Craig P. Smith

Wearable devices are a popular training tool to measure biomechanical performance indicators during running, including vertical oscillation (VO). VO is a contributing factor in running economy and injury risk, therefore VO feedback can have a positive impact on running performance. The validity and reliability of the VO measurements from wearable devices is crucial for them to be an effective training tool. The aims of this study were to test the validity and reliability of VO measurements from wearable devices against video analysis of a single trunk marker. Four wearable devices were compared: the INCUS NOVA, Garmin Heart Rate Monitor-Pro (HRM), Garmin Running Dynamics Pod (RDP), and Stryd Running Power Meter Footpod (Footpod). Fifteen participants completed treadmill running at five different self-selected speeds for one minute at each speed. Each speed interval was completed twice. VO was recorded simultaneously by video and the wearables devices. There was significant effect of measurement method on VO (p < 0.001), with the NOVA and Footpod underestimating VO compared to video analysis, while the HRM and RDP overestimated. Although there were significant differences in the average VO values, all devices were significantly correlated with the video analysis (R > = 0.51, p < 0.001). Significant agreement between repeated VO measurements for all devices, revealed the devices to be reliable (ICC > = 0.948, p < 0.001). There was also significant agreement for VO measurements between each device and the video analysis (ICC > = 0.731, p < = 0.001), therefore validating the devices for VO measurement during running. These results demonstrate that wearable devices are valid and reliable tools to detect changes in VO during running. However, VO measurements varied significantly between the different wearables tested and this should be considered when comparing VO values between devices.

Key points: Reaching movements can be perturbed by vestibular input, but the function of this response is unclear. Here, we applied galvanic vestibular stimulation concurrently with real body movement while subjects maintained arm position either fixed in space or fixed with respect to their body. During the fixed‐in‐space conditions, galvanic vestibular stimulation caused large changes in arm trajectory consistent with a compensatory response to maintain upper‐limb accuracy in the face of body movement. Galvanic vestibular stimulation responses were absent during the body‐fixed task, demonstrating task dependency in vestibular control of the upper limb. The results suggest that the function of vestibular‐evoked arm movements is to maintain the accuracy of the upper limb during unpredictable body movement, but only when reaching in an earth‐fixed reference frame. When using our arms to interact with the world, unintended body motion can introduce movement error. A mechanism that could detect and compensate for such motion would be beneficial. Observations of arm movements evoked by vestibular stimulation provide some support for this mechanism. However, the physiological function underlying these artificially evoked movements is unclear from previous research. For such a mechanism to be functional, it should operate only when the arm is being controlled in an earth‐fixed rather than a body‐fixed reference frame. In the latter case, compensation would be unnecessary and even deleterious. To test this hypothesis, subjects were gently rotated in a chair while being asked to maintain their outstretched arm pointing towards either earth‐fixed or body‐fixed memorized targets. Galvanic vestibular stimulation was applied concurrently during rotation to isolate the influence of vestibular input, uncontaminated by inertial factors. During the earth‐fixed task, galvanic vestibular stimulation produced large polarity‐dependent corrections in arm position. These corrections mimicked those evoked when chair velocity was altered without any galvanic vestibular stimulation, indicating a compensatory arm response to a sensation of altered body motion. In stark contrast, corrections were completely absent during the body‐fixed task, despite the same chair movement profile and arm posture. These effects persisted when we controlled for differences in limb kinematics between the two tasks. Our results demonstrate that vestibular control of the upper limb maintains reaching accuracy during unpredictable body motion. The observation that such responses occurred only when reaching within an earth‐fixed reference frame confirms the functional nature of vestibular‐evoked arm movement.

The availability of an animal model for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is necessary for the development of novel pharmacological treatments. To be useful, the model must be predictive of clinical performance, possess characteristic criteria and distinguish anti-OCD from antidepressant compounds. Due to the lack of OCD models useful for drug discovery, all compounds currently used for OCD were developed first as antidepressants. In this article, we discuss the relative merits of: stereotypic behaviours (canine acral lick, feather picking, amphetamine- and 5-HT-induced stereotypy); adjunctive and displacement behaviours (schedule-induced polydipsia, wheel running, resident-intruder grooming); anxiolytic tests (separation and shock-induced ultrasonic vocalisation and marble burying); and depression tests (inescapable shock-induced escape and immobility in forced swim) as potential OCD models. We conclude that adjunctive and displacement behaviours, and in particular schedule-induced polydipsia, may prov...