Visible and near-infrared bulk optical properties of raw milk.

The implementation of optical sensor technology to monitor the milk quality on dairy farms and milk processing plants would support the early detection of altering production processes. Basic visible and near-infrared spectroscopy is already widely used to measure the composition of agricultural and food products. However, to obtain maximal performance, the design of such optical sensors should be optimized with regard to the optical properties of the samples to be measured. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the visible and near-infrared bulk absorption coefficient, bulk scattering coefficient, and scattering anisotropy spectra for a diverse set of raw milk samples originating from individual cow milkings, representing the milk variability present on dairy farms. Accordingly, this database of bulk optical properties can be used in future simulation studies to efficiently optimize and validate the design of an optical milk quality sensor. In a next step of the current study, the relation between the obtained bulk optical properties and milk quality properties was analyzed in detail. The bulk absorption coefficient spectra were found to mainly contain information on the water, fat, and casein content, whereas the bulk scattering coefficient spectra were found to be primarily influenced by the quantity and the size of the fat globules. Moreover, a strong positive correlation (r ≥ 0.975) was found between the fat content in raw milk and the measured bulk scattering coefficients in the 1,300 to 1,400 nm wavelength range. Relative to the bulk scattering coefficient, the variability on the scattering anisotropy factor was found to be limited. This is because the milk scattering anisotropy is nearly independent of the fat globule and casein micelle quantity, while it is mainly determined by the size of the fat globules. As this study shows high correlations between the sample's bulk optical properties and the milk composition and fat globule size, a sensor that allows for robust separation between the absorption and scattering properties would enable accurate prediction of the raw milk quality parameters.

Alignment to natural and imposed mismatches between the senses.

Does the nervous system continuously realign the senses so that objects are seen and felt in the same place? Conflicting answers to this question have been given. Research imposing a sensory mismatch has provided evidence that the nervous system realigns the senses to reduce the mismatch. Other studies have shown that when subjects point with the unseen hand to visual targets, their end points show visual-proprioceptive biases that do not disappear after episodes of visual feedback. These biases are indicative of intersensory mismatches that the nervous system does not align for. Here, we directly compare how the nervous system deals with natural and imposed mismatches. Subjects moved a hand-held cube to virtual cubes appearing at pseudorandom locations in three-dimensional space. We alternated blocks in which subjects moved without visual feedback of the hand with feedback blocks in which we rendered a cube representing the hand-held cube. In feedback blocks, we rotated the visual feedback by 5° relative to the subject's head, creating an imposed mismatch between vision and proprioception on top of any natural mismatches. Realignment occurred quickly but was incomplete. We found more realignment to imposed mismatches than to natural mismatches. We propose that this difference is related to the way in which the visual information changed when subjects entered the experiment: the imposed mismatches were different from the mismatch in daily life, so alignment started from scratch, whereas the natural mismatches were not imposed by the experimenter, so subjects are likely to have entered the experiment partly aligned.

A randomised controlled trial of spinal manipulative therapy in acute low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) administered in addition to standard care is associated with clinically relevant early reductions in pain and analgesic consumption. METHODS: 104 patients with acute low back pain were randomly assigned to SMT in addition to standard care (n = 52) or standard care alone (n = 52). Standard care consisted of general advice and paracetamol, diclofenac or dihydrocodeine as required. Other analgesic drugs or non-pharmacological treatments were not allowed. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed on the 11-point box scale (BS-11) and analgesic use based on diclofenac equivalence doses during days 1-14. An extended follow-up was performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Pain reductions were similar in experimental and control groups, with the lower limit of the 95% CI excluding a relevant benefit of SMT (difference 0.5 on the BS-11, 95% CI -0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.13). Analgesic consumptions were also similar (difference -18 mg diclofenac equivalents, 95% CI -43 mg to 7 mg, p = 0.17), with small initial differences diminishing over time. There were no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes and stratified analyses provided no evidence for potential benefits of SMT in specific patient groups. The extended follow-up showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: SMT is unlikely to result in relevant early pain reduction in patients with acute low back pain.

Sensorimotor integration compensates for visual localization errors during smooth pursuit eye movements.

To localize a seen object, the CNS has to integrate the object's retinal location with the direction of gaze. Here we investigate this process by examining the localization of static objects during smooth pursuit eye movements. The normally experienced stability of the visual world during smooth pursuit suggests that the CNS essentially compensates for the eye movement when judging target locations. However, certain systematic localization errors are made, and we use these to study the process of sensorimotor integration. During an eye movement, a static object's image moves across the retina. Objects that produce retinal slip are known to be mislocalized: objects moving toward the fovea are seen too far on in their trajectory, whereas errors are much smaller for objects moving away from the fovea. These effects are usually studied by localizing the moving object relative to a briefly flashed one during fixation: moving objects are then mislocalized, but flashes are not. In our first experiment, we found that a similar differential mislocalization occurs for static objects relative to flashes during pursuit. This effect is not specific for horizontal pursuit but was also found in other directions. In a second experiment, we examined how this effect generalizes to positions outside the line of eye movement. We found that large localization errors were found in the entire hemifield ahead of the pursuit target and were predominantly aligned with the direction of eye movement. In a third experiment, we determined whether it is the flash or the static object that is mislocalized ahead of the pursuit target. In contrast to fixation conditions, we found that during pursuit it is the flash, not the static object, which is mislocalized. In a fourth experiment, we used egocentric localization to confirm this result. Our results suggest that the CNS compensates for the retinal localization errors to maintain position constancy for static objects during pursuit. This compensation is achieved in the process of sensorimotor integration of retinal and gaze signals: different retinal areas are integrated with different gaze signals to guarantee the stability of the visual world.

Localization of a seen finger is based exclusively on proprioception and on vision of the finger.

In a previous study we investigated how the CNS combines simultaneous visual and proprioceptive information about the position of the finger. We found that localization of the index finger of a seen hand was more precise (a smaller variance) than could reasonably be expected from the precision of localization on the basis of vision only and proprioception only. This suggests that, in localizing the tip of the index finger of a seen hand, the CNS may make use of more information than proprioceptive information and visual information about the fingertip. In the present study we investigate whether this additional information stems from additional sources of sensory information. In experiment 1 we tested whether seeing an entire arm instead of only the fingertip gives rise to a more precise proprioceptive and/or visual localization of that fingertip. In experiment 2 we checked whether the presence of a structured visual environment leads to a more precise proprioceptive localization of the index finger of an unseen hand. In experiment 3 we investigated whether looking in the direction of the index finger of an unseen hand improves proprioceptive localization of that finger. We found no significant effect in any of the experiments. The results refute the hypothesis that the investigated effects can explain the previously reported very precise localization of a seen hand. This suggests that localization of a seen finger is based exclusively on proprioception and on vision of the finger. The results suggest that these sensory signals may contain more information than is described by the magnitude of their variances.

Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: An experimentally supported model.

To localize one's hand, i.e., to find out its position with respect to the body, humans may use proprioceptive information or visual information or both. It is still not known how the CNS combines simultaneous proprioceptive and visual information. In this study, we investigate in what position in a horizontal plane a hand is localized on the basis of simultaneous proprioceptive and visual information and compare this to the positions in which it is localized on the basis of proprioception only and vision only. Seated at a table, subjects matched target positions on the table top with their unseen left hand under the table. The experiment consisted of three series. In each of these series, the target positions were presented in three conditions: by vision only, by proprioception only, or by both vision and proprioception. In one of the three series, the visual information was veridical. In the other two, it was modified by prisms that displaced the visual field to the left and to the right, respectively. The results show that the mean of the positions indicated in the condition with both vision and proprioception generally lies off the straight line through the means of the other two conditions. In most cases the mean lies on the side predicted by a model describing the integration of multisensory information. According to this model, the visual information and the proprioceptive information are weighted with direction-dependent weights, the weights being related to the direction-dependent precision of the information in such a way that the available information is used very efficiently. Because the proposed model also can explain the unexpectedly small sizes of the variable errors in the localization of a seen hand that were reported earlier, there is strong evidence to support this model. The results imply that the CNS has knowledge about the direction-dependent precision of the proprioceptive and visual information.

The precision of proprioceptive position sense.

The purpose of this study was to determine the precision of proprioceptive localization of the hand in humans. We derived spatial probability distributions which describe the precision of localization on the basis of three different sources of information: proprioceptive information about the left hand, proprioceptive information about the right hand, and visual information. In the experiment subjects were seated at a table and had to perform three different position-matching tasks. In each task, the position of a target and the position of an indicator were available in a different combination of two of these three sources of information. From the spatial distributions of indicated positions in these three conditions, we derived spatial probability distributions for proprioceptive localization of the two hands and for visual localization. For proprioception we found that localization in the radial direction with respect to the shoulder is more precise than localization in the azimuthal direction. The distributions for proprioceptive localization also suggest that hand positions closer to the shoulder are localized more precisely than positions further away. These patterns can be understood from the geometry of the arm. In addition, the variability in the indicated positions suggests that the shoulder and elbow angles are known to the central nervous system with a precision of 0.6-1.1 degrees. This is a considerably better precision than the values reported in studies on perception of these angles. This implies that joint angles, or quantities equivalent to them, are represented in the central nervous system more precisely than they are consciously perceived. For visual localization we found that localization in the azimuthal direction with respect to the cyclopean eye is more precise than localization in the radial direction. The precision of the perception of visual direction is of the order of 0.2-0.6 degrees.

How humans combine simultaneous proprioceptive and visual position information.

To enable us to study how humans combine simultaneously present visual and proprioceptive position information, we had subjects perform a matching task. Seated at a table, they placed their left hand under the table concealing it from their gaze. They then had to match the proprioceptively perceived position of the left hand using only proprioceptive, only visual or both proprioceptive and visual information. We analysed the variance of the indicated positions in the various conditions. We compared the results with the predictions of a model in which simultaneously present visual and proprioceptive position information about the same object is integrated in the most effective way. The results are in disagreement with the model: the variance of the condition with both visual and proprioceptive information is smaller than expected from the variances of the other conditions. This means that the available information was integrated in a highly effective way. Furthermore, the results suggest that additional information was used. This information might have been visual information about body parts other than the fingertip or it might have been visual information about the environment.