A risk-based framework for assessing the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Open Access journalCopyright: © 2014 Ferraro et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Geoengineering by stratospheric aerosol injection has been proposed as a policy response to warming from human emissions of greenhouse gases, but it may produce unequal regional impacts. We present a simple, intuitive risk-based framework for classifying these impacts according to whether geoengineering increases or decreases the risk of substantial climate change, with further classification by the level of existing risk from climate change from increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. This framework is applied to two climate model simulations of geoengineering counterbalancing the surface warming produced by a quadrupling of carbon dioxide concentrations, with one using a layer of sulphate aerosol in the lower stratosphere, and the other a reduction in total solar irradiance. The solar dimming model simulation shows less regional inequality of impacts compared with the aerosol geoengineering simulation. In the solar dimming simulation, 10% of the Earth's surface area, containing 10% of its population and 11% of its gross domestic product, experiences greater risk of substantial precipitation changes under geoengineering than under enhanced carbon dioxide concentrations. In the aerosol geoengineering simulation the increased risk of substantial precipitation change is experienced by 42% of Earth's surface area, containing 36% of its population and 60% of its gross domestic product.Natural Environment Research Council (NERC

A new framework for cortico-striatal plasticity: behavioural theory meets In vitro data at the reinforcement-action interface

Operant learning requires that reinforcement signals interact with action representations at a suitable neural interface. Much evidence suggests that this occurs when phasic dopamine, acting as a reinforcement prediction error, gates plasticity at cortico-striatal synapses, and thereby changes the future likelihood of selecting the action(s) coded by striatal neurons. But this hypothesis faces serious challenges. First, cortico-striatal plasticity is inexplicably complex, depending on spike timing, dopamine level, and dopamine receptor type. Second, there is a credit assignment problem—action selection signals occur long before the consequent dopamine reinforcement signal. Third, the two types of striatal output neuron have apparently opposite effects on action selection. Whether these factors rule out the interface hypothesis and how they interact to produce reinforcement learning is unknown. We present a computational framework that addresses these challenges. We first predict the expected activity changes over an operant task for both types of action-coding striatal neuron, and show they co-operate to promote action selection in learning and compete to promote action suppression in extinction. Separately, we derive a complete model of dopamine and spike-timing dependent cortico-striatal plasticity from in vitro data. We then show this model produces the predicted activity changes necessary for learning and extinction in an operant task, a remarkable convergence of a bottom-up data-driven plasticity model with the top-down behavioural requirements of learning theory. Moreover, we show the complex dependencies of cortico-striatal plasticity are not only sufficient but necessary for learning and extinction. Validating the model, we show it can account for behavioural data describing extinction, renewal, and reacquisition, and replicate in vitro experimental data on cortico-striatal plasticity. By bridging the levels between the single synapse and behaviour, our model shows how striatum acts as the action-reinforcement interface

The striatum multiplexes contextual and kinematic information to constrain motor habits execution

International audienceThe striatum is required for the acquisition of procedural memories, but its contribution to motor control once learning has occurred is unclear. We created a task in which rats learned a difficult motor sequence characterized by fine-tuned changes in running speed adjusted to spatial and temporal constraints. After training and extensive practice, we found that the behavior was habitual, yet tetrode recordings in the dorsolateral striatum (DLS) revealed continuous integrative representations of running speed, position and time. These representations were weak in naive rats that were hand-guided to perform the same sequence and developed slowly after learning. Finally, DLS inactivation in well-trained animals preserved the structure of the sequence while increasing its trial-by-trial variability. We conclude that, after learning, the DLS continuously integrates task-relevant information to constrain the execution of motor habits. Our results provide a straightforward mechanism by which the basal ganglia may contribute to habit formation and motor control

Patient Preferences for Care by General Internists and Specialists in the Ambulatory Setting

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients' preferences for care by general internists and specialists for common medical conditions. DESIGN: Telephone interview. SETTING: A convenience sample of general internal medicine practices at 10 eastern academic medical centers. PATIENT/PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample of 314 participants who had at least one visit with their primary care physician during the preceding 2 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Items addressed patients' attitudes concerning continuity of care, preferences for care by general internists or specialists for common medical problems, and perceptions about the competency of general internists and specialists to manage these problems. Continuity was important to participants, with 63% reporting they preferred having one doctor. Respondents were willing to wait 3 or 4 days to see their regular doctor (85%) and wanted their doctor to see them in the emergency department (77%) and monitor their care while in the hospital (94%). A majority (>60%) preferred care from their regular doctor for a variety of new conditions. Though respondents valued continuity, 84% felt it was important to be able to seek medical care from any type of physician without a referral, and 74% responded that if they needed to see a specialist, they were willing to pay out-of-pocket to do so. Although most participants (98%) thought their regular doctor was able to take care of usual medical problems, the majority thought that specialists were better able to care for allergies (79%) and better able to prescribe medications for depression (65%) and low-back pain (72%). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred to see their general internist despite their perceptions that specialists were more competent in caring for the conditions we examined. However, they wanted unrestricted access to specialists to supplement care provided by general internists