Assessment of patient setup errors in IGRT in combination with a six degrees of freedom couch

PURPOSE The range of patient setup errors in six dimensions detected in clinical routine for cranial as well as for extracranial treatments, were analyzed while performing linear accelerator based stereotactic treatments with frameless patient setup systems. Additionally, the need for re-verification of the patient setup for situations where couch rotations are involved was analyzed for patients treated in the cranial region. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 2185 initial (i.e. after pre-positioning the patient with the infrared system but before image guidance) patient setup errors (1705 in the cranial and 480 in the extracranial region) obtained by using ExacTrac (BrainLAB AG, Feldkirchen, Germany) were analyzed. Additionally, the patient setup errors as a function of the couch rotation angle were obtained by analyzing 242 setup errors in the cranial region. Before the couch was rotated, the patient setup error was corrected at couch rotation angle 0° with the aid of image guidance and the six degrees of freedom (6DoF) couch. For both situations attainment rates for two different tolerances (tolerance A: ± 0.5mm, ± 0.5°; tolerance B: ± 1.0 mm, ± 1.0°) were calculated. RESULTS The mean (± one standard deviation) initial patient setup errors for the cranial cases were -0.24 ± 1.21°, -0.23 ± 0.91° and -0.03 ± 1.07° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.10 ± 1.17 mm, 0.10 ± 1.62 mm and 0.11 ± 1.29 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes, respectively. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.6% and 13.1% for tolerance B, respectively. For the extracranial cases the corresponding values were -0.21 ± 0.95°, -0.05 ± 1.08° and -0.14 ± 1.02° for the pitch, roll and couch rotation axes and 0.15 ± 1.77 mm, 0.62 ± 1.94 mm and -0.40 ± 2.15 mm for the lateral, longitudinal and vertical axes. Attainment rate (all six axes simultaneously) for tolerance A was 0.0% and 3.1% for tolerance B, respectively. After initial setup correction and rotation of the couch to treatment position a re-correction has to be performed in 77.4% of all cases to fulfill tolerance A and in 15.6% of all cases to fulfill tolerance B. CONCLUSION The analysis of the data shows that all six axes of a 6DoF couch are used extensively for patient setup in clinical routine. In order to fulfill high patient setup accuracies (e.g. for stereotactic treatments), a 6DoF couch is recommended. Moreover, re-verification of the patient setup after rotating the couch is required in clinical routine.

Whole-body motion discrimination in the visually impaired

Visually impaired people show superior abilities in various perception tasks such as auditory attention, auditory temporal resolution, auditory spatial tuning, and odor discrimination. However, with the use of psychophysical methods, auditory and olfactory detection thresholds typically do not differ between visually impaired and sighted participants. Using a motion platform we investigated thresholds of passive whole-body motion discrimination in nine visually impaired participants and nine age-matched sighted controls. Participants were rotated in yaw, tilted in roll, and translated along the y-axis at two different frequencies (0.3 Hz and 2 Hz). An adaptive 3-down 1-up staircase procedure was used along with a two-alternative direction (leftward vs. rightward) discrimination task. Superior performance of visually impaired participants was found in the 0.3 Hz roll tilt condition. No differences between the visually impaired and controls were observed in all other types of motion. The superior performance in the 0.3 Hz roll tilt condition could reflect differences in the integration of extra-vestibular cues and increased sensitivity towards changes in the direction of the gravito-inertial force. In the absence of visual information, roll tilts entail a more pronounced risk of falling, and this could eventually account for the group difference. It is argued that differences in experimental procedures (i.e. detection vs. discrimination of stimuli) explain the discrepant findings across perceptual tasks comparing blind and sighted participants.

Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes

Well-established methods exist for measuring party positions, but reliable means for estimating intra-party preferences remain underdeveloped. While most efforts focus on estimating the ideal points of individual legislators based on inductive scaling of roll call votes, this data suffers from two problems: selection bias due to unrecorded votes and strong party discipline, which tends to make voting a strategic rather than a sincere indication of preferences. By contrast, legislative speeches are relatively unconstrained, as party leaders are less likely to punish MPs for speaking freely as long as they vote with the party line. Yet, the differences between roll call estimations and text scalings remain essentially unexplored, despite the growing application of statistical analysis of textual data to measure policy preferences. Our paper addresses this lacuna by exploiting a rich feature of the Swiss legislature: on most bills, legislators both vote and speak many times. Using this data, we compare text-based scaling of ideal points to vote-based scaling from a crucial piece of energy legislation. Our findings confirm that text scalings reveal larger intra-party differences than roll calls. Using regression models, we further explain the differences between roll call and text scalings by attributing differences to constituency-level preferences for energy policy.

Self-motion direction discrimination in the visually impaired

Despite the close interrelation between vestibular and visual processing (e.g., vestibulo-ocular reflex), surprisingly little is known about vestibular function in visually impaired people. In this study, we investigated thresholds of passive whole-body motion discrimination (leftward vs. rightward) in nine visually impaired participants and nine age-matched sighted controls. Participants were rotated in yaw, tilted in roll, and translated along the interaural axis at two different frequencies (0.33 and 2 Hz) by means of a motion platform. Superior performance of visually impaired participants was found in the 0.33 Hz roll tilt condition. No differences were observed in the other motion conditions. Roll tilts stimulate the semicircular canals and otoliths simultaneously. The results could thus reflect a specific improvement in canal–otolith integration in the visually impaired and are consistent with the compensatory hypothesis, which implies that the visually impaired are able to compensate the absence of visual input.