Direct evidence for encoding of motion streaks in human visual cortex

Temporal integration in the visual system causes fast-moving objects to generate static, oriented traces ('motion streaks'), which could be used to help judge direction of motion. While human psychophysics and single-unit studies in non-human primates are consistent with this hypothesis, direct neural evidence from the human cortex is still lacking. First, we provide psychophysical evidence that faster and slower motions are processed by distinct neural mechanisms: faster motion raised human perceptual thresholds for static orientations parallel to the direction of motion, whereas slower motion raised thresholds for orthogonal orientations. We then used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activity while human observers viewed either fast ('streaky') or slow random dot stimuli moving in different directions, or corresponding static-oriented stimuli. We found that local spatial patterns of brain activity in early retinotopic visual cortex reliably distinguished between static orientations. Critically, a multivariate pattern classifier trained on brain activity evoked by these static stimuli could then successfully distinguish the direction of fast ('streaky') but not slow motion. Thus, signals encoding static-oriented streak information are present in human early visual cortex when viewing fast motion. These experiments show that motion streaks are present in the human visual system for faster motion.This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (G.R., D.S.S.), the European Union ‘Mindbridge’ project (B.B.), the Australian Federation of Graduate Women Tempe Mann Scholarship (D.A.), the University of Sydney Campbell Perry Travel Fellowship (D.A.) and the Brain Research Trust (C.K.)

Temporal Integration of Movement: The Time-Course of Motion Streaks Revealed by Masking

Temporal integration in the visual system causes fast-moving objects to leave oriented ‘motion streaks’ in their wake, which could be used to facilitate motion direction perception. Temporal integration is thought to occur over 100 ms in early cortex, although this has never been tested for motion streaks. Here we compare the ability of fast-moving (‘streaky’) and slow-moving fields of dots to mask briefly flashed gratings either parallel or orthogonal to the motion trajectory. Gratings were presented at various asynchronies relative to motion onset (from to ms) to sample the time-course of the accumulating streaks. Predictions were that masking would be strongest for the fast parallel condition, and would be weak at early asynchronies and strengthen over time as integration rendered the translating dots more streaky and grating-like. The asynchrony where the masking function reached a plateau would correspond to the temporal integration period. As expected, fast-moving dots caused greater masking of parallel gratings than orthogonal gratings, and slow motion produced only modest masking of either grating orientation. Masking strength in the fast, parallel condition increased with time and reached a plateau after 77 ms, providing an estimate of the temporal integration period for mechanisms encoding motion streaks. Interestingly, the greater masking by fast motion of parallel compared with orthogonal gratings first reached significance at 48 ms before motion onset, indicating an effect of backward masking by motion streaks

Disturbances of postural sway components in cannabis users

Introduction A prominent effect of acute cannabis use is impaired motor coordination and driving performance. However, few studies have evaluated balance in chronic cannabis users, even though density of the CB1 receptor, which mediates the psychoactive effects of cannabis, is extremely high in brain regions critically involved in this fundamental behavior. The present study measured postural sway in regular cannabis users and used rambling and trembling analysis to quantify the integrity of central and peripheral nervous system contributions to the sway signal. Methods Postural sway was measured in 42 regular cannabis users (CB group) and 36 non-cannabis users (N-CB group) by asking participants to stand as still as possible on a force platform in the presence and absence of motor and sensory challenges. Center of pressure (COP) path length was measured, and the COP signal was decomposed into rambling and trembling components. Exploratory correlational analyses were conducted between sway variables, cannabis use history, and neurocognitive function. Results The CB group had significantly increased path length and increased trembling in the anterior-posterior (AP) direction. Exploratory correlational analyses suggested that AP rambling was significantly inversely associated with visuo-motor processing speed. Discussion Regular cannabis use is associated with increased postural sway, and this appears to be predominantly due to the trembling component, which is believed to reflect the peripheral nervous system’s contribution to the sway signal

Tilt aftereffect following adaptation to translational Glass patterns

Glass patterns (GPs) consist of randomly distributed dot pairs (dipoles) whose orientations are determined by specific geometric transforms. We assessed whether adaptation to stationary oriented translational GPs suppresses the activity of orientation selective detectors producing a tilt aftereffect (TAE). The results showed that adaptation to GPs produces a TAE similar to that reported in previous studies, though reduced in amplitude. This suggests the involvement of orientation selective mechanisms. We also measured the interocular transfer (IOT) of the GP-induced TAE and found an almost complete IOT, indicating the involvement of orientation selective and binocularly driven units. In additional experiments, we assessed the role of attention in TAE from GPs. The results showed that distraction during adaptation similarly modulates the TAE after adapting to both GPs and gratings. Moreover, in the case of GPs, distraction is likely to interfere with the adaptation process rather than with the spatial summation of local dipoles. We conclude that TAE from GPs possibly relies on visual processing levels in which the global orientation of GPs has been encoded by neurons that are mostly binocularly driven, orientation selective and whose adaptation-related neural activity is strongly modulated by attention

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. FINDINGS: At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [50·7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49·3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16·6%; 95% CI 14·8-18·5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the pre-vaccination phase (191 [19·1%; 95% CI 16·4-22·0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16·8%; 13·8-20·3] of 653 patients, p=0·24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6·2%; 3·5-10·2] of 256 patients, p<0·0001). In the alpha-delta phase, 84 (18·3%; 95% CI 14·6-22·7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9·4%; 1·9-27·3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7·4%; 95% CI 3·5-13·5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9·8%; 5·8-15·5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [18·5%; 16·5-20·9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0·0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4·4%; 1·6-9·6], 11 [6·0%; 3·0-10·7] vs 148 [9·9%; 8·4-11·6], p=0·030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2·2%; 0·1-6·4], ten [5·4%; 2·6-10·0] vs 115 [7·7%; 6·3-9·3], p=0·037). INTERPRETATION: Unvaccinated patients with cancer remain highly vulnerable to COVID-19 sequelae irrespective of viral strain. This study confirms the role of previous SARS-CoV-2 immunisation as an effective measure to protect patients from COVID-19 sequelae, disruption of therapy, and ensuing mortality. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust

Outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant outbreak among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer in Europe: results from the retrospective, multicentre, OnCovid registry study

BACKGROUND: The omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible and escapes vaccine-induced immunity. We aimed to describe outcomes due to COVID-19 during the omicron outbreak compared with the prevaccination period and alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) waves in patients with cancer in Europe. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of the multicentre OnCovid Registry study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, who had a history of solid or haematological malignancy that was either active or in remission. Patient were recruited from 37 oncology centres from UK, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany. Participants were followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death or loss to follow-up, while being treated as per standard of care. For this analysis, we excluded data from centres that did not actively enter new data after March 1, 2021 (in France, Germany, and Belgium). We compared measures of COVID-19 morbidity, which were complications from COVID-19, hospitalisation due to COVID-19, and requirement of supplemental oxygen and COVID-19-specific therapies, and COVID-19 mortality across three time periods designated as the prevaccination (Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020), alpha-delta (Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021), and omicron (Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) phases. We assessed all-cause case-fatality rates at 14 days and 28 days after diagnosis of COVID-19 overall and in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated patients and in those who received a booster dose, after adjusting for country of origin, sex, age, comorbidities, tumour type, stage, and status, and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: As of Feb 4, 2022 (database lock), the registry included 3820 patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between Feb 27, 2020, and Jan 31, 2022. 3473 patients were eligible for inclusion (1640 [47·4%] were women and 1822 [52·6%] were men, with a median age of 68 years [IQR 57–77]). 2033 (58·5%) of 3473 were diagnosed during the prevaccination phase, 1075 (31·0%) during the alpha-delta phase, and 365 (10·5%) during the omicron phase. Among patients diagnosed during the omicron phase, 113 (33·3%) of 339 were fully vaccinated and 165 (48·7%) were boosted, whereas among those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase, 152 (16·6%) of 915 were fully vaccinated and 21 (2·3%) were boosted. Compared with patients diagnosed during the prevaccination period, those who were diagnosed during the omicron phase had lower case-fatality rates at 14 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·19–0·61) and 28 days (0·34 [0·16–0·79]), complications due to COVID-19 (0·26 [0·17–0·46]), and hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (0·17 [0·09–0·32]), and had less requirements for COVID-19-specific therapy (0·22 [0·15–0·34]) and oxygen therapy (0·24 [0·14–0·43]) than did those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. Unvaccinated patients diagnosed during the omicron phase had similar crude case-fatality rates at 14 days (ten [25%] of 40 patients vs 114 [17%] of 656) and at 28 days (11 [27%] of 40 vs 184 [28%] of 656) and similar rates of hospitalisation due to COVID-19 (18 [43%] of 42 vs 266 [41%] of 652) and complications from COVID-19 (13 [31%] of 42 vs 237 [36%] of 659) as those diagnosed during the alpha-delta phase. INTERPRETATION: Despite time-dependent improvements in outcomes reported in the omicron phase compared with the earlier phases of the pandemic, patients with cancer remain highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 if they are not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support universal vaccination of patients with cancer as a protective measure against morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust

Publication bias, the File Drawer Problem, and how innovative publication models can help

One of the topics that has come up frequently in the discussions on open science has been the filedrawer problem , otherwise known as publication bias (Rosenthal, 1979 Psychological Bulletin 86(3), 638-641). Traditional publishing practices have tended to favour positive results that reject the null hypothesis, leading some researchers to suggest that, in the extreme case, most published results are false (Ioannidis, 2005 PLoS Medicine 2(8), e124). What does this mean for vision science, and how can an open science framework help address this problem? I will suggest that innovative publishing initiatives such as PsychFileDrawer.org and the Reproducibility Project can harness the new technologies available to researchers to encourage replication of important published research. In addition, new publication models could use methods similar to the registration of all clinical trials in medicine (eg initial peer review of only the Introduction and Methods) to help lessen or abolish publication bias