Balancing the demands of two tasks: an investigation of cognitive–motor dual-tasking in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

Background: People with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (PwRRMS) suffer disproportionate decrements in gait under dual-task conditions, when walking and a cognitive task are combined. There has been much less investigation of the impact of cognitive demands on balance. Objectives: This study investigated whether: (1) PwRRMS show disproportionate decrements in postural stability under dual-task conditions compared to healthy controls, and (2) dual-task decrements are associated with everyday dual-tasking difficulties. The impact of mood, fatigue, and disease severity on dual-tasking was also examined. Methods: A total of 34 PwRRMS and 34 matched controls completed cognitive (digit span) and balance (movement of center of pressure on Biosway on stable and unstable surfaces) tasks under single- and dual-task conditions. Everyday dual-tasking was measured using the Dual-Tasking Questionnaire. Mood was measured by the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale. Fatigue was measured via the Modified Fatigue Index Scale. Results: No differences in age, gender, years of education, estimated pre-morbid IQ, or baseline digit span between groups. Compared with controls, PwRRMS showed significantly greater decrement in postural stability under dual-task conditions on an unstable surface (p=.007), but not a stable surface (p=.679). Balance decrement scores were not correlated with everyday dual-tasking difficulties or fatigue. Stable surface balance decrement scores were significantly associated with levels of anxiety (rho=0.527; p=.001) and depression (rho=0.451; p=.007). Conclusions: RRMS causes dual-tasking difficulties, impacting balance under challenging conditions, which may contribute to increased risk of gait difficulties and falls. The relationship between anxiety/depression and dual-task decrement suggests that emotional factors may be contributing to dual-task difficulties

Secrecy, surveillance and poetic “Data bodies”

This article explores themes of secrecy and monitoring in three works of experimental poetry published since the millennium: Redell Olsen's Secure Portable Space (2004), Who Not to Speak To by Marianne Morris, and Zoe Skoulding’s The Museum of Disappearing Sounds (2013). My analysis draws on Zygmunt Bauman and David Lyon’s discussion of secrecy in Liquid Surveillance, along with theories of “data doubles" and “everyday” ubiquity of surveillance technologies, to show how these poets use innovative lyric forms to negotiate contemporary expectations of “public” and “private” communicative spaces

DIY Peer Review and Monograph Publishing in the Arts and Humanities

In order to explore monograph peer review in the Arts and Humanities, this article introduces and discusses an applied example, examining the route to publication of Danielle Fuller and DeNel Rehberg Sedo's Reading Beyond the Book: The Social Practices of Contemporary Literary Culture (2013). The book's co-authors supplemented the traditional "blind" peer review system with a range of practices including the informal, DIY review of colleagues and "clever friends," as well as using the feedback derived from grant applications, journal articles, and book chapters. The article "explodes" the book into a series of documents and non-linear processes to demonstrate the significance of the various forms of feedback to the development of Fuller and Rehberg Sedo's monograph. The analysis reveals substantial differences between book and article peer review processes, including an emphasis on marketing in review forms and the pressures to publish, that the co-authors navigated through the introduction of "clever friends" to the review processes. These findings, drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS), demonstrate how such a research methodology can identify how knowledge is constructed in the Arts and Humanities, and potential implications for the valuation of research processes and collaborations

Peer Review in Practice

Introduction Peer review constitutes one of the more paradoxical elements of academic research and dissemination: it is common for academics to complain about unhelpful feedback from their latest review, but the process is simultaneously seen as one of the bedrocks of assuring the quality of research. It does not take long to find anecdotal evidence of the value or pitfalls of peer review in trade publications such as the Times Higher Education or The Chronicle of Higher Education. Asked to share her own ‘horror stories’ in peer review for the Times Higher Education, Susan Bassnett comments that ‘it seems like a fine idea for work submitted to a journal, publisher or funding body to be assessed anonymously by independent experts’, but fears peer review ‘has grown into a monster’ as a result of an increasing volume of work requiring review, with detrimental effects for both authors and reviewers. Such comments suggest an urgent need to reconsider review practices. However, it is rare to see a scholarly examination of the process, and this report sets out to address this by evaluating key aspects of academic discussion of peer review. The following report considers the diverse range of practices that constitute peer review in both publishing and institutional structures, examining the history of peer review, and evaluating how innovative alternative models aim to resolve pressures on the current system. It does so with a particular focus on peer review in the Arts and Humanities (in connection with the AHRC Academic Book of the Future project), while looking at wider disciplinary and publishing considerations. Peer review is an expansive topic, and our research has revealed a number of fruitful avenues for future evaluation which we have not been able to cover in detail here. These include the selection and crediting of reviewers, the role of peer review in creative practice, the advent of paid review platforms, and the use of metrics as an alternative means of quantifying research value and impact. In particular, our discussion of peer review for publications emphasises practice in scholarly journals, as that is largely where discussion in scholarly and other literature focuses. However, further primary investigation might consider equivalent issues in the field of monograph publishing. Given the parameters of our study, alongside an evolving environment for peer review, and our own wish to experiment with peer review modes, this report is offered for post-publication peer review. We encourage readers to submit comments and suggestions additional sources and references, and for new avenues of research.The article was previously published in beta version (see https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/publication/22749)