Comparing Forgetting Rates Between Pattern Separation and Item Recognition

Recent theories of forgetting posit that hippocampally-based memory representations are more prone to be forgotten due to decay, while extra-hippocampal representations are more likely to be forgotten due to interference (Hardt, Nader, & Nadel, 2013; Sadeh & Pertzov, 2020). The current study examined this hypothesis by comparing the rate of forgetting between pattern separation, a hippocampally-based process, and item recognition, a process that is reliant on both hippocampal and extra-hippocampal structures. It was hypothesized that pattern separation would display more forgetting due to decay because it is a hippocampally-based process, while item recognition would display more forgetting due to interference since its processes are extra-hippocampally-dependent. Participants were tested over five consecutive days using the Mnemonic Similarity Task (Stark & Kirwan, 2019), an object recognition task that yields estimates of pattern separation and item recognition. Additionally, Wickelgren’s model (1975) was fit to the data to estimate forgetting rate due to decay and interference. Results indicate that pattern separation showed more forgetting due to decay, while item recognition showed more forgetting due to interference, supporting the current hypothesis. At the group level, Wickelgren’s model was able to fit the observed data and predicted future forgetting quite well. Importantly, the current study adds to the growing body of literature on forgetting and can be used to clarify mixed findings within the literature

The Role of Interference in Short-Term Forgetting

Two explanations have been proposed to explain forgetting: decay (forgetting occurs as a function of time) and interference (mental activity can impinge on the consolidation of a recently acquired memory). Wickelgren (1974) proposed a model of forgetting which suggests that forgetting is a function of both decay and interference, best expressed as a power-exponential function. The present research will be the first to directly examine whether Wickelgren\u27s model accurately predicts the observed effects of these two components on forgetting. This research will further the study of human memory by improving current models, and helping to resolve the debate surrounding decay and interference.https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/durep_posters/1098/thumbnail.jp

Flight Crew Alertness and Sleep Relative to Timing of In-Flight Rest Periods in Long-Haul Flights

BACKGROUND: In-flight breaks are used during augmented long-haul flight operations, allowing pilots a sleep opportunity. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration duty and rest regulations restrict the pilot flying the landing to using the third rest break. It is unclear how effective these restrictions are on pilots’ ability to obtain sleep. We hypothesized there would be no difference in self-reported sleep, alertness, and fatigue between pilots taking the second vs. third rest breaks. METHODS: Pilots flying augmented operations in two U.S.-based commercial airlines were eligible for the study. Volunteers completed a survey at top-of-descent (TOD), including self-reported in-flight sleep duration, and Samn-Perelli fatigue and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale ratings. We compared the second to third rest break using noninferiority analysis. The influence of time of day (home-base time; HBT) was evaluated in 4-h blocks using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: From 787 flights 500 pilots provided complete data. The second rest break was noninferior to the third break for self-reported sleep duration (1.5 6 0.7 h vs. 1.4 6 0.7 h), fatigue (2.0 6 1.0 vs. 2.9 6 1.3), and sleepiness (2.6 6 1.4 vs. 3.8 6 1.8) at TOD for landing pilots. Measures of sleep duration, fatigue, and sleepiness were influenced by HBT circadian time of day. DISCUSSION: We conclude that self-reported in-flight sleep, fatigue, and sleepiness from landing pilots taking the second in-flight rest break are equivalent to or better than pilots taking the third break. Our findings support providing pilots with choice in taking the second or third in-flight rest break during augmented operations

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p<0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status