A human dissection training program at Indiana University School of Medicine‐Northwest

As human cadavers are widely used in basic sciences, medical education, and other training and research venues, there is a real need for experts trained in anatomy and dissection. This article describes a program that gives individuals interested in clinical and basic sciences practical experience working with cadavers. Participants are selected through an open application process and attend sessions focused on anatomical terminology, gross anatomy and radiography, and some of the educational applications of human cadavers. Dissection skills are honed during an intensive, two‐day cadaver dissection and orthopedic workshop. Participants communicate the knowledge they gain through table‐side discussions, reflect upon the experience during a memorial service, and submit written program evaluations. Additionally, the dissection and preparation of cadaveric materials accomplished in this course are used in the medical school gross anatomy course during the next academic year. From 2004 through 2008, the annual number of applicants increased from 40 to 167, and the number of participants increased from 25 to 43 per year. Program participants have represented diverse ethnic, educational, and professional backgrounds. Feedback from participants has been remarkably positive, including comments on the large amount of learning that takes place during the sessions, the positive impact the program has had on career choice, and the desire for program expansion. This program, which could be replicated at other institutions, teaches anatomy, prepares cadaveric prosections for teaching and training others, and encourages participants to pursue careers in anatomical and biomedical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 3: 77–82, 2010. © 2010 American Association of Anatomists.     

Processing of empty and filled time intervals in pigeons

Pigeons were trained initially with 2- and 8-sec empty or filled intervals as sample stimuli. Interval onset and termination was signaled by 1-sec start and stop markers. Following retention and psychophysical testing, both groups were trained with the alternative type of interval, and the tests were repeated. Group empty-first demonstrated a choose-long effect with both empty and filled intervals. Group filled-first demonstrated a weak (and nonsignificant) choose-short effect with filled intervals and a robust choose-long effect with empty intervals. Both groups tended to time the markers and to add that duration to the sample duration only on filled-interval trials. Initial training with empty intervals alters the way pigeons process temporal information on filled-interval trials, whereas initial training with filled intervals has little effect on the processing of temporal information on empty-interval trials.     

Static and dynamic single leg postural control performance during dual-task paradigms

Combining dynamic postural control assessments and cognitive tasks may give clinicians a more accurate indication of postural control under sport-like conditions compared to single-task assessments. We examined postural control, cognitive and squatting performance of healthy individuals during static and dynamic postural control assessments in single- and dual-task paradigms. Thirty participants (female = 22, male = 8; age = 20.8 ± 1.6 years, height = 157.9 ± 13.0 cm, mass = 67.8 ± 20.6 kg) completed single-leg stance and single-leg squat assessments on a force plate individually (single-task) and concurrently (dual-task) with two cognitive assessments, a modified Stroop test and the Brooks Spatial Memory Test. Outcomes included centre of pressure speed, 95% confidence ellipse, squat depth and speed and cognitive test measures (percentage of correct answers and reaction time). Postural control performance varied between postural control assessments and testing paradigms. Participants did not squat as deep and squatted slower (P < 0.001) during dual-task paradigms (≤12.69 ± 3.4 cm squat depth, ≤16.20 ± 4.6 cm · s^?1 squat speed) compared to single-task paradigms (14.57 ± 3.6 cm squat depth, 19.65 ± 5.5 cm · s^?1 squat speed). The percentage of correct answers did not change across testing conditions, but Stroop reaction time (725.81 ± 59.2 ms; F_2,58 = 7.725, P = 0.001) was slowest during single-leg squats compared to baseline (691.64 ± 80.1 ms; P = 0.038) and single-task paradigms (681.33 ± 51.5 ms; P < 0.001). Dynamic dual-task assessments may be more challenging to the postural control system and may better represent postural control performance during dynamic activities.