Cervical spine bending: a factor confounding whole trunk and lumbar forward bending range of motion.

CONTEXT: Knee bending during tests of lumbar forward bending (FB) may introduce confounding variability. Precluding bending at the knees has, therefore, long been standard protocol to produce valid and reproducible results. However, there is limited research on cervical spine bending as a confounding variable in whole trunk and lumbar FB. OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of cervical spine bending on the range of whole trunk and lumbar FB. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the faculty, staff, and student population of Nova Southeastern University's Health Professions Division. Each participant underwent 4 FB tests with varying cervical starting positions. Range of motion was measured for whole trunk FB and lumbar FB by using the fingertip-to-floor and double digital inclinometer techniques, respectively. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-six participants met the study criteria. Statistically significant differences were found in both whole trunk (6.96 cm) and lumbar (3.95°) FB range of motion when the cervical spine was backward bent after full spine FB (P<.05). Statistically significant differences were also found in both whole trunk (15.72 cm) and lumbar (7.38°) FB when the cervical spine was backward bent before thoracolumbar spine FB (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Cervical spine bending influences the ability of the trunk and lumbar spine to bend forward and is, therefore, a confounding variable during tests of whole trunk and lumbar spine FB.

Two streams make a river: the rabbit in Richard F. Thompson's laboratory.

The rabbit nictitating membrane (NM) preparation was developed in 1962 by Gormezano as a model system for classical conditioning. It had many features that made it ideal for use in exploring the laws of this conditioning paradigm, including easily obtainable subjects, good control of stimulus delivery and precise response specifications. Most importantly, the preparation evidenced very low spontaneous response rates and showed no evidence of nonassociative effects of sensitization and pseudoconditioning and had highly predictable learning functions. In contrast, previous human and animal models that had been utilized to explore the features of classical conditioning, such as the dog salivary model were far less easy to use, showed high spontaneous response rates, and had high nonassociative components. Over the ensuing years, Gormezano and his students characterized most of the parametric characteristics of classical conditioning with the use of the preparation. In 1970, Richard Thompson began exploring the use of the rabbit NM preparation in his laboratory as a model system with which to explore the brain substrates of classical conditioning. At the time, his work was centered around exploring the neural substrates of sensitization and habituation in spinal reflexes. Soon, however, he turned his attention to the brain substrates of classical conditioning almost exclusively, and produced an impressive amount of data detailing the neural underpinnings of classical conditioning. His work has generated perhaps the most detailed and complete picture of the neural mechanisms of learning currently available, and has led to countless other research efforts in the area of brain and behavior. Current understandings of neural mechanisms of associative learning owe much to Thompson and his various colleagues.

Effect of osteopathy in the cranial field on visual function--a pilot study.

CONTEXT: The effects of osteopathy in the cranial field on visual function-particularly on changes in the visual field and on the binocular alignment of the eyes-have been poorly characterized in the literature. The authors examined whether osteopathy in the cranial field resulted in an immediate, measurable change in visual function among a sample of adults with cranial asymmetry. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled double-blinded pilot clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Adult volunteers between ages 18 and 35 years who were free of strabismus or active ocular or systemic disease were recruited. Inclusion criteria were refractive error ranging between six diopters of myopia and five diopters of hyperopia, regular astigmatism of any amount, and cranial somatic dysfunction. INTERVENTION: All subjects were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The treatment group received a single intervention of osteopathy in the cranial field to correct cranial dysfunction. The control group received light pressure of a few ounces of force applied to the cranium without osteopathic manipulative treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Preintervention and postintervention optometric examinations consisted of distant visual acuity testing, Donder push-up (ie, accommodative system) testing, local stereoacuity testing, pupillary size measurements, and vergence system (ie, cover test with prism neutralization, near point of convergence) testing. Global stereoacuity testing and retinoscopy were performed only in preintervention to determine whether subjects met inclusion criteria. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for all ocular measures. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects completed the trial-15 in the treatment group and 14 in the control group. A hierarchical ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects within the treatment group and within the control group (P <.05) in distance visual acuity of the right eye (OD) and left eye (OS), local stereoacuity, pupillary size measured under dim illumination OD and OS, and near point of convergence break and recovery. For the treatment group vs the control group, a statistically significant effect was observed in pupillary size measured under bright illumination OS (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that osteopathy in the cranial field may result in beneficial effects on visual function in adults with cranial asymmetry. However, this finding requires additional investigation with a larger sample size and longer intervention and follow-up periods. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00510562).