Retaining the principles of perception and action, egocentric viewpoint, immersion, sense of presence, representative design and game design the system delivers an engaging and effective interactive to illustrate the underlying scientific principles of deceptive movement. User testing highlighted the need for usability, system robustness, fair and accurate scoring, appropriate level of difficulty and enjoyment.

Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

Decision making in childhood asthma exacerbation – a clinical judgement analysis

Background: Clinical decisions which impact directly on patient safety and quality of care are made during acute asthma attacks by individual doctors on the basis of their knowledge and experience. These include administration of systemic corticosteroids (CS), oral antibiotics, and admission to hospital. Clinical judgement analysis provides a methodology for comparing decisions between practitioners with different training and experience, and improving decision making. Methods: Stepwise linear regression was used to select clinical cues based on visual analogue scale assessments of the propensity of 62 clinicians to prescribe a short course of oral CS (decision 1), a course of antibiotics (decision 2), and/or admit to hospital (decision 3) for 60 â??paperâ?? patients. Results:When compared by specialty, paediatriciansâ?? models for decision 1 were more likely to include as a cue level of alertness (54% v. 16%); for decision 2 presence of crepitations (49% v. 16%), and less likely to include inhaled CS (8% v. 40%), respiratory rate (0% v. 24%), and air entry (70% v. 100%). When compared to other grades, the models derived for decision 3 by consultants/general practitioners were more likely to include wheeze severity as a cue (39% v. 6%). Conclusions: Clinicians differed in their use of individual cues and the number included in their models. Patient safety and quality of care will benefit from clarification of decision making strategies as general learning points during medical training, in the development of guidelines and care pathways, and by clinicians developing self-awareness of their own preferences.