Macquarie University

About: Macquarie University is a education organization based out in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Laser. The organization has 14075 authors who have published 47673 publications receiving 1416184 citations. The organization is also known as: Macquarie uni.

The prospective course of postconcussion syndrome: The role of mild traumatic brain injury

Abstract: Objective: To investigate whether postconcussion syndrome (PCS) represents long-term sequelae associated with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Methods: Prospective consecutive admissions to a Level 1 trauma hospital were assessed a mean 4.9 days and again 106.2 days post-injury. The final sample comprised 62 mTBI and 58 nonbrain injured trauma controls (TC). Change or lack of change in individual PCS-like symptoms and PCS was examined. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze whether mTBI predicts 3-month PCS (Time 2; T2); whether predictors of PCS (within 14 days of injury, Time 1; T1) predict 3-month PCS, and how change in these predictors from T1 to T2 were associated with change in PCS status. Variables included demographic, injury-related, financial incentives, neuropsychological, and psychiatric disorder. Results: MTBI did not predict PCS. PCS was comparable (T1: mTBI: 40.3%, TC: 50.0%; T2: mTBI: 46.8%, TC: 48.3%). At T2, 38.6% were new cases of PCS; between 30.8% and 86.2% reported either a new or more frequent symptom. A pre-injury depressive or anxiety disorder (OR = 2.99, 95% CI [1.38, 6.45]), and acute posttraumatic stress (OR = 1.05, 95% CI [1.00, 1.00]) were early markers of PCS, regardless of mTBI. An interaction between time and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) suggested the relationship between the severity of PTSD symptoms and PCS strengthened over time (OR = 2.66, 95% CI [1.08, 6.55]). Pain was related to PCS. Females were more likely than males to have PCS. Conclusion: The data suggest the phenomenon of PCS in trauma patients does not show an association with mTBI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved). Language: en

Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics

Abstract: Fish are one of the most highly utilised vertebrate taxa by humans; they are harvested from wild stocks as part of global fishing industries, grown under intensive aquaculture conditions, are the most common pet and are widely used for scientific research. But fish are seldom afforded the same level of compassion or welfare as warm-blooded vertebrates. Part of the problem is the large gap between people’s perception of fish intelligence and the scientific reality. This is an important issue because public perception guides government policy. The perception of an animal’s intelligence often drives our decision whether or not to include them in our moral circle. From a welfare perspective, most researchers would suggest that if an animal is sentient, then it can most likely suffer and should therefore be offered some form of formal protection. There has been a debate about fish welfare for decades which centres on the question of whether they are sentient or conscious. The implications for affording the same level of protection to fish as other vertebrates are great, not least because of fishing-related industries. Here, I review the current state of knowledge of fish cognition starting with their sensory perception and moving on to cognition. The review reveals that fish perception and cognitive abilities often match or exceed other vertebrates. A review of the evidence for pain perception strongly suggests that fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates. Although scientists cannot provide a definitive answer on the level of consciousness for any non-human vertebrate, the extensive evidence of fish behavioural and cognitive sophistication and pain perception suggests that best practice would be to lend fish the same level of protection as any other vertebrate.

The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it?

Abstract: The term curriculum is familiar in school education, but more ambiguous in its usage in a higher education context. Although it is frequently used in academic staff discussions, policy and planning documents, and to describe advisory bodies, its usage is inconsistent and multifarious. This article reports a phenomenographic study of the ways in which academics conceive of the curriculum in higher education. It examines the variation in perceptions of curriculum, which is critiqued through the work of school curriculum theorists, who utilise Habermas’s theory of knowledge‐constitutive interests. The intention of this article is to explore the epistemologies and assumptions that underpin these conceptions, in order to promote an inclusive and shared vocabulary as a basis for curriculum development.