Visuospatial Integration: Paleoanthropological and Archaeological Perspectives

The visuospatial system integrates inner and outer functional processes, organizing spatial, temporal, and social interactions between the brain, body, and environment. These processes involve sensorimotor networks like the eye–hand circuit, which is especially important to primates, given their reliance on vision and touch as primary sensory modalities and the use of the hands in social and environmental interactions. At the same time, visuospatial cognition is intimately connected with memory, self-awareness, and simulation capacity. In the present article, we review issues associated with investigating visuospatial integration in extinct human groups through the use of anatomical and behavioral data gleaned from the paleontological and archaeological records. In modern humans, paleoneurological analyses have demonstrated noticeable and unique morphological changes in the parietal cortex, a region crucial to visuospatial management. Archaeological data provides information on hand–tool interaction, the spatial behavior of past populations, and their interaction with the environment. Visuospatial integration may represent a critical bridge between extended cognition, self-awareness, and social perception. As such, visuospatial functions are relevant to the hypothesis that human evolution is characterized by changes in brain–body–environment interactions and relations, which enhance integration between internal and external cognitive components through neural plasticity and the development of a specialized embodiment capacity. We therefore advocate the investigation of visuospatial functions in past populations through the paleoneurological study of anatomical elements and archaeological analysis of visuospatial behaviors

Chromosome evolution in the subtribe Bovina (Mammalia, Bovidae): the karyotype of the Cambodian banteng (Bos javanicus birmanicus) suggests that Robertsonian translocations are related to interspecific hybridization

Three subspecies of banteng (Bos javanicus) have been described: B. j. javanicus in Java, B. j. lowi in Borneo, and B. j. birmanicus in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. In this paper we provide the first description of the karyotype of the Cambodian banteng. The chromosomal complement of B. j. birmanicus differs from that of B. j. javanicus, which was previously found to be similar to that of cattle, Bos taurus (2n = 60). The Cambodian banteng karyotype has a diploid number of 2n = 56 (FN = 62) and the karyotype consists of 26 pairs of acrocentric chromosomes and two pairs of submetacentric chromosomes. Comparisons with other species of the subtribe Bovina show that the two pairs of bi-armed chromosomes resulted from two centric fusions involving the equivalent of cattle chromosomes 1 and 29, and 2 and 28, respectively. Cross-species fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) with B. taurus whole chromosome paints and satellite DNA I probes was used to identify the chromosomes involved in the translocations, and their orientation. We suggest that Robertsonian translocations (1;29) and (2;28) have been fixed in the common ancestor of Cambodian banteng as a consequence of hybridization with the kouprey (Bos sauveli) during the Pleistocene epoch

Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature - Part 1. Effects of study characteristics on probability of success

AIMS: The aims of this study were (i) to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on the outcome of primary (initial or first time) root canal treatment; (ii) to investigate the influence of some study characteristics on the estimated pooled success rates. METHODOLOGY: Longitudinal clinical studies investigating outcome of primary root canal treatment, published up to the end of 2002, were identified electronically (MEDLINE and Cochrane database 1966-2002 December, week 4). Four journals (International Endodontic Journal, Journal of Endodontics, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Endodontics Radiology and Dental Traumatology & Endodontics), bibliographies of all relevant papers and review articles were hand-searched. Three reviewers (Y-LN, SR and KG) independently assessed, selected the studies based on specified inclusion criteria, and extracted the data onto a pre-designed proforma. The study inclusion criteria were: longitudinal clinical studies investigating root canal treatment outcome; only primary root canal treatment carried out on the teeth studied; sample size given; at least 6-month postoperative review; success based on clinical and/or radiographic criteria (strict, absence of apical radiolucency; loose, reduction in size of radiolucency); overall success rate given or could be calculated from the raw data. The findings by individual study were summarized and the pooled success rates by each potential influencing factor were calculated for this part of the study. RESULTS: Of the 119 articles identified, 63 studies published from 1922 to 2002, fulfilling the inclusion criteria were selected for the review: six were randomized trials, seven were cohort studies and 48 were retrospective studies. The reported mean success rates ranged from 31% to 96% based on strict criteria or from 60% to 100% based on loose criteria, with substantial heterogeneity in the estimates of pooled success rates. Apart from the radiographic criteria of success, none of the other study characteristics could explain this heterogeneity. Twenty-four factors (patient and operative) had been investigated in various combinations in the studies reviewed. The influence of preoperative pulpal and periapical status of the teeth on treatment outcome were most frequently explored, but the influence of treatment technique was poorly investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated weighted pooled success rates of treatments completed at least 1 year prior to review, ranged between 68% and 85% when strict criteria were used. The reported success rates had not improved over the last four (or five) decades. The quality of evidence for treatment factors affecting primary root canal treatment outcome is sub-optimal; there was substantial variation in the study-designs. It would be desirable to standardize aspects of study-design, data recording and presentation format of outcome data in the much needed future outcome studies