Search Results (3)

Background: The fimbria-fornix is a nerve fiber bundle that connects various structures of the limbic system in the brain and plays a key role in cognition. It has become a major target of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat memory impairment in both dementia patients and animal models of neurological diseases. Previously, we have reported the beneficial memory effects of chronic forniceal DBS in mouse models of intellectual disability disorders. In Rett syndrome and CDKL5 deficiency disorder models, DBS strengthens hippocampal synaptic plasticity, reduces dentate inhibitory transmission or increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis that aids memory. However, the underlying neuronal circuitry mechanisms remain unknown. This study we explored the neural network circuits involved in forniceal DBS treatment. Methods: We used acute forniceal DBS-induced expression of c-Fos, an activity-dependent neuronal marker, to map the brain structures functionally connected to the fornix. We also evaluated the mouse behavior of locomotion, anxiety, and fear memory after acute forniceal DBS treatment. Results: Acute forniceal DBS induces robust activation of multiple structures in the limbic system. DBS-induced neuronal activation extends beyond hippocampal formation and includes brain structures not directly innervated by the fornix. Conclusions: Acute forniceal DBS activates multiple limbic structures associated with emotion and memory. The neural circuits revealed here help elucidate the neural network effect and pave the way for further research on the mechanism by which forniceal DBS induces benefits on cognitive impairments. Full article

Background: Stress and human error during perioperative emergency situations can significantly impact patient morbidity and mortality. Previous research has shown that cognitive aid bundles (CABs) minimize critical misses by 75%. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different CAB designs with the same content in reducing missed critical management steps for simulated perioperative emergencies. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled simulation-based study was conducted including 27 teams, each consisting of three participants; each team performed four simulation scenarios. In the first scenario for each team (Scenario 1), no CAB was used. Scenarios 2 and 3 were randomly allocated to the groups, with either a branched, clustered design (CAB-1) or a linear, step-by-step design (CAB-2) of the cognitive aid. In Scenario 4, the groups used one of the previously mentioned CABs according to their own preference. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of missed critical management steps between the two different CABs. Secondary outcomes included user preference for one CAB design and the reduction in percentage of missed critical management steps using any CAB versus no CAB. Results: Twenty-seven teams simulated 108 perioperative emergency situations. The percentage of missed critical management steps was similar between CAB-1 and CAB-2 (27% [interquartile range (IQR) 20–29] versus 29% [IQR 20–35], p = 0.23). However, most participants favored the branched, clustered design CAB-1 (77.8%). Additionally, employing any CAB reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps by 36% (33% missed steps vs. 21% missed steps, p = 0.003). Conclusions: While the two CAB designs did not differ significantly in reducing missed critical management steps, the branched, clustered design was perceived as more user-friendly. Importantly, using any CAB significantly reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps compared to not using a cognitive aid, emphasizing the need for CAB use in the operating room. Full article

The use of tools and other objects in articulation therapy has been bundled into new groups of activities called “nonspeech oral motor exercises” (NSOME) and ‘nonspeech oral motor treatments’ (NSOMT) by some authors. The purveyors of these new terms suggest that there is no proof that such objects aid speech learning, and they have cautioned students and professionals about their use. Speech-language pathologists are trying to reconcile these cautions with basic Van Riper type therapy routines. The purpose of this literature review was to summarize the ways in which tools/objects were used by Van Riper and other speech professionals between 1939 and 1968. Fourteen textbooks were selected for review. Van Riper and other developers of traditional articulation therapy regularly used a wide variety of tools/objects in articulation therapy. Tools/objects were used when other auditory, linguistic, and cognitive means failed to stimulate correct phoneme productions. To call these activities “nonspeech” methods seems to misrepresent the historic purpose objects have served in articulation therapy. More empirical research is required in this area. Full article