You Can’t Think and Hit at the Same Time: Neural Correlates of Baseball Pitch Classification

Hitting a baseball is often described as the most difficult thing to do in sports. A key aptitude of a good hitter is the ability to determine which pitch is coming. This rapid decision requires the batter to make a judgment in a fraction of a second based largely on the trajectory and spin of the ball. When does this decision occur relative to the ball’s trajectory and is it possible to identify neural correlates that represent how the decision evolves over a split second? Using single-trial analysis of electroencephalography (EEG) we address this question within the context of subjects discriminating three types of pitches (fastball, curveball, slider) based on pitch trajectories. We find clear neural signatures of pitch classification and, using signal detection theory, we identify the times of discrimination on a trial-to-trial basis. Based on these neural signatures we estimate neural discrimination distributions as a function of the distance the ball is from the plate. We find all three pitches yield unique distributions, namely the timing of the discriminating neural signatures relative to the position of the ball in its trajectory. For instance, fastballs are discriminated at the earliest points in their trajectory, relative to the two other pitches, which is consistent with the need for some constant time to generate and execute the motor plan for the swing (or inhibition of the swing). We also find incorrect discrimination of a pitch (errors) yields neural sources in Brodmann Area 10, which has been implicated in prospective memory, recall, and task difficulty. In summary, we show that single-trial analysis of EEG yields informative distributions of the relative point in a baseball’s trajectory when the batter makes a decision on which pitch is coming

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Experience Does Not Equal Expertise in Recognizing Infrequent Incoming Gunfire: Neural Markers for Experience and Task Expertise at Peak Behavioral Performance

<div><p>For a soldier, decisions to use force can happen rapidly and sometimes lead to undesired consequences. In many of these situations, there is a rapid assessment by the shooter that recognizes a threat and responds to it with return fire. But the neural processes underlying these rapid decisions are largely unknown, especially amongst those with extensive weapons experience and expertise. In this paper, we investigate differences in weapons experts and non-experts during an incoming gunfire detection task. Specifically, we analyzed the electroencephalography (EEG) of eleven expert marksmen/soldiers and eleven non-experts while they listened to an audio scene consisting of a sequence of incoming and non-incoming gunfire events. Subjects were tasked with identifying each event as quickly as possible and committing their choice via a motor response. Contrary to our hypothesis, experts did not have significantly better behavioral performance or faster response time than novices. Rather, novices indicated trends of better behavioral performance than experts. These group differences were more dramatic in the EEG correlates of incoming gunfire detection. Using machine learning, we found condition-discriminating EEG activity among novices showing greater magnitude and covering longer periods than those found in experts. We also compared group-level source reconstruction on the maximum discriminating neural correlates and found that each group uses different neural structures to perform the task. From condition-discriminating EEG and source localization, we found that experts perceive more categorical overlap between incoming and non-incoming gunfire. Consequently, the experts did not perform as well behaviorally as the novices. We explain these unexpected group differences as a consequence of experience with gunfire not being equivalent to expertise in recognizing incoming gunfire.</p></div

Mean normalized forward models.

<p>(A and B) Expert and (C and D) novice forward models for stimulus-locked (SL) and response-locked (RL) windows of maximum A_z are shown. More positive values indicate higher correlation of y with X of target correct (TC) trials, while more negative values indicate higher correlation of y with X of standard correct (SC) trials.</p

Group-level ERP analysis.

<p>The group-level mean target ERPs for three central electrodes (AFz, Cz and Pz) are shown with experts in blue and novices in red. The inset shows grand average difference ERPs for each group, with experts in the right column and novices in the left.</p

Schematic of the simulated small arms fire localization task.

<p>θ denotes the angle of incidence between the subject (S) and the firing event as conveyed by audio recording [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115629#pone.0115629.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>]. <b>Firing events from θ = 0° were labeled “friendly” (F) and θ = 90° were labeled “enemy” (E). Subjects were instructed to identify the angle of incidence of the firing event from these two possible choices as quickly as possible.</b></p

Summary of group behavioral performance metrics.

<p>Accuracy: Mean±SE</p><p>Response time: Mean±SEM</p><p>Summary of group behavioral performance metrics.</p

Source localization group-level comparison at maximum Az for standard correct (SC) trials.

<p>Source activity is shown for experts > novices at a corrected threshold of p < 0.05.</p

Source localization comparisons at maximum Az for experts and novices.

<p>All source activity is shown for TC > SC at a corrected threshold of p < = 0.01. Maximum Az classifiers were found in both stimulus-locked and response-locked epochs for all subjects.</p