Group study of an 'undercover' test for visuospatial neglect: Invisible cancellation can reveal more neglect than standard cancellation

Visual neglect is a relatively common deficit after brain damage, particularly strokes. Cancellation tests provide standard clinical measures of neglect severity and deficits in daily life. A recent single-case study introduced a new variation on standard cancellation. Instead of making a visible mark on each target found, the patient made invisible marks (recorded with carbon paper underneath, for later scoring). Such invisible cancellation was found to reveal more neglect than cancellation with visible marks. Here we test the generality of this. Twenty three successive cases with suspected neglect each performed cancellation with visible or invisible marks. Neglect of contralesional targets was more pronounced with invisible marks. Indeed, about half of the patients only showed neglect in this version. For cases showing more neglect with invisible marks, stronger neglect of contralesional targets correlated with more revisits to ipsilesional targets for making additional invisible marks upon them. These results indicate that cancellation with invisible marks can reveal more neglect than standard cancellation with visible marks, while still providing a practical bedside test. Our observations may be consistent with recent proposals that demands on spatial working memory (required to keep track of previously found items only when marked invisibly) can exacerbate spatial neglect

The Clash of Agricultural Exceptionalism and the First Amendment: A Discussion of Kansas\u27 Ag-Gag Law

Since the Nation’s founding, agricultural production has been treated differently than other industries. This concept, known as “agricultural exceptionalism,” has manifested in many different ways throughout U.S. history. Since the 1990s, one manifestation of agricultural exceptionalism has been the enactment of “Ag-gag laws,” state laws that limit information gathering activities at animal production facilities. Ag-gag laws are frequently criticized by animal welfare advocates and legal scholars for seeking to shield animal production facilities from public scrutiny, a state-sanctioned protection not afforded to other industries

Reassessing the Citizens Protection Act: A Good Thing It Passed, and a Good Thing It Failed

The Citizens Protection Act (CPA) of 1998 has always been a lightening rod for criticism, and it remains so today. This article reassesses the CPA’s perceived inadequacies in light of how it has actually affected (or, not affected) federal prosecutors’ involvement in criminal investigations. The article takes issue with the critics and demonstrates that the CPA succeeded where it should have, failed where it should have, and left us—however inadvertently—with a remarkably coherent and consistent approach to regulating federal prosecutors’ involvement in criminal investigations regardless of whether a suspect retains counsel early in the proceedings. The CPA requires federal prosecutors to follow state rules of professional conduct “to the same extent and in the same manner” as all other lawyers. The CPA was intended to—and did—nullify a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declaration that unilaterally exempted federal prosecutors from much of the “no-contact” rule, which prohibits a lawyer in a matter from communicating with the client of another lawyer in the matter. The CPA was also intended to—but did not—require federal prosecutors to comply with various state interpretations of the no-contact rule that might have restricted their ability to participate in both covert and overt communications with represented criminal suspects. It is a good thing the CPA passed because DOJ’s assertion of authority over the no-contact rule for its own lawyers would inevitably have undermined public confidence in federal prosecutors’ commitment to fair and ethical investigatory processes. By the same token, it is a good thing that the CPA failed because broadly depriving DOJ of federal prosecutors’ involvement in communications with represented suspects would have substantially hindered criminal investigations for no good reason

Covert research and adult protection and safeguarding: An ethical dilemma?

Purpose: This paper aims to consider the contentious issue of covert research in studying the social contexts of vulnerable groups. It explores its potential utility in areas where overt strategies may be problematic or denied; and examines and problematises the issue of participant consent. Design/methodology/approach: Using a literature-based review and selected previous studies, the paper explores the uses and abuses of covert research in relation to ethics review proceedings governing social research, with an especial focus on vulnerability. Findings: Findings indicate that although the use of covert research is subject to substantial critique by apparently transgressing the often unquestioned moral legitimacy of informed consent, this carries ethical and practical utility for research related to safeguarding concerns. Arguably covert research enables research access to data likely to reveal abusive and oppressive practices. Research limitations/implications: Covert research assists in illuminating the hidden voices and lives of vulnerable people that may otherwise remain inaccessible. Such research needs to be subject to rigorous ethical standards to ensure that it is both justified and robust. Practical implications: Emphasising the need to consider all angles, questions and positions when addressing the social problem of adult protection and safeguarding. Originality/value: Increasingly social research is treated as being as potentially harmful as medical research. Ethics review tends towards conservative conformity, legitimising methodologies that may serve less social utility than other forms of investigation that privilege the safeguarding of vulnerable people. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited