Next-state comfort in learning a vertical stick transportation sequence

Over the last decade, the end-state comfort effect (e.g., Rosenbaum et al., 2006) has received a considerable amount of attention. However, some of the underlying mechanisms are still to be investigated, amongst others, how sequential planning affects end-state comfort and how this effect develops over learning. In a two-step sequencing task, e.g., postural comfort can be planned on the intermediate position (next state) or on the actual end position (final state). It might be hypothesized that, in initial acquisition, next state’s comfort is crucial for action planning but that, in the course of learning, final state’s comfort is taken more and more into account. To test this hypothesis, a variant of Rosenbaum’s vertical stick transportation task was used. Participants (N = 16, right-handed) received extensive practice on a two-step transportation task (10,000 trials over 12 sessions). From the initial position on the middle stair of a staircase in front of the participant, the stick had to be transported either 20 cm upwards and then 40 cm downwards or 20 cm downwards and then 40 cm upwards (N = 8 per subgroup). Participants were supposed to produce fluid movements without changing grasp. In the pre- and posttest, participants were tested on both two-step sequencing tasks as well as on 20 cm single-step upwards and downwards movements (10 trials per condition). For the test trials, grasp height was calculated kinematographically. In the pretest, large end/next/final-state comfort effects for single-step transportation tasks and large next-state comfort effects for sequenced tasks were found. However, no change in grasp height from pre- to posttest could be revealed. Results show that, in vertical stick transportation sequences, the final state is not taken into account when planning grasp height. Instead, action planning seems to be solely based on aspects of the next action goal that is to be reached.

[Approach to prostate cancer in men older than 75 years: active or passive?]

Based on the exponential aging of the population and the increasing life expectancy in industrialized western countries, prostate cancer (PCa) in elderly men is becoming a disease of increasing significance. Consensus exists that men over the age of 75 years should not be screened for PCa; however, higher age as a single parameter should not exclude men from being diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated accordingly. It is well-known that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are frequent in this age group. Competing mortality risks of men older than 75 years may supersede the risk of dying from PCa several fold. Both the treating physician and the patient himself should therefore balance the possible risks and benefits of diagnosing and treating prostate cancer concerning the impact on quality of life. This is of special importance when taking into account that the complication rates of curative treatment modalities are higher in older patients than in younger men and that hormonal treatment might have negative effects especially in older men.Age, existing comorbidities, cognitive and physical status in combination with specific tumor parameters are useful tools for an individualized treatment.Therapy should be considered for healthy, active men aged 75 years or older who present with high-risk PCa and/or with a PSA doubling time <12 months. Elderly men who are unfit or have low to intermediate risk PCa will most likely not benefit from treatment.

Assessment of estrogenic exposure in brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a Swiss midland river: integrated analysis of passive samplers, wild and caged fish, and vitellogenin mRNA and protein

This field study examined the vitellogenin (VTG) biomarker response under conditions of low and fluctuating activities of environmental estrogenicity. The present study was performed on immature brown trout (Salmo trutta) exposed to the small river Luetzelmurg, which is located in the prealpine Swiss midland region and receives effluents from a single sewage treatment plant (STP). To understand better factors influencing the relationship between estrogenic exposure and VTG induction, we compared VTG levels in caged (stationary) and feral (free-ranging) fish, VTG levels in fish from up- and downstream of the STP, and two different methods for quantifying VTG (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay vs real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction), and we used passive samplers (polar organic chemical integrative sampler [POCIS]) to integrate the variable, bioaccumulative estrogenic load in the river water over time. The POCIS from the downstream site contained approximately 20-fold higher levels of bioassay-derived estrogen equivalents than the POCIS from the upstream site. In feral fish, this site difference in estrogenic exposure was reflected in VTG protein levels but not in VTG mRNA. In contrast, in caged fish, the site difference was evident only for VTG mRNA but not for VTG protein. Thus, the outcome of VTG biomarker measurements varied with the analytical detection method (protein vs mRNA) and with the exposure modus (caged vs feral). Our findings suggest that for environmental situations with low and variable estrogenic contamination, a multiple-assessment approach may be necessary for the assessment of estrogenic exposure in fish.