Spatio-temporal judgements of observed actions : Contrasts between first- and third-person perspective after motor priming.

When observing actions, motor simulation processes aid the prediction and understanding of future events. A central issue concerns whether such action simulation serves social functions of interpreting other people, where performance is predicted to be better when third-person perspective (3PP) actions are viewed; or whether it is most beneficial to guide self actions, whereby the first-person perspective (1PP) would be advantageous. We show that in a spatio-temporal judgement task there is an advantage for the prediction of 1PP. However, this is only detected after motor priming whereby participants perform the observed actions prior to making spatio-temporal judgements. The results, firstly, confirm that we draw on our motor experience for the accurate simulation and prediction of action. Secondly, the results suggest that such experience facilitates more accurate state estimation for actions perceived in the 1PP which map more closely onto visual input of self-generated action. More forward prediction error is retained for 3PP viewed actions, which may however have the benefit of compensating for the uncertainty involved in interacting with others

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

The Utility of Virtual Reality in Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction. Prevalence rates of anxiety are higher in this population compared to the general population. Anxiety and autistic traits can seriously impede an individual’s capacity to function in the social world. Current psychosocial interventions for ASD individuals are aimed to develop skills in interaction and communication or to address anxiety. The development and use of virtual reality for clinical interventions is on the rise, and its potential benefits for ASD individuals are numerous. As yet, little is known about the utility of VR-based interventions for ASD. We conducted a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies that employ VR for intervention in the core deficits of ASD and/or anxiety, and which report pre- post intervention data or change over time. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. A quality assessment of included studies was conducted to evaluate their risk of bias. The review yielded five randomised controlled studies and 19 non-randomised or case studies. Studies employed VR in its variety of forms, including head mounted displays, desktop VR, and cave environments. A variety of interventions were employed, including CBT, scaffolded hierarchical learning, and social cognition training. Findings from the review suggest that VR-based interventions for ASD individuals are feasible and demonstrate effectiveness in the development of affect recognition and emotion regulation skills, as well as for job interviewing skills. Additionally, studies demonstrate its promise for development of communication and conversational skills. Further research is required of higher quality to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of studies in this and other areas. In particular, it is important that studies progress from exploratory use of VR toward more theory and evidence informed intervention protocols for ASD individuals. Additionally, follow-up research studies of the impact of intervention on individuals’ daily lives is also necessary to determine the generalisability of skills developed in VR, and real-life impact