Designing and evaluating virtual musical instruments: facilitating conversational user interaction

This paper is concerned with the design of interactive virtual musical instruments. An interaction design strategy which uses on-screen objects that respond to user actions in physically realistic ways is described. This approach allows musicians to 'play' the virtual instruments using the sound of their familiar acoustic instruments. An investigation of user experience identified three modes of interaction that characterise the musicians' approach to the virtual instruments: instrumental, ornamental and conversational. When using the virtual instruments in instrumental mode, musicians prioritise detailed control; in ornamental mode, they surrender detailed control to the software and allow it to transform their sound; in conversational mode, the musicians allow the virtual instrument to 'talk back', helping to shape the musical direction of performance much as a human playing partner might. Finding a balance between controllability and complexity emerged as a key issue in facilitating 'conversational' interaction. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Designing for Conversational Interaction

In this paper we describe an interaction framework which classifies musicians interactions with virtual musical instruments into three modes: instrumental, ornamental and conversational. We argue that conversational interactions are the most difficult to design for, but also the most interesting. To illustrate our approach to designing for conversational interactions we describe the performance work Partial Reflections 3 for two clarinets and interactive software. This software uses simulated physical models to create a virtual sound sculpture which both responds to and produces sounds and visuals

Description of complex interventions: analysis of changes in reporting in randomised trials since 2002

BACKGROUND: Inadequate description of non-pharmacological complex interventions in trial publications means that they cannot be replicated or assessed for generalisability. There are published guidelines on how to describe an intervention, such as those from the CONSORT Group. However, there have been few evaluations of whether intervention reporting is improving. METHODS: We aimed to assess whether descriptions of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions evaluated in randomised trials are improving. To do so, we chose trials of educational and psychotherapeutic interventions to promote adherence to therapy, and compared those published between 2002 and 2007 (Time-1) with those between 2010 and 2015 (Time-2). These time periods were chosen to concord with the publication in 2008 of the CONSORT extension statement of reporting guidelines for non-pharmacological treatment which included items on intervention description. We assessed 19 items, based on the CONSORT Statement and the more recent Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist (TIDieR). Two reviewers independently extracted data. We created a quality score of the eight items we considered key information for replication and assessment of generalisability (setting, provider, recipient, comparator, intervention intensity, how it was conducted, existence of a manual or protocol, and detail of whether there was an assessment of fidelity). Score per item was '1' if reported adequately and '0' if not. RESULTS: Of the eligible trials, 42 were published in Time-1 and 134 published in Time-2. The trials included were published in 112 peer-reviewed journals, 52 of these journals currently require authors to follow the CONSORT Statements, while only one recommended adherence to the TIDieR. Most items of CONSORT and TIDieR were reported by more than half of the trials at both time points. Few trials reported fidelity. A large proportion of the trials did not report the existence of a manual or protocol, or what the comparator group received. We found no statistically significant improvement in the eight-item quality score (Time-1: mean 5.71 (standard deviation (SD) 1.09), Time-2: 5.87 (SD 1.28), p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall evidence that reporting the specifics of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions is improving. Details to replicate interventions remain lacking, impairing best implementation or meaningful further research. Editorial endorsement of reporting checklists needs to be more extensive

An Enhanced Nonlinear Critical Gradient for Electron Turbulent Transport due to Reversed Magnetic Shear

The first nonlinear gyrokinetic simulations of electron internal transport barriers (e-ITBs) in the National Spherical Torus Experiment show that reversed magnetic shear can suppress thermal transport by increasing the nonlinear critical gradient for electron-temperature-gradient-driven turbulence to three times its linear critical value. An interesting feature of this turbulence is nonlinearly driven off-midplane radial streamers. This work reinforces the experimental observation that magnetic shear is likely an effective way of triggering and sustaining e-ITBs in magnetic fusion devices.Comment: 4 pages, 5 figure

An Enhanced Nonlinear Critical Gradient for Electron Turbulent Transport due to Reversed Magnetic Shear

The first nonlinear gyrokinetic simulations of electron internal transport barriers (e-ITBs) in the National Spherical Torus Experiment show that reversed magnetic shear can suppress thermal transport by increasing the nonlinear critical gradient for electron-temperature-gradient-driven turbulence to three times its linear critical value. An interesting feature of this turbulence is nonlinearly driven off-midplane radial streamers. This work reinforces the experimental observation that magnetic shear is likely an effective way of triggering and sustaining e-ITBs in magnetic fusion devices.Comment: 4 pages, 5 figure

UK quality statements on end of life care in dementia: a systematic review of research evidence

BACKGROUND: Globally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed. AIM: To explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care. DESIGN: We used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care. RESULTS: We found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Quality statements relevant to EOL care are useful to advance practice however they have a limited evidence base. High quality empirical work is needed to establish that the recommendations in these statements are best practice

Opioid-Induced Constipation in Advanced Illness: Safety and Efficacy of Methylnaltrexone Bromide

Constipation, one of the major side effects of opiates used in palliative care, can impair patients’ quality of life to a point where it prevents sufficient pain control. Methylnaltrexone is a novel μ-receptor antagonist, which does not pass the blood brain barrier. It is licensed to treat opiate induced constipation for patients with advanced diseases. This review article presents an overview of pharmacology and safety of its application, evidence of its efficacy and economic aspects of its use in clinical practice. Available data are limited but strongly suggest that methylnaltrexone causes laxation in less than 24 hours for at least half of those patients over the first two weeks of usage without impairing pain control or causing serious adverse effects. To avoid danger of gastrointestinal perforation it is contraindicated for patients at risk for that complication. More research is needed to evaluate its long-term efficacy and economic impact

Mu‐opioid antagonists for opioid‐induced bowel dysfunction in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events of treatment for pain in cancer and in palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This is an update of two Cochrane reviews. One was published in 2011, Issue 1 on laxatives and methylnaltrexone for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care; this was updated in 2015 and excluded methylnaltrexone. The other was published in 2008, Issue 4 on mu-opioid antagonists (MOA) for OIBD. In this updated review, we only included trials on MOA (including methylnaltrexone) for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science to August 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We contacted manufacturers of MOA to identify further data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness and safety of MOA for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease they experienced. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across the trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation, impact on pain relief, and adverse events. Impact on pain relief was a primary outcome because a possible adverse effect of MOAs is a reduction in pain relief from opioids. We assessed the evidence on these outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four new trials for this update, bringing the total number included in this review to eight. In total, 1022 men and women with cancer irrespective of stage or at a palliative care stage of any disease were randomised across the trials. The MOAs evaluated were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared with MOA with a placebo or with the active intervention administered at different doses or in combination with other drugs. The trial of naldemedine and the two of naloxone in combination with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. The four trials on methylnaltrexone were undertaken in palliative care where most participants had cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; four were at a high risk as they involved a sample of fewer than 50 participants per arm. In the trial of naldemedine compared to placebo in 225 participants, there were more spontaneous laxations over the two-week treatment for the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.36 to 2.74; moderate-quality evidence). In comparison with higher doses, lower doses resulted in fewer spontaneous laxations (0.1 mg versus 0.2 mg: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95; 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence). There was moderate-quality evidence that naldemedine had no effect on opiate withdrawal. There were five serious adverse events. All were in people taking naldemedine (low-quality evidence). There was an increase in the occurrence of other (non-serious) adverse events in the naldemedine groups (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79, moderate-quality evidence). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea. The trials on naloxone taken either on its own, or in combination with oxycodone (an opioid) compared to oxycodone only did not evaluate laxation response over the first two weeks of administration. There was very low-quality evidence that naloxone alone, and moderate-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone, had no effect on analgesia. There was low-quality evidence that oxycodone/naloxone did not increase the risk of serious adverse events and moderate-quality evidence that it did not increase risk of adverse events. In combined analysis of two trials of 287 participants, we found methylnaltrexone compared to placebo induced more laxations within 24 hours (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.91 to 4.04. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). In combined analysis, we found methylnaltrexone induced more laxation responses over two weeks (RR 9.98, 95% CI 4.96 to 20.09. I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants who had a rescue-free laxation response within 24 hours of the first dose was 59.1% in the methylnaltrexone arms and 19.1% in the placebo arm. There was moderate-quality evidence that the rate of opioid withdrawal was not affected. Methylnaltrexone did not increase the likelihood of a serious adverse event; there were fewer in the intervention arm (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in the proportion of participants experiencing an adverse event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45; I² = 74%; low-quality evidence). Methylnaltrexone increased the likelihood of abdominal pain and flatulence. Two trials compared differing methylnaltrexone schedules of higher doses with lower doses. For early laxation, there was low-quality evidence of no clear difference between doses on analgesia and adverse events. Both trials measured laxation response within 24 hours of first dose (trial one: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.66; trial two: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: In this update, the conclusions for naldemedine are new. There is moderate-quality evidence to suggest that, taken orally, naldemedine improves bowel function over two weeks in people with cancer and OIBD but increases the risk of adverse events. The conclusions on naloxone and methylnaltrexone have not changed. The trials on naloxone did not assess laxation at 24 hours or over two weeks. There is moderate-quality evidence that methylnaltrexone improves bowel function in people receiving palliative care in the short term and over two weeks, and low-quality evidence that it does not increase adverse events. There is a need for more trials including more evaluation of adverse events. None of the current trials evaluated effects in children