Results for “Accelerate test protocols” — Page 3

NASA NTRS1999

Spatial Orientation and Balance Control Changes Induced by Altered Gravito-Inertial Force Vectors

Seventeen healthy and eight vestibular deficient subjects were exposed to an interaural centripetal acceleration of 1 G (resultant 45 deg roll tilt of 1.4 G) on a 0.8 meter radius centrifuge for a period of 90 minutes in the dark. The subjects sat with head fixed upright, except every 4 of 10 minutes when instructed to rotate their head so that their nose and eyes pointed towards a visual point switched on every 3 to 5 seconds at random places (within +/- 30 deg) in the Earth horizontal plane. Motion sickness caused some subjects to limit their head movements during significant portions of the 90 minute period, and led three normal subjects to stop the test earlier. Eye movements, including directed saccades for subjective Earth- and head-referenced planes, were recorded before, during, and immediately after centrifugation using electro-oculography. Postural stability measurements were made before and within ten minutes after centrifugation. In normal subjects, postural sway and multisegment body kinematics were gathered during an eyes-closed head movement cadence (sway-referenced support platform), and in response to translational/rotational platform perturbations. A significant increase in postural sway, segmental motion amplitude and hip frequency was observed after centrifugation. This effect was short-lived, with a recovery time of several postural test trials. There were also asymmetries in the direction of post-centrifugation center of sway and head tilt which depended on the subject's orientation during the centrifugation adaptation period (left ear or right ear out). To delineate the effect of the magnitude of the gravito-inertial vector versus its direction during the adaptive centrifugation period, we tilted eight normal subjects in the roll axis at a 45 deg angle in the dark for 90 minutes without rotational motion. Their postural responses did not change following the period of tilt. Based on verbal reports, normal subjects overestimated roll-tilt during 90 minutes of both tilt and centrifugation stimuli. Subjective estimates of head-horizontal, provided by directed saccades, revealed significant errors after approximately 30 minutes that tended to increase only in the group who underwent centrifugation. Immediately after centrifugation, subjects reported feeling tilted on average 10 degrees in the opposite direction, which was in agreement with the direction of their earth-directed saccades. In vestibular deficient (VD) subjects, postural sway was measured using a sway-referenced or earth-fixed support surface, and with or without a head movement sequence. 'Me protocol was selected for each patient during baseline testing, and corresponded to the most challenging condition in which the patient was able to maintain balance with eyes closed. Bilaterally VD subjects showed no postural decrement after centrifugation, while unilateral VD subjects had varying degrees of decrement. Unilateral VD subjects were tested twice; they underwent centrifugation both with right ear out and left ear out. Their post-centrifuation center of sway shifted at right angles depending on the centrifuge GIF orientation. Bilateral VD subjects bad shifts as well, but no consistent directional trend. VD subjects underestimated roll-tilt during centrifugation, These results suggest that orientation of the gravito-inertial vector and its magnitude arc both used by the central nervous system for calibration of multiple orientation systems. A change in the background gravito-inertial force (otolith input) can rapidly initiate postural and perceptual adaptation in several sensorimotor systems, independent of a structured visual surround.

Kaufman, Galen D.↗

NASA NTRS2015

2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel

The 2015 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on December 8 - 9, 2015. The SRP met with representatives from the Space Radiation Element and members of the Human Research Program (HRP) to review the updated research plan for the Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis Cancer Risk. The SRP also reviewed the newly revised Evidence Reports for the Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs) (Acute Risk), the Risk of Acute (In-flight) and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS Risk), and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation (Degen Risk), as well as a status update on these Risks. The SRP would like to commend Dr. Simonsen, Dr. Huff, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Patel for their detailed presentations. The Space Radiation Element did a great job presenting a very large volume of material. The SRP considers it to be a strong program that is well-organized, well-coordinated and generates valuable data. The SRP commended the tissue sharing protocols, working groups, systems biology analysis, and standardization of models. In several of the discussed areas the SRP suggested improvements of the research plans in the future. These include the following: It is important that the team has expanded efforts examining immunology and inflammation as important components of the space radiation biological response. This is an overarching and important focus that is likely to apply to all aspects of the program including acute, CVD, CNS, cancer and others. Given that the area of immunology/inflammation is highly complex (and especially so as it relates to radiation), it warrants the expansion of investigators expertise in immunology and inflammation to work with the individual research projects and also the NASA Specialized Center of Research (NSCORs). Historical data on radiation injury to be entered into the Watson “big data” study must be used with caution. The general scientific issues of reproducibility, details of experimental methods and data analysis from preclinical and basic research laboratories have been raised broadly over the last few years (not specific to this work) and indicate that caution must be applied in the ways these data are used. This pertains to preclinical data and also to phase 3 clinical trials in radiation oncology and medical oncology. Of course, appropriate use and analysis of these “big-data” sets also offer the potential of pinpointing limitations and extracting remaining useful information. Emphasis should be placed on the latter possibility. A key target is risk reduction from radiation exposure. Progress of the entire space program, now moving towards the Mars mission, requires timely answers to key components of human risk, which are known to be complex. Periodic review of progress should be conducted with additional resources directed into achieving critical milestones. Turning the long red bars to yellow and green (or for some risks such as CNS possibly to grey) must be high priority. That such progress will require new science and not engineering means that it should be viewed in a knowledge-based light. The technology-based aspects of engineering issues are certainly as important, however, science and knowledge-based problems are solved in a different way than engineering. Timelines for engineering are more predictable, while for science, progress can be methodical with occasional major incremental findings that can rapidly change the rate of progress. As opportunities for rapid incremental changes arise, periodic enhancement of investment is strongly recommended to enable such new knowledge to be quickly and efficiently exploited. Collaborations and linkages with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are in place and more are encouraged, where possible, with the radiation injury and medical countermeasure studies. This could include utilizing some of their animal model testing contracts to facilitate obtaining results using common platforms. Such approach will facilitate the comparison of results among laboratories, and will facilitate and accelerate the development of medical countermeasures. It is particularly noteworthy that the NASA Space Radiation Element is reaching out to the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI) platform coordinating low dose radiation risk research, and to other international agencies that are studying low dose radiation effects in an effort to fill the void generated by the cancelation of the Department of Energy (DOE) low dose radiation program. While NASA is working actively with NIAID and BARDA to integrate their relevant findings of radiation mitigator investigations to NASA programs, the committee notes its disappointment that the United States currently lacks a dedicated low dose radiation program with clear mechanistic orientation and aimed at the quantification and mitigation of human radiation risk on Earth. This void gives to the NASA Space Radiation Program Element special societal value, but also makes its overall design more challenging.

Steinberg, Susan↗