Cause of Death in Utah Avalanche Fatalities, 2006-2007 through 2017-2018 Winter Seasons.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding patterns of avalanche fatalities can aid prevention and rescue strategies. In 2007, we published a report reviewing avalanche deaths in Utah between the 1989-1990 and 2005-2006 winter seasons. In the current report, we discuss Utah avalanche fatalities from the 2006-2007 to 2017-2018 seasons. METHODS: Avalanche fatality data were obtained from the Utah Avalanche Center and Utah State Office of the Medical Examiner. Autopsy reports were reviewed to determine demographic information, type of autopsy (external vs internal), injuries, and cause of death. RESULTS: Thirty-two avalanche deaths occurred in Utah during the study period. The mean (±SD) age of victims was 32±13 (8-54) y. Thirty victims (94%) were male and 2 (6%) were female. Seventy-two percent of deaths were from asphyxiation, 19% from trauma alone, and 9% from a combination of asphyxiation and trauma. Snowmobilers accounted for the largest percentage of avalanche fatalities (15 victims; 47%) during the 2007-2018 period. CONCLUSIONS: Asphyxia continues to be the most prevalent killer in avalanche burial. Patterns of ongoing avalanche deaths continue to suggest that rapid recovery and techniques that prolong survival while buried may decrease fatality rates. Trauma is a significant factor in many avalanche fatalities. Education and technologies focused on reducing traumatic injuries such as improved education in techniques for avalanche risk avoidance and/or use of avalanche airbags may further decrease fatality rates. Snowmobilers represent an increasing percentage of Utah avalanche deaths and now make up the majority of victims; increased education targeting this demographic in the basics of avalanche rescue gear and avalanche rescue may also reduce fatalities.

Contributions of visual and embodied expertise to body perception.

Recent research has demonstrated that our perception of the human body differs from that of inanimate objects. This study investigated whether the visual perception of the human body differs from that of other animate bodies and, if so, whether that difference could be attributed to visual experience and/or embodied experience. To dissociate differential effects of these two types of expertise, inversion effects (recognition of inverted stimuli is slower and less accurate than recognition of upright stimuli) were compared for two types of bodies in postures that varied in typicality: humans in human postures (human-typical), humans in dog postures (human-atypical), dogs in dog postures (dog-typical), and dogs in human postures (dog-atypical). Inversion disrupts global configural processing. Relative changes in the size and presence of inversion effects reflect changes in visual processing. Both visual and embodiment expertise predict larger inversion effects for human over dog postures because we see humans more and we have experience producing human postures. However, our design that crosses body type and typicality leads to distinct predictions for visual and embodied experience. Visual expertise predicts an interaction between typicality and orientation: greater inversion effects should be found for typical over atypical postures regardless of body type. Alternatively, embodiment expertise predicts a body, typicality, and orientation interaction: larger inversion effects should be found for all human postures but only for atypical dog postures because humans can map their bodily experience onto these postures. Accuracy data supported embodiment expertise with the three-way interaction. However, response-time data supported contributions of visual expertise with larger inversion effects for typical over atypical postures. Thus, both types of expertise affect the visual perception of bodies.