Neurofeedback Peak Performance in Microsurgery
description
Transcript of Neurofeedback Peak Performance in Microsurgery
Neurofeedback Peak Neurofeedback Peak PerformancePerformance
in Microsurgeryin Microsurgery
Tomas RosDept. of PsychologyGoldsmiths CollegeLondon
Conjunct COST B27 and SAN Scientific Meeting, Swansea, UK, 16-18 September 2006
Neurofeedback Peak Neurofeedback Peak PerformancePerformance
in Microsurgeryin Microsurgery
Tomas RosDept. of PsychologyGoldsmiths CollegeLondon
RationaleRationale• EEG peak-performance enhancements in:
cognition sport artistic ability
• microsurgical technique uniquely combines the mental and physical skills present in such fields
• we assessed the training effects of 2 widespread neurofeedback protocols to the novel area of
eye microsurgery
2 Protocols
Research Evidence:
• SMR-Theta training can lead to improvements in attention and memory (Vernon et al. 2003, Egner & Gruzelier 2004)
• Alpha-Theta has been shown to induce relaxation and reduce anxiety, as well as enhance artistry (Egner & Gruzelier 2003, Raymond et al. 2005)
Neurofeedback Training
• visual feedback• SMR, theta, high beta SMR (12-15 Hz), theta (4-7 Hz), high beta (22-30 Hz)• referential at Cz
• auditory feedback only• alpha, theta alpha (8-11 Hz), theta (4-7 Hz)• referential at Pz
Alpha-Theta:
SMR-Theta:
Neurofeedback Training
• AT alpha: babbling brook theta: ocean wave
• SMR: “Space race” (3-way)
• ProComp + amplifier• Neurocybernetics EEGer• 160 Hz sampling, 0.5 s filter• 3-min autothreshold
Equipment:
Feedback:
Neurofeedback Training
• approx. 1 session / week
• 8 sessions in TOTAL
• 3 min baseline (period 1)
• approx. 25 min session
Duration:
Rate:
Study DesignStudy Design
• randomised, single-blind, controlled
• 2 neurofeedback protocols
Alpha-Theta (AT) N=10SMR-Theta (SMR) N=10
• 1 wait-list control group N=8
TOTALN=20
• LOCATION: Western Eye Hospital, London
• 20 trainee surgeons (NHS house officers & registrars)
• 10 males, 10 females
• mean age 33.5, SD 5.12
TOTALN=20
ControlN=8
Training onlyN=12
TOTALN=20
ControlN=8
Training onlyN=12
W A I T (~2 months)
TOTALN=20
ControlN=8
Training onlyN=12
W A I T (~2 months)
ATN=4
SMRN=4
TOTALN=20
ControlN=8
Training onlyN=12
SMRN=6
ATN=6
W A I T (~2 months)
ATN=4
SMRN=4
AssessmentAssessment
1) MOOD questionnaire Spielberger’s state & trait anxiety (pre performance self-report)
2) SURGICAL performancemulti stage surgical task on artificial-eye
(~10 min video recording from two angles)
3) ATTENTION test‘Attention Network Test’, or ANT
(15 min reaction time test on computer)
CONTROLassessment
PREassessment
POST assessment
WAITLIST GROUP(N=8)
W A I T
N F B
TRAINING ONLYGROUP(N=12)
CONTROLassessment
PREassessment
POST assessment
TRAININGpre / post
(N=8)
W A I T
N F BTRAININGpre / post(N=12)
CONTROLpre / post
(N=8)
WAITLIST TRAINING ONLY
Test-retest intervalsTest-retest intervals
CSMRAT
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
tim
e (d
ays)
Error bars: +/- 1.00 SE
• One-way ANOVA: no significant differences between groups
p=0.40
RESULTSRESULTS
NFB training spectra
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Session
0.96
0.98
1.00
1.02
Alpha-Theta (AT) training
AVERAGE for all AT subjects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Period
0.95
0.98
1.00
1.03
1.05
Th
eta
/ Alp
ha
rat
io
p<0.01 p<0.01
SMR-Theta training
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Session
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
AVERAGE for all SMR subjects
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Period
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.61
SM
R/T
het
a ra
tio
p<0.01p<0.01
RESULTSRESULTS
Surgical Technique
Judges’ ratings
• scored independently
• score averaged over 2 judges
• each judge was blind to:
presentation order
subject identity
Task description Sub-step Score
1A Design of the side port
Correct stabilization of globe opposite cornea to corneal incision
1
Correct angle of blade parallel to iris
2
Correct length (1/2 length of 15° blade)
3
Correct position / meridian / regularity (just on clear corneal side of limbus)
4
Filling AC with viscoelastic evenly
5
1B Avoidance of complications of creating the side port
No sudden collapse of AC 1
No injury to the iris 2
No injury to the capsule 3
No injury to the cornea 4
Overall Technique
post
pre
CSMRAT
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
tech
nic
al s
kill
sco
re (
%)
*
• Paired Wilcoxon: significant increase in SMR group
p=0.038
p=0.26p=1.0
Task Technique
wound
knotrrhexis
phaco
sideport
CSMRAT
20
15
10
5
0
-5
tech
nic
al s
core
ch
ang
e (%
)
*
• Paired Wilcoxon: significant increase in SMR group
p=0.018
6.2 %
484437332925211713951
Video number
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Ove
rall
sco
re (
%)
JUDGE B
JUDGE A
• ICC: 0.85 for SMR performances, 0.64 for ALL performances
Inter-rater reliability
RESULTSRESULTS
Performance Speed
Performance Speed
• objective data calculated from videos
OVERALL time = TASK time + PAUSE time
OVERALL time: start to finish
TASK time: spent in contact with eye
PAUSE time: spent otherwise
Overall time
CSMRAT
12
11
10
9
8
7
Mea
n t
ime
(min
)
postpre
• Paired T-test: marginal decrease in AT & SMR group
p=0.16
p=0.20
p=0.84
15 %
Task time
CSMRAT
10
9
8
7
6
5
Me
an
tim
e (
min
)postpre
*
• Paired T-test: significant decrease in SMR group
p=0.021
25 %
p=0.26p=0.90
Pause time
CSMRAT
5
4
3
2
1
me
an
tim
e (
min
)
post pre
• Paired T-test: no significant changes in groups
p=0.56p=0.50
p=0.72
Individual Tasks
phaco
knotrrhexiswound
sideport
CSMRAT
2.5
0
-2.5
-5
-7.5
tim
e c
ha
ng
e (m
in)
*
• Paired T-test: significant decrease in SMR group
p=0.018
6 %
Subjective vs objective scores
• Correlation between subjective (technique) and objective (times) performance measures
• Positive changes in overall technique were coupled to reductions in total task time (R= -0.700, p=0.036)
RESULTSRESULTS
Attention Network Test
A N T Posner et al (2002, 2004)
• measures 3 separate attentional networks (alerting, orienting, and conflict)
• based on earlier functional studies (e.g. Posner & Peterson, 1990)
Attention Network Test (A N T)
conflictorientingalerting
CSMRAT
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Eff
icie
ncy
ch
an
ge
( m
s )
p=0.05
p=0.095
• Paired T-test: significant orienting decrease in SMR group
25 %
RESULTSRESULTS
State & Trait Anxiety
• filled in prior to each assessment
• 2 parts:STATE anxiety
how subject feels at that moment
TRAIT anxiety how subject felt in the last week
Spielberger’s Anxiety Inventory
Spielberger’s Anxiety Inventory
CSMRAT
50
40
30
20
10
0
mea
n A
NX
IET
Y s
core
postpreSTATE
• Paired Wilcoxon: no significant change within groups
p> 0.05
Spielberger’s Anxiety Inventory
• Paired Wilcoxon: significant decrease in SMR group
CSMRAT
50
40
30
20
10
0
mea
n A
NX
IET
Y s
core post
preTRAIT *
p=0.017
10 %
RESULTSRESULTS
NFB / surgical performanceassociations
AT training vs performance
• Successful within-session AT training correlated significantly with overall technique (R= 0.638, p=0.047)
• Between-session AT training marginally correlated with overall time of performance (R=-0.523, one tailed p=0.060)
• Successful within-session SMR-training ratio was associated with increases in total pause time (R=0.584, p=0.077)
• Pause time was also negatively correlated with task time (R= -0.251)
• A significant partial correlation of within-session learning and pause time was obtained (R=0.703, p=0.035)
SMR training vs performance
X-axis: SMR group split into two equal halves.
GOOD performers were top five subjects with greatest reductions in surgical task time,
BAD performers were bottom half
Y-axis: mean SMR-theta ratio
BARS: between first & second half of all periods between first & second half of all sessions
SMR training vs performance
GOOD performersBAD performers
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
SM
R-T
he
ta r
atio
Periods 6 - 9Periods 2 - 5
PERIOD ratio vs performance
• Paired T-test: no significant change within groups
p> 0.05
GOOD performersBAD performers
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
SM
R-T
he
ta r
atio
Sessions 5 - 8 Sessions 1 - 4
*
• Paired T-test: significant decrease in BAD performers
p=0.001
SESSION ratio vs performance
10 %
ConclusionConclusion&&
SummarySummary
Summary
SUBJECTIVE MEASURES
•technique improvement in SMR group p=0.04
•trait anxiety reduction in SMR group p=0.02
OBJECTIVE MEASURES
•task time reduction in SMR group p=0.02
•SMR/theta lowered in BAD performers p<0.01
•SMR learning/pause time correlation p=0.03
Model
The results therefore remain in line with previous research on trained enhancement of SMR activity:
• successful reduction of impulsiveness & hyperactivity (Lubar and Shouse 1976)
• enhancement of attention more generally (Sterman 1996; Egner and Gruzelier 2004)
Conclusions
SMR training:
significantly enhances surgical technique
25% less time of instrument contact with eye(can improve post-operation recovery)
AT training:
marginally reduces total surgery time(despite low training efficacies)
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
All the surgeons
Prof. John Gruzelier, Merrick Moseley, Philip Bloom and Larry Benjamin
Royal College of Ophthalmology
Dr. Lesley Parkinson