Texting while driving: is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?

Research indicates that using a cell phone to talk or text while maneuvering a vehicle impairs driving performance. However, few published studies directly compare the distracting effects of texting using a hands-free (i.e., speech-based interface) versus handheld cell phone, which is an important issue for legislation, automotive interface design and driving safety training. This study compared the effect of speech-based versus handheld text entries on simulated driving performance by asking participants to perform a car following task while controlling the duration of a secondary text-entry task. Results showed that both speech-based and handheld text entries impaired driving performance relative to the drive-only condition by causing more variation in speed and lane position. Handheld text entry also increased the brake response time and increased variation in headway distance. Text entry using a speech-based cell phone was less detrimental to driving performance than handheld text entry. Nevertheless, the speech-based text entry task still significantly impaired driving compared to the drive-only condition. These results suggest that speech-based text entry disrupts driving, but reduces the level of performance interference compared to text entry with a handheld device. In addition, the difference in the distraction effect caused by speech-based and handheld text entry is not simply due to the difference in task duration.

Role of hydrogen sulfide in the pain processing of non-diabetic and diabetic rats.

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a gasotransmitter endogenously generated from the metabolism of L-cysteine by action of two main enzymes called cystathionine ß-synthase (CBS) and cystathionine γ-lyase (CSE). This gas has been involved in the pain processing and insulin resistance produced during diabetes development. However, there is no evidence about its participation in the peripheral neuropathy induced by this metabolic disorder. Experimental diabetes was induced by streptozotocin (50mg/kg, i.p.) in female Wistar rats. Streptozotocin injection increased formalin-evoked flinching in diabetic rats as compared to non-diabetic rats after 2 weeks. Peripheral administration of NaHS (an exogenous donor of H2S) and L-cysteine (an endogenous donor of H2S) dose-dependently increased flinching behavior in diabetic and non-diabetic rats. Contrariwise, hydroxylamine (HA, a CBS inhibitor) and DL-propargylglycine (PPG, a CSE inhibitor) decreased formalin-induced nociceptive behavior in both experimental groups. In addition, an ineffective dose of HA and PPG partially prevented the L-cysteine-induced hyperalgesia in diabetic and non-diabetic rats. Interestingly, HA and PPG were three order of magnitude more potent in diabetic rats respect to non-diabetic rats, whereas NaHS was ten times more potent in the streptozotocin-diabetic group. Nine to 11 weeks after diabetes induction, tactile allodynia was observed in the streptozotocin-injected rats. On this condition, subcutaneous administration of PPG or HA reduced tactile allodynia in diabetic rats. Paradoxically, H2S levels were decreased in nerve sciatic, dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord, but not paw nor blood plasma, during diabetes-associated peripheral neuropathy development. Collectively, results suggest that H2S synthesized by CBS and CSE participate in formalin-induced nociception in diabetic and non-diabetic rats, as well as; in tactile allodynia in streptozotocin-injected rats. In addition, data seems to indicate that diabetic rats are more sensible to H2S-induced hyperalgesia than normoglycemic rats.

Secondary mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia depend on descending facilitation mediated by spinal 5-HT4, 5-HT6 and 5-HT7 receptors.

In the present study we determined the role of spinal 5-hydroxytriptamine (5-HT) and 5-HT(4/6/7) receptors in the long-term secondary mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia induced by formalin in the rat. Formalin produced acute nociceptive behaviors (flinching and licking/lifting) followed by long-term secondary mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia in both paws. In addition, formalin increased the tissue content of 5-HT in the ipsilateral, but not contralateral, dorsal part of the spinal cord compared to control animals. Intrathecal (i.t.) administration of 5,7-dihydroxytriptamine (5,7-DHT), a serotonergic neurotoxin, diminished tissue 5-HT content in the ipsilateral and contralateral dorsal parts of the spinal cord. Accordingly, i.t. 5,7-DHT prevented formalin-induced secondary allodynia and hyperalgesia in both paws. I.t. pre-treatment (-10 min) with ML-10302 (5-HT(4) agonist), EMD-386088 (5-HT(6) agonist) and LP-12 (5-HT(7) agonist) significantly increased secondary mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia in both paws. In contrast, i.t. pre-treatment (-20 min) with GR-125487 (5-HT(4) antagonist), SB-258585 (5-HT(6) antagonist) and SB-269970 (5-HT(7) antagonist) significantly prevented formalin-induced long-term effects in both paws. In addition, these antagonists prevented the pro-nociceptive effect of ML-10302, EMD-386088 and LP-12, respectively. The i.t. post-treatment (6 days after formalin injection) with GR-125487, SB-258585 and SB-269970 reversed formalin-induced secondary allodynia and hyperalgesia in both paws. These results suggest that spinal 5-HT, released from the serotonergic projections in response to formalin injection, activates pre- or post-synaptic 5-HT(4/6/7) receptors at the dorsal root ganglion/spinal cord promoting the development and maintenance of secondary allodynia and hyperalgesia.

The role of peripheral 5-HT1A, 5-HT1B, 5-HT1D, 5-HT1E and 5-HT1F serotonergic receptors in the reduction of nociception in rats.

This study assessed the possible antinociceptive role of peripheral 5-HT(1) receptor subtypes in the rat formalin test. Rats were injected into the dorsum of the hind paw with 50 microl of diluted formalin (1%). Nociceptive behavior was quantified as the number of flinches of the injected paw. Reduction of flinching was considered as antinociception. Ipsilateral, but not contralateral, peripheral administration of the 5-HT(1) receptor agonists R(+)-UH-301 (5-HT(1A); 0.1-3 microg/paw), CGS-12066A (5-HT(1B); 0.01-0.3 microg/paw), GR46611 (5-HT(1B/1D); 0.3-10 microg/paw), BRL54443 (5-HT(1E/1F); 3-300 microg/paw) or LY344864 (5-HT(1F); 3-300 microg/paw) significantly reduced formalin-induced flinching. The corresponding vehicle was devoid of any effect by itself. The local antinociceptive effect of R(+)-UH-301 (0.3 microg/paw) was significantly reduced by WAY-100635 (30-100 microg/paw; a 5-HT(1A) receptor antagonist). Moreover, the antagonists GR55562 (30-100 microg/paw; 5-HT(1B/D)) or SB224289 (30-100 microg/paw; 5-HT(1B)) dose-dependently reduced the antinociceptive effect of CGS-12066A (0.3 microg/paw) whereas GR55562 (30-100 microg/paw) or BRL15572 (30-100 microg/paw, 5-HT(1D)) reduced the antinociceptive effect of GR46611 (0.3 microg/paw). Interestingly, the effects of BRL54443 and LY344864 (300 microg/paw each) were partially reduced by methiothepin, but not by the highest doses of WAY-100635, SB224289 or BRL15572. The above antagonists did not produce any effect by themselves. These results suggest that peripheral activation of the 5-HT(1A,) 5-HT(1B), 5-HT(1D), 5-HT(1F) and, probably, 5-HT(1E) receptor subtypes leads to antinociception in the rat formalin test. Thus, the use of selective 5-HT(1) receptor agonists could be a therapeutic strategy to reduce inflammatory pain.

Effects of modular course training on mobility in older adults aged 79-90 years.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of an intervention programme utilizing modules specifically designed to challenge mobility in older adults. METHOD: Twelve older adults aged 79-90 years (84.3+/-3.2; mean+/-SD) living in a retirement community participated in a 10-week (3 sessions per week, 50 minutes per session) training programme. Performance on a modular course, comprised of nine stations representing common environmental conditions, provided information about dynamic balance and mobility before and after the intervention programme. Stations consisted of walking across carpet and foam pathways, walking up and down ramps and stairs, walking through a slalom course of eight plastic cones, and stepping over foam props. Performance on the mobility course was videotaped to determine the time to complete each station. The training intervention consisted of performing sections of the mobility course and standing on foam pads with the eyes open or closed. RESULTS: Using the Bonferroni-adjusted level of significance for multiple comparisons (p+/-0.005), paired sample t-tests indicated significant improvement for total time to complete the course (pre=100.9+/-40.5 s, post=79.6+/-40.3 s) and for all individual stations except stepping over props. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that an intervention programme utilizing functionally-oriented modules can improve mobility in older adults.