Who knows best? Awareness of divided attention difficulty in a neurological rehabilitation setting

Objective: To explore whether patients relearning to walk after acquired brain injury and showing cognitive-motor interference were aware of divided attention difficulty; whether their perceptions concurred with those of treating staff. Design: Patients and neurophysiotherapists (from rehabilitation and disabled wards) completed questionnaires. Factor analyses were applied to responses. Correlations between responses, clinical measures and experimental decrements were examined. Results: Patient/staff responses showed some agreement; staff reported higher levels of perceived difficulty; responses conformed to two factors. One factor (staff/patients alike) reflected expectations about functional/motor status and did not correlate with decrements. The other factor (patients) correlated significantly with dual-task motor decrement, suggesting some genuine awareness of difficulty (cognitive performance prioritized over motor control). The other factor (staff) correlated significantly with cognitive decrement (gait prioritized over sustained attention). Conclusions: Despite some inaccurate estimation of susceptibility; patients and staff do exhibit awareness of divided attention difficulty, but with a limited degree of concurrence. In fact, our results suggest that patients and staff may be sensitive to different aspects of the deficit. Rather than 'Who knows best?', it is a question of 'Who knows what?.

Who owned Earls Colne in 1798....or how to squeeze more from the Land Tax

In this important article Richard Hoyle, one of the country’s leading historians of the early modern period, introduces new perspectives on the Land Tax and its use in the analysis of local communities in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He uses as his case study the parish of Earls Colne in Essex, on which he has already written extensively with Professor Henry French. The article begins with an overview of the tax itself, explaining its history and the procedures for the collection of revenues – including the numerous changes which took place. The sizeable problems confronting any would-be analyst of the data are clearly identified, and Hoyle observes that because of these apparently insoluble difficulties the potential of the tax returns has never been fully realised. He then considers the surviving documentation in The National Archives, providing an accessible introduction to the sources and their arrangement, and describing the particularly important question o f the redemption of the tax by payment of a lump sum. The extent of redemption (in the years around 1800-1804) is discussed. Hoyle draws attention to the potential for linking the tax returns themselves with the redemption certificates (which have never been subjected to historical analysis and thereby proposes new ways of exploiting the evidence of the taxation as a whole. The article then discusses in detail the specific case of Earls Colne, with tabulated data showing the research potential. Topics analysed include the ownership of property ranked by size of payment, and calculations whereby the amount paid may be used to determine the worth of land and the structure of individual estates. The important question of absentee owners is investigated, and there is a very valuable consideration of the potential for looking at portfolio estate ownership, whereby owners held land in varying proportions in a number of parishes. It is suggested that such studies will allow us to be more aware of the entirety of property ownership, which a focus on a single community does not permit. In the concluding paragraph it is argued that using these sources we may see the rise and fall of estates, gain new information on landownership, landholding and farm size, and even approach the challenging topic of the distribution of wealth.