Brain, mind and medicine:essays in eighteenth Century neuroscience

There have been no books published on neuroscience in the eighteenth century. Yet this was an important time, with science and medicine in transition. On the one hand, there were wildly speculative theories about the nervous system, many based on Newtonian mechanics and fanciful chemistry. But on the other, this was also a time when empirical research with quantification and experimentation was coming of age. This volume examines the eighteenth-century neuroscience milieu and looks at developments in anatomy, physiology, and medicine that highlight this era, which some people have called the Age of Reason and others the Enlightenment. The book covers such things as the aims of the scientific and medical Enlightenment, how neuroscience adopted electricity as the nerve force, how disorders such as aphasia and hysteria were treated, Mesmerism, and how some of the latest ideas made their way into the culture of the day.

The influence of end of day silicone hydrogel daily disposable contact lens fit on ocular comfort, physiology and lens wettability

Purpose: To quantify the end-of-day silicone-hydrogel daily disposable contact lens fit and its influence of on ocular comfort, physiology and lens wettability. Methods: Thirty-nine subjects (22.1. ±. 3.5 years) were randomised to wear each of 3 silicone-hydrogel daily-disposable contact lenses (narafilcon A, delefilcon A and filcon II 3), bilaterally, for one week. Lens fit was assessed objectively using a digital video slit-lamp at 8, 12 and 16. h after lens insertion. Hyperaemia, non-invasive tear break-up time, tear meniscus height and comfort were also evaluated at these timepoints, while corneal and conjunctival staining were assessed on lens removal. Results: Lens fit assessments were not different between brands (P > 0.05), with the exception of the movement at blink where narafilcon A was more mobile. Overall, lag reduced but push-up speed increased from 8 to 12. h (P <. 0.05), but remained stable from 12 to 16. h (P > 0.05). Movement-on-blink was unaffected by wear-time (F = 0.403, P = 0.670). A more mobile lens fit with one brand did not indicate that person would have a more mobile fit with another brand (r = -0.06 to 0.63). Lens fit was not correlated with comfort, ocular physiology or lens wettability (P > 0.01). Conclusions: Among the lenses tested, objective lens fit changed between 8. h and 12. h of lens wear. The weak correlation in individual lens fit between brands indicates that fit is dependent on more than ocular shape. Consequently, substitution of a different lens brand with similar parameters will not necessarily provide comparable lens fit.