Development and Validation of a Novel Mobility Test for Rod-Cone Dystrophies: From Reality to Virtual Reality.

PURPOSE: To validate a novel mobility test (MOST, MObility Standardized Test) and performance outcomes in real (RL) and virtual (VR) environments to be used for interventional clinical studies in order to characterize vision impairment in rod-cone dystrophies, also known as retinitis pigmentosa (RP). DESIGN: Prospective, interventional, noninvasive, reliability and validity analysis. METHODS: We designed MOST to be used in both VR and RL and conducted 3 experimental studies with 89 participants to (1) validate the difficulty of the mobility courses (15 controls), (2) determine the optimal number of light levels and training trials (14 participants with RP), and (3) validate the reproducibility (test-retest), reliability (VR/RL), sensitivity, and construct/content validity of the test (30 participants with RP and 30 controls). A comprehensive ophthalmologic examination was performed in all subjects. Outcomes of interest included MOST performance score, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, dark adaptation thresholds, visual field parameters, and correlation between the performance score and visual function. RESULTS: The mobility courses exhibited statistically similar difficulty, and 5 trials are sufficient to control for the learning effect. MOST is highly reproducible (test-retest correlations >0.98) and reliable (correlations VR/RL = 0.98). MOST achieved a discrimination between participants with RP and controls (accuracy >95%) and between early and late stages of the disease (82.3% accuracy). The performance score is correlated with visual function parameter (0.57-0.94). CONCLUSION: MOST is a validated mobility test, with the controlled learning effect, excellent reproducibility, and high agreement between RL and VR conditions, as well as sensitivity and specificity to measure disease progression and therapeutic benefit in rod-cone dystrophies.

Availability of attention affects time-to-contact estimation.

To estimate the time-to-contact (TTC) of a moving object, numerous studies have focused on the type of information or gaze strategy used by the observer. However, it remains to be determined whether and how attention could affect TTC estimation. In particular, how does TTC estimation operate when less attention is available? To answer this question, we conducted two experiments in which the participants had to perform an absolute (Experiment 1) or relative (Experiment 2) prediction-motion task, either alone (i.e., in single-task condition) or along with a secondary, visual working-memory task (i.e., in dual-task condition). In both experiments, we found that TTC estimation was superior in dual-task condition relative to single-task condition. This finding suggests that the reduction of available attention actually improves TTC estimation. We discuss possible explanations as well as theoretical implications for this seemingly counter-intuitive finding. Further research is needed to investigate if (in)attention facilitates or only shifts TTC estimation.

Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory-motor modality compatibility.

How do people automatize their dual-task performance through bottleneck bypassing (i.e., accomplish parallel processing of the central stages of two tasks)? In the present work we addressed this question, evaluating the impact of sensory-motor modality compatibility-the similarity in modality between the stimulus and the consequences of the response. We hypothesized that incompatible sensory-motor modalities (e.g., visual-vocal) create conflicts within modality-specific working memory subsystems, and therefore predicted that tasks producing such conflicts would be performed less automatically after practice. To probe for automaticity, we used a transfer psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure: Participants were first trained on a visual task (Exp. 1) or an auditory task (Exp. 2) by itself, which was later presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed Task 1. The Task 1-Task 2 sensory-motor modality pairings were either compatible (visual-manual and auditory-vocal) or incompatible (visual-vocal and auditory-manual). In both experiments we found converging indicators of bottleneck bypassing (small dual-task interference and a high rate of response reversals) for compatible sensory-motor modalities, but indicators of bottlenecking (large dual-task interference and few response reversals) for incompatible sensory-motor modalities. Relatedly, the proportion of individuals able to bypass the bottleneck was high for compatible modalities but very low for incompatible modalities. We propose that dual-task automatization is within reach when the tasks rely on codes that do not compete within a working memory subsystem.