Why do humans make antisaccade errors?

Antisaccade errors are attributed to failure to inhibit the habitual prosaccade. We investigated whether the amount of information about the required response the patient has before the trial begins also contributes to error rate. Participants performed antisaccades in five conditions. The traditional design had two goals on the left and right horizontal meridians. In the second condition, stimulus-goal confusability between trials was eliminated by displacing one goal upward. In the third, hemifield uncertainty was eliminated by placing both goals in the same hemifield. In the fourth, goal uncertainty was eliminated by having only one goal, but interspersed with no-go trials. The fifth condition eliminated all uncertainty by having the same goal on every trial. Antisaccade error rate increased by 2% with each additional source of uncertainty, with the main effect being hemifield information, and a trend for stimulus-goal confusability. A control experiment for the effects of increasing angular separation between targets without changing these types of prior response information showed no effects on latency or error rate. We conclude that other factors besides prosaccade inhibition contribute to antisaccade error rates in traditional designs, possibly by modulating the strength of goal activation.

Intracellular imaging of nanoparticles: is it an elemental mistake to believe what you see?

In order to understand how nanoparticles (NPs <100 nm) interact with cellular systems, potentially causing adverse effects, it is important to be able to detect and localize them within cells. Due to the small size of NPs, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) is an appropriate technique to use for visualizing NPs inside cells, since light microscopy fails to resolve them at a single particle level. However, the presence of other cellular and non-cellular nano-sized structures in TEM cell samples, which may resemble NPs in size, morphology and electron density, can obstruct the precise intracellular identification of NPs. Therefore, elemental analysis is recommended to confirm the presence of NPs inside the cell. The present study highlights the necessity to perform elemental analysis, specifically energy filtering TEM, to confirm intracellular NP localization using the example of quantum dots (QDs). Recently, QDs have gained increased attention due to their fluorescent characteristics, and possible applications for biomedical imaging have been suggested. Nevertheless, potential adverse effects cannot be excluded and some studies point to a correlation between intracellular particle localization and toxic effects. J774.A1 murine macrophage-like cells were exposed to NH2 polyethylene (PEG) QDs and elemental co-localization analysis of two elements present in the QDs (sulfur and cadmium) was performed on putative intracellular QDs with electron spectroscopic imaging (ESI). Both elements were shown on a single particle level and QDs were confirmed to be located inside intracellular vesicles. Nevertheless, ESI analysis showed that not all nano-sized structures, initially identified as QDs, were confirmed. This observation emphasizes the necessity to perform elemental analysis when investigating intracellular NP localization using TEM.

Waiting for evidence seems to make sense - exept for the one providing the evidence

A 58-year-old male presented with a history of two prior transient ischaemic attacks and was found to have a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in the absence of atrial fibrillation or relevant carotid atheromatosis. PFO closure was deferred at this stage due to the lack of clinical evidence. Three years later the patient was re-admitted after a major stroke with residual symptoms and finally underwent PFO closure in a minimally invasive procedure using an Amplatzer PFO Occluder.

The rationale for a spine registry

In the discussion about the rationale for spine registries, two basic questions have to be answered. The first one deals with the value of orthopaedic registries per se, considering them as observational studies and comparing the evidence they generate with that of randomised controlled trials. The second question asks if the need for registries in spine surgery is similar to that in the arthroplasty sector. The widely held view that randomised controlled trials are the 'gold standard' for evaluation and that observational methods have little or no value ignores the limitations of randomised trials. They may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. In addition, the external validity and hence the ability to make generalisations about the results of randomised trials is often low. Therefore, the false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of their complementary roles. The fact that many surgical techniques or technologies were introduced into the field of spine surgery without randomised trials or prospective cohort comparisons makes obvious an even increased need for spine registries compared to joint arthroplasty. An essential methodological prerequisite for a registry is a common terminology for reporting results and a sophisticated technology that networks all participants so that one central data pool is created and accessed. Recognising this need, the Spine Society of Europe has researched and developed Spine Tango, the first European spine registry, which can be accessed under www.eurospine.org.