6 research outputs found

    Contrast

    Full text link
    This thesis engages the contrast phenomenon in its various manifestations across the different sense modalities in order to assess the plausibility of contrast as a general perceptual principle. There is some question as to whether contrast may spill over into modalities it is not commonly associated with. In particular, a number of researchers have argued that contrast occurs in audition and has similarities to the brightness contrast illusion in visual perception. For example, studies of noise pitch have noted similar psychophysical properties to brightness contrast and invoked the same underlying neural mechanism. Furthermore, there is some suggestion that contrast may come in a non-simultaneous form characterised by perceptual exaggerations arising from the contrasting spectral content of successive auditory stimuli. The speech perception literature on context effects are engaged as it is in this domain that there is some evidence for non-simultaneous contrast. A study was conducted in which 34 subjects were presented synthesized tokens of "da" and "ga" diotically and dichotically following the precursors "al" and "ar". Significantly more "da" identifications were observed (F=62.85, p=.000) following "ar" precursors when stimuli were presented diotically, whereas no significant effects were observed in identifications of the target for different precursors (F=.553, p=.457) when targets were presented to the ear contralateral to that of the precursor. Results fail to support an explanation of the context effect in the form of a causal mechanism with a central locus. Rather, the locus of the context effect can only be hypothesized to occur at the periphery of the nervous system. This suggests that auditory contrast may be a plausible explanation for the context effect, and which if correct, may be a universal phenomenon common to all people regardless of environment and acquired knowledge. Given these results, contrast is explored more broadly. As generic use of the term is often encountered in musical contexts, aspects of music perception relating to contrast are examined. Some theoretical ideas are put forward in this capacity, focusing on an interactive neural network approach to understanding hypothetical structural contrasts, including tonal contrasts. The thesis closes with a consideration of contrast-like effects that may be of some relevance towards understanding contrast more generally

    Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

    Get PDF
    Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

    Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

    Get PDF
    Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

    The experimental aesthetics of musical taste: the LeBlanc model, arousal, complexity, and prototypicality

    Full text link
    This thesis is a review of some of the published literature on the determinants of music preference, and an exploration of the nature of music preference among a sample of university students in Sydney, Australia. The review initially gives the reader a picture of a cross-section of the literature, followed by a focus on complexity as the single most important determinant of music preference. It is concluded that although complexity may be a relevant factor in shaping preferences, considered alone, it is most likely a minor issue. A range of other factors is also responsible for shaping our musical tastes. The empirical research is an exploratory study on the effects of training, age, and gender on patterns of preference for styles of music. Patterns of preference for 12 styles of music were examined, and the effects of gender, age, and training investigated. Subjects responded by indicating their preference on a ten-point rating scale, and information on gender, training, and age was collected. Analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for training and style. In addition, the style by training, style by age, and style by age and training interactions were all significant. Results broadly support findings in the mainstream literature regarding the effects of age and training on preference; however, the lack of effect of gender does not correspond to the popular perception regarding the importance of gender influences

    Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

    Get PDF
    Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

    Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

    Get PDF
    Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research
    corecore