Cooperation & Competition Between Navigation Systems in the Rat Brain: The Role of the Hippocampus and Striatum During a Dissociative Maze Task

While many tend to think of memory systems in the brain as a single process, in reality several experiments have supported multiple dissociations of different forms of learning, such as spatial learning and response learning. In both humans and rats, the hippocampus has long been shown to be specialized in the storage of spatial and contextual memory whereas the striatum is associated with motor responses and habitual behaviors. Previous studies have examined how damage to hippocampus or striatum has affected the acquisition of either a spatial or response navigation task. However even in a very familiar environment organisms must continuously switch between place and response strategies depending upon circumstances. The current research investigates how these two brain systems interact under normal conditions to produce navigational behavior. Rats were tested using a task developed by Jacobson and colleagues (2006) in which the two types of navigation could be controlled and studied simultaneously. Rats were trained to solve a plus maze using both a spatial and a response strategy. A cue (flashing light) was employed to indicate the correct strategy on a given trial. When no light was present, the animals were rewarded for making a 90º right turn (motor response). When the light was on, the animals were rewarded for going to a specific goal location (place strategy). After learning the task, animals had a sham surgery or dorsal striatum or hippocampus damaged. In order to investigate the individual role of each brain system and evaluate whether these brain regions compete or cooperate for control over strategy, we utilized a within-animal comparisons. The configuration of the maze allowed for the comparison of behavior in individual animals before and after specific brain areas were damaged. Animals with hippocampal lesions showed selective deficits on place trials after surgery and learned the reversal of the motor response more rapidly than striatal lesioned or sham rats. Unlike previous findings regarding maze learning, animals with striatal lesions showed deficits in both place and response trials and had difficulty learning the reversal of motor response. Therefore, the effects of lesions on the ability to switch back and forth between strategies were more complex than previously suggested. This work may reveal important new insight on the integration of hippocampal and striatal learning systems, and facilitate a better understanding of the brain dynamics underlying similar navigational processes in humans.

Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?

Our paper asks the question: Does mode of instruction format (live or online format) effect test scores in the principles of macroeconomics classes? Our data are from several sections of principles of macroeconomics, some in live format, some in online format, and all taught by the same instructor. We find that test scores for the online format, when corrected for sample selection bias, are four points higher than for the live format, and the difference is statistically significant. One possible explanation for this is that there was slightly higher human capital in the classes that had the online format. A Oaxaca decomposition of this difference in grades was conducted to see how much was due to human capital and how much was due to the differences in the rates of return to human capital. This analysis reveals that 25% of the difference was due to the higher human capital with the remaining 75% due to differences in the returns to human capital. It is possible that for the relatively older student with the appropriate online learning skill set, and with schedule constrains created by family and job, the online format provides them with a more productive learning environment than does the alternative traditional live class format. Also, because our data are limited to the student s academic transcript, we recommend future research include data on learning style characteristics, and the constraints formed by family and job choices.

Student Performance in Traditional vs. Online Format: Evidence from an MBA Level Introductory Economics Class

All previous studies comparing online and face-to-face format for instruction of economics compared courses that were either online or face-to-face format and regressed exam scores on selected student characteristics. This approach is subject to the econometric problems of self-selection omitted unobserved variables. Our study uses two methods to deal with these problems. First we eliminate self-selection bias by using students from a course that uses both instruction formats. Second, we use the exam questions as the unit of observation, and eliminate omitted variable bias by using an indicator variable for each student to capture the effect of differences in unobserved student characteristics on learning outcomes. We report the finding that students had a significantly greater chance of answering a question correctly if it came from a chapter covered online.

UNDERSTANDING INTERRUPTIONS IN HEALTHCARE: DEVELOPING A MODEL

Developing a Model Interruption is a known human factor that contributes to errors and catastrophic events in healthcare as well as other high-risk industries. The landmark Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, To Err is Human, brought attention to the significance of preventable errors in medicine and suggested that interruptions could be a contributing factor. Previous studies of interruptions in healthcare did not offer a conceptual model by which to study interruptions. As a result of the serious consequences of interruptions investigated in other high-risk industries, there is a need to develop a model to describe, understand, explain, and predict interruptions and their consequences in healthcare. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a model grounded in the literature and to use the model to describe and explain interruptions in healthcare. Specifically, this model would be used to describe and explain interruptions occurring in a Level One Trauma Center. A trauma center was chosen because this environment is characterized as intense, unpredictable, and interrupt-driven. The first step in developing the model began with a review of the literature which revealed that the concept interruption did not have a consistent definition in either the healthcare or non-healthcare literature. Walker and Avant’s method of concept analysis was used to clarify and define the concept. The analysis led to the identification of five defining attributes which include (1) a human experience, (2) an intrusion of a secondary, unplanned, and unexpected task, (3) discontinuity, (4) externally or internally initiated, and (5) situated within a context. However, before an interruption could commence, five conditions known as antecedents must occur. For an interruption to take place (1) an intent to interrupt is formed by the initiator, (2) a physical signal must pass a threshold test of detection by the recipient, (3) the sensory system of the recipient is stimulated to respond to the initiator, (4) an interruption task is presented to recipient, and (5) the interruption task is either accepted or rejected by v the recipient. An interruption was determined to be quantifiable by (1) the frequency of occurrence of an interruption, (2) the number of times the primary task has been suspended to perform an interrupting task, (3) the length of time the primary task has been suspended, and (4) the frequency of returning to the primary task or not returning to the primary task. As a result of the concept analysis, a definition of an interruption was derived from the literature. An interruption is defined as a break in the performance of a human activity initiated internal or external to the recipient and occurring within the context of a setting or location. This break results in the suspension of the initial task by initiating the performance of an unplanned task with the assumption that the initial task will be resumed. The definition is inclusive of all the defining attributes of an interruption. This is a standard definition that can be used by the healthcare industry. From the definition, a visual model of an interruption was developed. The model was used to describe and explain the interruptions recorded for an instrumental case study of physicians and registered nurses (RNs) working in a Level One Trauma Center. Five physicians were observed for a total of 29 hours, 31 minutes. Eight registered nurses were observed for a total of 40 hours 9 minutes. Observations were made on either the 0700–1500 or the 1500-2300 shift using the shadowing technique. Observations were recorded in the field note format. The field notes were analyzed by a hybrid method of categorizing activities and interruptions. The method was developed by using both a deductive a priori classification framework and by the inductive process utilizing line-byline coding and constant comparison as stated in Grounded Theory. The following categories were identified as relative to this study: Intended Recipient - the person to be interrupted Unintended Recipient - not the intended recipient of an interruption; i.e., receiving a phone call that was incorrectly dialed Indirect Recipient – the incidental recipient of an interruption; i.e., talking with another, thereby suspending the original activity Recipient Blocked – the intended recipient does not accept the interruption Recipient Delayed – the intended recipient postpones an interruption Self-interruption – a person, independent of another person, suspends one activity to perform another; i.e., while walking, stops abruptly and talks to another person Distraction – briefly disengaging from a task Organizational Design – the physical layout of the workspace that causes a disruption in workflow Artifacts Not Available – supplies and equipment that are not available in the workspace causing a disruption in workflow Initiator – a person who initiates an interruption Interruption by Organizational Design and Artifacts Not Available were identified as two new categories of interruption. These categories had not previously been cited in the literature. Analysis of the observations indicated that physicians were found to perform slightly fewer activities per hour when compared to RNs. This variance may be attributed to differing roles and responsibilities. Physicians were found to have more activities interrupted when compared to RNs. However, RNs experienced more interruptions per hour. Other people were determined to be the most commonly used medium through which to deliver an interruption. Additional mediums used to deliver an interruption vii included the telephone, pager, and one’s self. Both physicians and RNs were observed to resume an original interrupted activity more often than not. In most interruptions, both physicians and RNs performed only one or two interrupting activities before returning to the original interrupted activity. In conclusion the model was found to explain all interruptions observed during the study. However, the model will require an even more comprehensive study in order to establish its predictive value.

Model results of ocean physical field of the reference state and the targets in NetCDF format

In a feasibility study, the potential of proxy data for the temperature and salinity during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, about 19 000 to 23 000 years before present) in constraining the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) with a general ocean circulation model was explored. The proxy data were simulated by drawing data from four different model simulations at the ocean sediment core locations of the Multiproxy Approach for the Reconstruction of the Glacial Ocean surface (MARGO) project, and perturbing these data with realistic noise estimates. The results suggest that our method has the potential to provide estimates of the past strength of the AMOC even from sparse data, but in general, paleo-sea-surface temperature data without additional prior knowledge about the ocean state during the LGM is not adequate to constrain the model. On the one hand, additional data in the deep-ocean and salinity data are shown to be highly important in estimating the LGM circulation. On the other hand, increasing the amount of surface data alone does not appear to be enough for better estimates. Finally, better initial guesses to start the state estimation procedure would greatly improve the performance of the method. Indeed, with a sufficiently good first guess, just the sea-surface temperature data from the MARGO project promise to be sufficient for reliable estimates of the strength of the AMOC.

The Austrian Glacier Inventories GI 1 (1969), GI 2 (1998), GI 3 (2006), and GI LIA in ArcGIS (shapefile) format

Glacier inventories provide the basis for further studies on mass balance and volume change, relevant for local hydrological issues as well as for global calculation of sea level rise. In this study, a new Austrian glacier inventory has been compiled, updating data from 1969 (GI 1) and 1998 (GI 2) based on high-resolution lidar digital elevation models (DEMs) and orthophotos dating from 2004 to 2012 (GI 3). To expand the time series of digital glacier inventories in the past, the glacier outlines of the Little Ice Age maximum state (LIA) have been digitalized based on the lidar DEM and orthophotos. The resulting glacier area for GI 3 of 415.11 ± 11.18 km**2 is 44% of the LIA area. The annual relative area losses are 0.3%/yr for the ~119-year period GI LIA to GI 1 with one period with major glacier advances in the 1920s. From GI 1 to GI 2 (29 years, one advance period of variable length in the 1980s) glacier area decreased by 0.6% yr?1 and from GI 2 to GI 3 (10 years, no advance period) by 1.2%/yr. Regional variability of the annual relative area loss is highest in the latest period, ranging from 0.3 to 6.19%/yr. The mean glacier size decreased from 0.69 km**2 (GI 1) to 0.46 km**2 (GI 3), with 47% of the glaciers being smaller than 0.1 km**2 in GI 3 (22%).