Visual laterality in dolphins: importance of the familiarity of stimuli

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many studies of cerebral asymmetries in different species lead, on the one hand, to a better understanding of the functions of each cerebral hemisphere and, on the other hand, to develop an evolutionary history of hemispheric laterality. Our animal model is particularly interesting because of its original evolutionary path, i.e. return to aquatic life after a terrestrial phase. The rare reports concerning visual laterality of marine mammals investigated mainly discrimination processes. As dolphins are migrant species they are confronted to a changing environment. Being able to categorize new versus familiar objects would allow dolphins a rapid adaptation to novel environments. Visual laterality could be a prerequisite to this adaptability. To date, no study, to our knowledge, has analyzed the environmental factors that could influence their visual laterality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We investigated visual laterality expressed spontaneously at the water surface by a group of five common bottlenose dolphins (<it>Tursiops truncatus</it>) in response to various stimuli. The stimuli presented ranged from very familiar objects (known and manipulated previously) to familiar objects (known but never manipulated) to unfamiliar objects (unknown, never seen previously). At the group level, dolphins used their left eye to observe very familiar objects and their right eye to observe unfamiliar objects. However, eyes are used indifferently to observe familiar objects with intermediate valence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results suggest different visual cerebral processes based either on the global shape of well-known objects or on local details of unknown objects. Moreover, the manipulation of an object appears necessary for these dolphins to construct a global representation of an object enabling its immediate categorization for subsequent use. Our experimental results pointed out some cognitive capacities of dolphins which might be crucial for their wild life given their fission-fusion social system and migratory behaviour.</p

Safety and Tolerability of SRX246, a Vasopressin 1a Antagonist, in Irritable Huntington\u27s Disease Patients-A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

SRX246 is a vasopressin (AVP) 1a receptor antagonist that crosses the blood-brain barrier. It reduced impulsive aggression, fear, depression and anxiety in animal models, blocked the actions of intranasal AVP on aggression/fear circuits in an experimental medicine fMRI study and demonstrated excellent safety in Phase 1 multiple-ascending dose clinical trials. The present study was a 3-arm, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 12-week, dose escalation study of SRX246 in early symptomatic Huntington\u27s disease (HD) patients with irritability. Our goal was to determine whether SRX246 was safe and well tolerated in these HD patients given its potential use for the treatment of problematic neuropsychiatric symptoms. Participants were randomized to receive placebo or to escalate to 120 mg twice daily or 160 mg twice daily doses of SRX246. Assessments included standard safety tests, the Unified Huntington\u27s Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), and exploratory measures of problem behaviors. The groups had comparable demographics, features of HD and baseline irritability. Eighty-two out of 106 subjects randomized completed the trial on their assigned dose of drug. One-sided exact-method confidence interval tests were used to reject the null hypothesis of inferior tolerability or safety for each dose group vs. placebo. Apathy and suicidality were not affected by SRX246. Most adverse events in the active arms were considered unlikely to be related to SRX246. The compound was safe and well tolerated in HD patients and can be moved forward as a candidate to treat irritability and aggression

Religious Identity manuscript

data availabilit

JBI systematic review protocol of text/opinions on how to best collect race-based data in healthcare contexts

Introduction Racialized population groups have worse health outcomes across the world compared with non-racialized populations. Evidence suggests that collecting race-based data should be done to mitigate racism as a barrier to health equity, and to amplify community voices, promote transparency, accountability, and shared governance of data. However, limited evidence exists on the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare contexts. This systematic review aims to synthesize opinions and texts on the best practices for collecting race-based data in healthcare contexts.Methods and Analyses We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for synthesizing text and opinions. JBI is a global leader in evidence-based healthcare and provides guidelines for systematic reviews. The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished papers in English in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2023, as well as unpublished studies and grey literature of relevant government and research websites using Google and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement methodology for systematic reviews of text and opinion will be applied, including screening and appraisal of the evidence by two independent reviewers and data extraction using JBI’s Narrative, Opinion, Text, Assessment, Review Instrument. This JBI systematic review of opinion and text will address gaps in knowledge about the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare. Improvements in race-based data collection, may be related to structural policies that address racism in healthcare. Community participation may also be used to increase knowledge about collecting race-based data.Ethics and dissemination The systematic review does not involve human subjects. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication in JBI evidence synthesis, conferences and media.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022368270