Even more than in cognitive research applications, moving fMRI to the clinic and the drug development process requires the generation of stable and reliable signal changes. The performance characteristics of the fMRI paradigm constrain experimental power and may require different study designs (e.g., crossover vs. parallel groups), yet fMRI reliability characteristics can be strongly dependent on the nature of the fMRI task. The present study investigated both within-subject and group-level reliability of a combined three-task fMRI battery targeting three systems of wide applicability in clinical and cognitive neuroscience: an emotional (face matching), a motivational (monetary reward anticipation) and a cognitive (n-back working memory) task. A group of 25 young, healthy volunteers were scanned twice on a 3T MRI scanner with a mean test-retest interval of 14.6 days. FMRI reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) applied at three different levels ranging from a global to a localized and fine spatial scale: (1) reliability of group-level activation maps over the whole brain and within targeted regions of interest (ROIs); (2) within-subject reliability of ROI-mean amplitudes and (3) within-subject reliability of individual voxels in the target ROIs. Results showed robust evoked activation of all three tasks in their respective target regions (emotional task=amygdala; motivational task=ventral striatum; cognitive task=right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and parietal cortices) with high effect sizes (ES) of ROI-mean summary values (ES=1.11-1.44 for the faces task, 0.96-1.43 for the reward task, 0.83-2.58 for the n-back task). Reliability of group level activation was excellent for all three tasks with ICCs of 0.89-0.98 at the whole brain level and 0.66-0.97 within target ROIs. Within-subject reliability of ROI-mean amplitudes across sessions was fair to good for the reward task (ICCs=0.56-0.62) and, dependent on the particular ROI, also fair-to-good for the n-back task (ICCs=0.44-0.57) but lower for the faces task (ICC=-0.02-0.16). In conclusion, all three tasks are well suited to between-subject designs, including imaging genetics. When specific recommendations are followed, the n-back and reward task are also suited for within-subject designs, including pharmaco-fMRI. The present study provides task-specific fMRI reliability performance measures that will inform the optimal use, powering and design of fMRI studies using comparable tasks.

Reduced physical activity is an important feature of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Various activity monitors are available but their validity is poorly established. The aim was to evaluate the validity of six monitors in patients with COPD. We hypothesized triaxial monitors to be more valid compared to uniaxial monitors. Thirty-nine patients (age 68±7years, FEV1 54±18%predicted) performed a one-hour standardized activity protocol. Patients wore 6 monitors (Kenz Lifecorder (Kenz), Actiwatch, RT3, Actigraph GT3X (Actigraph), Dynaport MiniMod (MiniMod), and SenseWear Armband (SenseWear)) as well as a portable metabolic system (Oxycon Mobile). Validity was evaluated by correlation analysis between indirect calorimetry (VO2) and the monitor outputs: Metabolic Equivalent of Task [METs] (SenseWear, MiniMod), activity counts (Actiwatch), vector magnitude units (Actigraph, RT3) and arbitrary units (Kenz) over the whole protocol and slow versus fast walking. Minute-by-minute correlations were highest for the MiniMod (r = 0.82), Actigraph (r = 0.79), SenseWear (r = 0.73) and RT3 (r = 0.73). Over the whole protocol, the mean correlations were best for the SenseWear (r = 0.76), Kenz (r = 0.52), Actigraph (r = 0.49) and MiniMod (r = 0.45). The MiniMod (r = 0.94) and Actigraph (r = 0.88) performed better in detecting different walking speeds. The Dynaport MiniMod, Actigraph GT3X and SenseWear Armband (all triaxial monitors) are the most valid monitors during standardized physical activities. The Dynaport MiniMod and Actigraph GT3X discriminate best between different walking speeds.

The assessment of physical activity in healthy populations and in those with chronic diseases is challenging. The aim of this systematic review was to identify whether available activity monitors (AM) have been appropriately validated for use in assessing physical activity in these groups. Following a systematic literature search we found 134 papers meeting the inclusion criteria; 40 conducted in a field setting (validation against doubly labelled water), 86 in a laboratory setting (validation against a metabolic cart, metabolic chamber) and 8 in a field and laboratory setting. Correlation coefficients between AM outcomes and energy expenditure (EE) by the criterion method (doubly labelled water and metabolic cart/chamber) and percentage mean differences between EE estimation from the monitor and EE measurement by the criterion method were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool the results across studies where possible. Types of devices were compared using meta-regression analyses. Most validation studies had been performed in healthy adults (n = 118), with few carried out in patients with chronic diseases (n = 16). For total EE, correlation coefficients were statistically significantly lower in uniaxial compared to multisensor devices. For active EE, correlations were slightly but not significantly lower in uniaxial compared to triaxial and multisensor devices. Uniaxial devices tended to underestimate TEE (−12.07 (95%CI; -18.28 to −5.85) %) compared to triaxial (−6.85 (95%CI; -18.20 to 4.49) %, p = 0.37) and were statistically significantly less accurate than multisensor devices (−3.64 (95%CI; -8.97 to 1.70) %, p<0.001). TEE was underestimated during slow walking speeds in 69% of the lab validation studies compared to 37%, 30% and 37% of the studies during intermediate, fast walking speed and running, respectively. The high level of heterogeneity in the validation studies is only partly explained by the type of activity monitor and the activity monitor outcome. Triaxial and multisensor devices tend to be more valid monitors. Since activity monitors are less accurate at slow walking speeds and information about validated activity monitors in chronic disease populations is lacking, proper validation studies in these populations are needed prior to their inclusion in clinical trials.

Symptoms during physical activity and physical inactivity are hallmarks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to evaluate the validity and usability of six activity monitors in patients with COPD against the doubly labelled water (DLW) indirect calorimetry method. 80 COPD patients (mean¡SD age 68¡6 years and forced expiratory volume in 1 s 57¡19% predicted) recruited in four centres each wore simultaneously three or four out of six commercially available monitors validated in chronic conditions for 14 consecutive days. A priori validity criteria were defined. These included the ability to explain total energy expenditure (TEE) variance through multiple regression analysis, using TEE as the dependent variable with total body water (TBW) plus several physical activity monitor outputs as independent variables; and correlation with activity energy expenditure (AEE) measured by DLW.The Actigraph GT3X (Actigraph LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA), and DynaPort MoveMonitor (McRoberts BV, The Hague, the Netherlands) best explained the majority of the TEE variance not explained by TBW (53% and 70%, respectively) and showed the most significant correlations with AEE (r50.71, p,0.001 and r50.70, p,0.0001, respectively).The results of this study should guide users in choosing valid activity monitors for research or for clinical use in patients with chronic diseases such as COPD. @ERSpublications This study validates six activity monitors in the field against indirect calorimetry (DLW) in patients with COPD

The International Pharmaco-EEG Society (IPEG) presents updated guidelines summarising the requirements for the recording and computerised evaluation of pharmaco-EEG data in man. Since the publication of the first pharmaco-EEG guidelines in 1982, technical and data processing methods have advanced steadily, thus enhancing data quality and expanding the palette of tools available to investigate the action of drugs on the central nervous system (CNS), determine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of novel therapeutics and evaluate the CNS penetration or toxicity of compounds. However, a review of the literature reveals inconsistent operating procedures from one study to another. While this fact does not invalidate results per se, the lack of standardisation constitutes a regrettable shortcoming, especially in the context of drug development programmes. Moreover, this shortcoming hampers reliable comparisons between outcomes of studies from different laboratories and hence also prevents pooling of data which is a requirement for sufficiently powering the validation of novel analytical algorithms and EEG-based biomarkers. The present updated guidelines reflect the consensus of a global panel of EEG experts and are intended to assist investigators using pharmaco-EEG in clinical research, by providing clear and concise recommendations and thereby enabling standardisation of methodology and facilitating comparability of data across laboratories.