Resting in darkness improves downbeat nystagmus: evidence from an observational study.

Resting in an upright position during daytime decreases downbeat nystagmus (DBN). When measured in brightness only, that is, without intermitting exposure to darkness, it does not make a significant difference whether patients have previously rested in brightness or in darkness. In real-world scenarios, people are often exposed to brightness and darkness intermittently. The aim of this study was to analyze whether resting in brightness or resting in darkness was associated with a lower post-resting DBN after intermitting exposures to brightness and darkness. Eight patients were recorded with three-dimensional video-oculography in brightness and darkness conditions, each following two 2-h resting intervals under either brightness or darkness resting conditions. The dependent variable was DBN intensity, measured in mean slow phase velocity. A repeated measures ANOVA with the factors measurement condition (brightness vs. darkness), resting condition (brightness vs. darkness), and time (after first vs. second resting interval) showed a significant effect for the factor resting condition, where previous resting in darkness was associated with a significantly lower DBN relative to previous resting in brightness (P < 0.01). The clinical relevance is to advise patients with DBN to rest in darkness.

Preventing road injuries in children by applying feedback devices.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to determine how to prevent road injuries in schoolchildren by reducing the prevalence of speeding. METHODS: On a busy road in the neighborhood of a preschool and two secondary schools in Oberhaching (greater Munich, Germany), a board was mounted next to the road (visible to the drivers as well as the pedestrians). The board consisted of a picture of a smiling child. Underneath the picture, an LED display read "Thank you!" in green blinking letters when the speed limit was adhered to and "Slowly!" in red blinking letters when speeding was detected. The main outcome assessment was the number of drivers adhering to the speed limit in the experimental condition (i.e., facing the device) compared to the number in the control condition (on the same road within the same time period but traveling in the opposite direction; i.e., drivers not facing the device). RESULTS: In the control condition 27.6 percent (230) of drivers adhered to the speed limit compared to 41.1 percent (427) of drivers in the experimental condition, χ(2) = 36.1, P < .0001. Only 12 drivers exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 km per hour in the experimental condition, whereas 34 drivers did so in the control condition, χ(2) = 9.6, P < .01. DISCUSSION: The display is associated with a significantly lower percentage of speeding drivers but does not seem to be sufficient, because the majority of drivers still did not observe the speed limit in the presence of the display. Additional factors on how speed reduction can be achieved will be discussed in the light of future applications and possible modifications of the device.