Using eye tracking to advance learning processes

Eye movements and eye tracking are a part of imaging science that serves as a gateway to further understand cognitive processes. Human vision allows people to perceive a full visual field with the illusion of a high-resolution scene. However, the anisotropic retina only provides a small area called the fovea for high-resolution perception, while the majority of the visual field provides only low-resolution perception. Eye movements detected by the eye tracker are mostly executed to locate objects of one\u27s attention on the fovea, in order to gain detailed information. These movements are meant to move the eye or stabilize the image on the retina. The experiment was created to discover if eye movements are a reliable metric for learning and a useful tool to increase the speed of learning. Several subjects\u27 eye movements were recorded as they learned to play a brainteaser game that utilizes visuomotor skills. Subjects observed the game, made decisions as to where to move game pieces, and then executed those decisions. The eye tracking system utilized information from the subject\u27s eye and correlated it with a scene image to determine what region of the scene the subject is foveating, or looking, at. On the assumption that cognitive attention is directly related to where people look, subjects\u27 thinking patterns, or strategies, were explored. The theory that with effective feedback one\u27s rate of learning tends to increase was also explored. Eye movement patterns correlating to exploring the game board, planning moves, and guiding hand movements were found and used to evaluate subjects with respect to solving time. Unskilled subjects tended to decrease solving time with feedback, and skilled subjects remained at the same general level as they had little room to improve. Overall, the experiment found that eye movements may be a reliable metric for learning and may be useful feedback for learners, with the reservation that more experiments need to be completed for confirmation and further exploration

Portable Eyetracking: A Study of Natural Eye Movements

Visual perception, operating below conscious awareness, effortlessly provides the experience of a rich representation of the environment, continuous in space and time. Conscious visual perception is made possible by the \u27foveal compromise,\u27 the combination of the high-acuity fovea and a sophisticated suite of eye movements. Our illusory visual experience cannot be understood by introspection, but monitoring eye movements lets us probe the processes of visual perception. Four tasks representing a wide range of complexity were used to explore visual perception; image quality judgments, map reading, model building, and hand-washing. Very short fixation durations were observed in all tasks, some as short as 33 msec. While some tasks showed little variation in eye movement metrics, differences in eye movement patterns and high-level strategies were observed in the model building and hand-washing tasks. Performance in the hand-washing task revealed a new type of eye movement. \u27Planful\u27 eye movements were made to objects well in advance of a subject\u27s interaction with the object. Often occurring in the middle of another task, they provide \u27overlapping\u27 temporal information about the environment providing a mechanism to produce our conscious visual experience

The Stage-Specific Plasticity of Descending Modulatory Controls in a Rodent Model of Cancer-Induced Bone Pain

Pain resulting from metastatic bone disease is a major unmet clinical need. Studying spinal processing in rodent models of cancer pain is desirable since the percept of pain is influenced in part by modulation at the level of the transmission system in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord. Here, a rodent model of cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) was generated following syngeneic rat mammary gland adenocarcinoma cell injection in the tibia of male Sprague Dawley rats. Disease progression was classified as “early” or “late” stage according to bone destruction. Even though wakeful CIBP rats showed progressive mechanical hypersensitivity, subsequent in vivo electrophysiological measurement of mechanically evoked deep dorsal horn spinal neuronal responses revealed no change. Rather, a dynamic reorganization of spinal neuronal modulation by descending controls was observed, and this was maladaptive only in the early stage of CIBP. Interestingly, this latter observation corresponded with the degree of damage to the primary afferents innervating the cancerous tissue. Plasticity in the modulation of spinal neuronal activity by descending control pathways reveals a novel opportunity for targeting CIBP in a stage-specific manner. Finally, the data herein have translational potential since the descending control pathways measured are present also in humans

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field