Oscillatory Mechanisms of Preparing for Visual Distraction

Evidence shows that observers preactivate a target representation in preparation of a visual selection task. In this study, we addressed the question if and how preparing to ignore an anticipated distractor differs from preparing for an anticipated target. We measured EEG while participants memorized a laterally presented color, which was cued to be either a target or a distractor in two subsequent visual search tasks. Decoding the location of items in the search display from EOG channels revealed that, initially, the anticipated distractor attracted attention and could only be ignored later during the trial. This suggests that distractors could not be suppressed in advance but were represented in an active, attention-guiding format. Consistent with this, lateralized posterior alpha power did not dissociate between target and distractor templates during the delay periods, suggesting similar encoding and maintenance. However, distractor preparation did lead to relatively enhanced nonlateralized posterior alpha power, which appeared to gate sensory processing at search display onset to prevent attentional capture in general. Finally, anticipating distractors also led to enhanced midfrontal theta power during the delay period, a signal that was predictive of how strongly both target and distractor were represented in the search display. Together, our results speak against a distractor-specific advance inhibitory template, thus contrary to the preactivation of specific target templates. Rather, we demonstrate a general selection suppression mechanism, which serves to prevent initial involuntary capture by anticipated distracting input

Contact lens impact on quality of life in keratoconus patients:rigid gas permeable versus soft silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses

<b>AIM:</b>To determine the impact of rigid gas permeable (RGP) and silicone-hydrogel keratoconus lenses on the quality of life (QoL) in keratoconus (KCN) patients using the self-reported results from the Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire.<b>METHODS:</b>From January 2013 to April 2013, 27 consecutive KCN patients who wore RGP contact lenses (conflexair100 UV KE Zeiss-Wöhlk) or soft silicone-hydrogel contact lenses (SHCLs) for KCN (KeraSoft IC- Bausch&Lomb or Hydrocone Toris K–Swiss lens) completed the CLIQ questionnaire.<b>RESULTS:</b>The mean age of 27 patients was 29.6±8.0y. Fifteen patients were RGP user. The groups were comparable with respect to the mean patient age, sex, and mean K values (<i>P</i>=0.1, <i>P</i>=0.8 and <i>P</i>=0.1, respectively). The mean CLIQperson measure was 42.8±5.5 in RGP group and 39.6±5.5 in SHCLs for KCN group (<i>P</i>=0.06). CLIQperson measure was positively correlated with steep K value (<i>r</i>=0.301, <i>P</i>=0.04). When eyes were stratified by visual acuity with contact lenses, the mean CLIQperson measure was 42.01±5.6 in eyes with a visual acuity of 20/20-20/25 (<i>n</i>=44) and 38.4±5.26 in eyes with a visual acuity of 20/32 or less (<i>n</i>=10; <i>P</i>=0.097).<b>CONCLUSION:</b>RGP lenses and SHCLs for KCN have similar impact on QoL

Intravitreal dexamethasone implant results in the treatment of non-infectious uveitis

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intravitreal dexamethasone implant in non-infectious uveitic macular edema. Methods: Between April 2013 and February 2017, 27 eyes of 21 patients were included in the study at Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital. The files of patients who underwent intravitreal dexamethasone implantation for non-infectious uveitic macular edema and followed up at least 6 months were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were evaluated in terms of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before and at the 1st, 3rd, and 6th months after injection and the need for re-injection. Results: Twenty-seven eyes of 21 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 39.2±11.7 years. The mean monitoring time was 24.15±10.08 months. In patients who received single-dose intravitreal dexamethasone implant, the decrease in CMT measurements and improvement in BCVA measurements at 1, 3, and 6 months after injection compared to baseline was found to be statistically significant (p=0.001 for each). Recurrence was detected in 33.3% (n=9) of the cases during follow-up; in cases with recurrence, second implants were repeated after an average of 9.67±3.12 months. The third dexamethasone implantation was applied due to the second relapse of four cases from nine relapsing cases. Third implants were performed at an average of 12.50±4.79 months. During the follow-up period, the most common complications in our patients were cataract (37%) and increased intraocular pressure (40.7%). Conclusion: Intravitreal dexamethasone implantation is an effective and reliable treatment option in non-infectious uveitic macular edema. There was no difference between the first dose and re-implantations in terms of efficacy and safety