Search

Concepts for the nursing and care of cancer patients through a “navigation service” have attracted much interest. However, there is still room for improvement in terms of their funding and coverage. The Saxon Cancer Society designed a prospective, randomized, multicenter, longitudinal study with a view to determining the positive effects of a cancer patient navigator program. The objective of this ongoing study is to evaluate the impact of the cancer patient navigation program on cancer patients and cost bearers in Germany. The study population in this evaluation comprises cancer patients with gastric carcinoma, pancreatic carcinoma, colorectal cancer, melanoma or gynecological cancer who have been hospitalized at least once at one of the study centers as well as their relatives, outpatient and inpatient physicians, and cancer nurses. It is planned to randomize 340 cancer patients (stomach, colonic/rectal cancer, gynecological cancer, melanoma) at five centers to an intervention group (care by patient navigators based on standardized operating procedures) or a control group in a one-to-one ratio. The primary target parameter is the number of hospitalizations within the 12-month intervention period. The participants are asked to complete various questionnaires on patient-related outcomes at baseline and at 3 and 12 months (SF 36, HADS, PAM 13, and others). Data on drug therapy, utilization of health services, and medical expenses will also be analyzed. For the first time, the study will provide data on the effectiveness of a patient support program in cancer care in Germany from a randomized trial with a high level of evidence. The study has been registered under DRKS00013199 in the German Clinical Trials Register.

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a "nystagmus-suppression" hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.

Induced motion (IM) is illusory motion of a stationary test target opposite to the direction of the real motion of the inducing stimulus. We define egocentric IM as an apparent motion of the test target relative to the observer, and vection-entrained IM as an apparent motion of a stationary object along with an apparent motion of the self (vection) induced by the same stimulus. These two forms of IM are often confounded, and tests for distinguishing between them have not been devised. We have devised such tests. Our test for egocentric IM relies on evidence that this form of IM is due mainly to a misregistration of eye movements when optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) is inhibited, and on evidence that OKN is evoked only by stimuli in the plane of convergence. Our test for vection-entrained IM relies on evidence that vection is evoked only by the more distant of two superimposed inducing stimuli. Thus we found egocentric IM to be induced without vection or vection-entrained IM when subjects converged on a foreground moving display with a stationary display in the background, and vection-entrained IM to be induced without egocentric IM when subjects converged on a stationary-foreground display with a moving display in the background. The two types of IM were evoked in opposite directions at the same time when subjects converged on a foreground moving display while a background display moved in the opposite direction. The two forms of IM showed no signs of interaction, and we conclude that they rely on independent motion mechanisms that operate within distinct frames of reference. A control experiment suggested that the depth adjacency effect in IM is determined by the depth adjacency of the inducing stimulus to convergence, not just to the test target.

It has been reported that criterion-free estimates of the upper disparity limits for fusion of line targets are small enough to be accounted for by monocular vernier sensitivity. However, targets such as lines, which contain high spatial frequencies, may ensure small fusion limits, since fusion limits obtained with criterion-dependent methods for narrow-band targets, such as sinusoids or difference-of-Gaussian luminance profiles, are proportional to target spatial periods. Experiment 1 therefore explored whether criterion-free methods give fusion limits for narrow-band targets that can be accounted for by vernier sensitivity. Vertical fusion limits were estimated by a method that forced observers to discriminate a disparate sinusoidal grating from an immediately adjacent zero-disparity grating. Fusion limits were too large to be explained by monocular vernier thresholds obtained for the same targets. In addition, fusion limits were not affected by large changes in target contrast, whereas vernier thresholds increased as contrast was decreased. The results of Experiment 1 also argued against interocular suppression as the cause of single vision, since vernier offsets that were visible when viewed monocularly were invisible under binocular viewing conditions. In Experiment 2, manual adjustment of disparities yielded fusion limits little different from those obtained with the forced-choice method of Experiment 1, demonstrating that it is possible to design adjustment methods for assessing fusion limits that are as sensitive as forced-choice methods. In Experiment 3, large reductions in target contrast, which have the effect of decreasing disparity sensitivity, did not alter fusion limits, disconfirming the idea that fusion limits estimated with discriminative procedures represent disparity-detection thresholds. In Experiment 4, disparities were adjusted until a just noticeable difference in grating contrast appeared. These disparities were larger than fusion limits, indicating that fusion limits did not represent a change in apparent contrast arising from disparity limitations of binocular summation. Together, the four experiments support the existence of binocular fusion as a unique category of sensory performance, disconfirm several nonfusional explanations of single vision, and support the use of criterion-free as well as adjustment methods in measuring fusion limits.

Models of stereopsis generally assume that binocular correspondence is achieved through alignment of luminance edges in the two eyes. Yet the stimulus properties which constitute edge information for stereopsis have not been defined. Three experiments explored the nature of these stimulus properties. The first two experiments tested whether local luminance gradient and the relative phase of spatial components supply information about the position of edges which influences stereosensitivity. In Expt 1, stereothresholds were reduced with increased spatial frequency or contrast of sinusoidal luminance gratings, but no simple relationship between target luminance gradient and stereosensitivity was found. In Expt 2, stereothresholds were equivalent for targets having identical spatial frequency components, but differing in maximum luminance gradient and the relative spatial phase of their components. In addition, stereothresholds were lower for the target having the higher contrast in pairs of unequal-contrast targets having equal maximum luminance gradients. These results suggest that the properties of luminance gradient and relative spatial phase do not influence stereosensitivity independently of spatial frequency and contrast. Experiment 3 directly tested whether stereosensitivity depends on edge information whose disparity is detected independently at different spatial scales. Stereothresholds for IF + 5F compound targets were found to be equivalent to thresholds obtained separately with the more sensitive of the two components. Taken together with a compressive nonlinearity in the relationship between contrast and stereothreshold obtained by others (Halpern and Blake, 1989; Legge and Gu, 1989) and replicated in Expt 1, the results of Expt 3 indicate that, whatever the exact nature of the luminance discontinuity information utilized in disparity detection, it is processed independently at different spatial scales.

Motor performance in cats was evaluated by means of a beam-walking task after bilateral lesions were made in dorsal column nuclei (DCN) or medial lemniscus (ML) near its entrance to thalamus. Coordinated motor activity was not significantly impaired by ML lesions or by DCN lesions limited to the main nuclei, but was impaired by larger lesions to DCN that also involved the external cuneate nuclei.

Fixation of a stationary target during motion of background contours attenuates optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), while illusory induced motion (IM) of the fixated target occurs opposite the direction of contour motion. It is proposed that IM owes to a perceptually registered efferent signal for ocular pursuit which opposes an unregistered signal for OKN to achieve stable fixation. This proposal predicts parallel changes in the magnitudes of IM and optokinetic reflexes during and after optokinetic stimulation. Accordingly, leftward IM magnitude and rightward slow-phase velocity of optokinetic afternystagmus (OKAN) increased at similar rates across 90 and 160 sec of 60 deg/sec motion of background contours, and decayed at similar rates after stimulus termination. Both responses decayed more deeply following stimulation with, rather than without fixation. Neither retinal image motion nor vection can explain the IM obtained.

Induced motion (IM) of a fixation target and the location of the apparent straight ahead (ASA) were measured during and after 2 min of exposure to a moving contoured background. The magnitude of IM increased to an asymptotic level during the exposure period. Following termination of moving contours, illusory motion of the fixation target occurred first in the same direction and then in the direction opposite to that of previous IM. The change in location of ASA followed a similar time course, shifting first in the direction of background motion, reaching an asymptotic position during contour exposure, and then moving in the opposite direction after contour exposure. The similar time courses displayed by IM magnitude change and ASA position change suggest that these two phenomena may be related through a third, causal factor. The hypothesis that IM is caused by motion of ASA is disconfirmed, however, by the fact that IM persists while the ASA is nearly stationary at its asymptotic position.

In studies where it is reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced more by peripheral displays than by central displays, eccentricity may have been confounded with perceived relative distance and area. Experiments are reported in which the direction and magnitude of vection induced by a central display in the presence of a surround display were measured. The displays varied in relative distance and area and were presented in isolation, with one moving and one stationary display, or with both moving in opposite directions. A more distant display had more influence over vection than a near display. A central display induced vection if seen in isolation or through a ‘window’ in a stationary surrounding display. Motion of a more distant central display weakened vection induced by a nearer surrounding display moving the other way. When the two displays had the same area their effects almost cancelled. A moving central display nearer than a textured stationary surround produced vection in the same direction as the moving stimulus. This phenomenon is termed ‘contrast-motion vection’ because it is probably due to illusory motion of the surround induced by motion of the centre. Unequivocal statements about the dominance of an eccentric display over a central display cannot be made without considering the relative distances and sizes of the displays and the motion contrast between them.

Induced motion (IM) was measured as a function of the temporal frequency of inducer oscillation. IM magnitude decreased as frequency increased above .5 Hz. Increasing the amplitude of inducer motion, and thereby its velocity, did not influence the temporal frequency dependence of IM. This suggests that it is the duration of inducer motion, rather than its velocity, that is the critical stimulus feature in studies that report decreased IM with higher frequencies of inducer oscillation. In a separate experiment, the optokinetic nystagmus elicited by the inducing stimulus in the absence of a fixation target displayed frequency-response characteristics similar to those of IM. This finding supports the hypothesis that IM magnitude is proportional to the voluntary effort required to suppress reflexive eye movements while maintaining stable fixation.

Anisometropia produces interocular differences in contrast and spatial frequency. The influence of these two parameters on Panum's fusional limit (PFL) and stereoscopic depth thresholds was investigated with sinusoidal gratings and one-dimensional band-pass-limited targets. Vertical fusion limits were unaffected by large interocular differences in contrast (40-10%) at two spatial frequencies (0.8 and 1.6 cpd). However, when tested with a low spatial frequency (0.8 cpd), stereothresholds increased 150% with an interocular difference in contrast as small as 50-25%. Stereoacuity was reduced less by differential contrast when tested with higher spatial frequencies (3.2 cpd). When tested with low spatial frequencies the stereothreshold was elevated more by reducing the contrast of one image than by equal contrast reductions of both ocular images. Stereothresholds appear to be elevated by binocular suppression evoked by interocular differences in contrast. Vertical as well as horizontal fusion limits decreased with increasing interocular size difference. Horizontal fusion limits fell off more gradually with increasing size difference than did vertical fusion limits, particularly at higher spatial frequencies (2.4 cpd). Similarly, stereothresholds increased with increasing interocular size differences. Changes in the fusion limit and stereothreshold that occur with interocular size differences are predicted from positional disparities between edge features rather than from differences in spatial frequency.

Panum's binocular fusion limit has been shown to increase with the size of graded contrast targets ( Schor, Wood & Ogawa, 1984 ). This suggests the hypothesis that the fusion limit may be controlled by the maximum luminance gradients present in the stimuli. The luminance gradient is reciprocally related to image contrast, so the hypothesis predicts that the fusion limits should also decrease with increasing contrast. To investigate this luminance gradient hypothesis we designed stimuli in which the contrast and phase of the spatial frequency components could be varied independently of the luminance gradients. Disparity limits for fusion were unaffected by variations of as much as a log unit in contrast, luminance gradient or phase of the frequency components, disconfirming the luminance gradient hypothesis. Instead, fusion limits for various compound frequency targets were well predicted by the smallest fusion range for any spatial frequency component in the image that was above its contrast detection threshold.