<%BANNER%>

Cognitive Training with Video Games to Improve Driving Skills and Driving Safety among Older Adults

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021218/00001

Material Information

Title: Cognitive Training with Video Games to Improve Driving Skills and Driving Safety among Older Adults
Physical Description: 1 online resource (209 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Belchior, Patricia Da Cunha
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attention, cognitive, elderly, game, simulator, training, ufov, video, visual
Rehabilitation Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Rehabilitation Science thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Visual attention is one of the most important cognitive skills required for driving an automobile. Although this skill declines with aging, training in older ages has been shown to boost visual attention. Today the most approach for training older adults? visual attention is the UFOV. A practical drawback of using this training, however, is that equipment demands require that the training be done in a laboratory or clinical setting, which can be expensive and inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention for driving performance and given the lack of widely available approaches to train this skill, there is a need to explore more inexpensive alternatives for training visual attention. One possible option for training visual attention in older individuals involves video games. Previous research with younger adults has shown positive effects of video game in training on the visual attention of college students, including in useful field of view tasks. The current study investigated the impact of video game training on older adults' visual attention performance; in addition, it was investigated if such improvements would transfer to improved performance in a driving simulator task. Fifty-eight participants. Forty-five participants were assigned to one of the three intervention groups (action video game (Medal of Honor), Useful Field of View (UFOV), placebo control video game (Tetris)) and thirteen participants were assigned to a no contact control group. Before training and immediately after training participants from the intervention groups were evaluated in a UFOV test and in a driving simulator test. The intervention was composed of 6 training sessions, each of 1.5 hour duration. Overall, the results suggest that the UFOV training improved visual attention significantly more than any other group. It was noted, however, that the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor and Tetris) experienced (non-significantly) more visual attention gain than the no contact control group; indeed, on one subtask (Selective attention), the Tetris group experienced significantly more gain than the no-contact control group, even though Tetris had been construed as a no-contact control. Despite general practice-related gain in driving simulator performance for all study groups, the results of the study further indicated that the visual attention gains were not transferred to a simulator driving performance. In contrast, differential effects of the three training conditions were observed in participant Flow, an indicator of participant enjoyment and engagement. Participant?s self-rated flow experience suggested that enjoyment improved over time for the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor, Tetris), but decreased for the more traditional computer-based UFOV training group. In a final study aim, consumer-oriented analyses of participants' opinions about the games they played were conducted. Results of these analyses suggested that video game were acceptable to this older adult population, and that many saw the games as a valid tool for mental exercise. Thus, although more work is needed to establish appropriate dosages, outcome measures, and to identify which games best improve visual attention, the positive evaluations of the games and positive Flow results lend preliminary support that video games can be acceptable and promising intervention tool.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patricia Da Cunha Belchior.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Mann, William C.
Local: Co-adviser: Marsiske, Michael.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021218:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021218/00001

Material Information

Title: Cognitive Training with Video Games to Improve Driving Skills and Driving Safety among Older Adults
Physical Description: 1 online resource (209 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Belchior, Patricia Da Cunha
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attention, cognitive, elderly, game, simulator, training, ufov, video, visual
Rehabilitation Science -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Rehabilitation Science thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Visual attention is one of the most important cognitive skills required for driving an automobile. Although this skill declines with aging, training in older ages has been shown to boost visual attention. Today the most approach for training older adults? visual attention is the UFOV. A practical drawback of using this training, however, is that equipment demands require that the training be done in a laboratory or clinical setting, which can be expensive and inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention for driving performance and given the lack of widely available approaches to train this skill, there is a need to explore more inexpensive alternatives for training visual attention. One possible option for training visual attention in older individuals involves video games. Previous research with younger adults has shown positive effects of video game in training on the visual attention of college students, including in useful field of view tasks. The current study investigated the impact of video game training on older adults' visual attention performance; in addition, it was investigated if such improvements would transfer to improved performance in a driving simulator task. Fifty-eight participants. Forty-five participants were assigned to one of the three intervention groups (action video game (Medal of Honor), Useful Field of View (UFOV), placebo control video game (Tetris)) and thirteen participants were assigned to a no contact control group. Before training and immediately after training participants from the intervention groups were evaluated in a UFOV test and in a driving simulator test. The intervention was composed of 6 training sessions, each of 1.5 hour duration. Overall, the results suggest that the UFOV training improved visual attention significantly more than any other group. It was noted, however, that the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor and Tetris) experienced (non-significantly) more visual attention gain than the no contact control group; indeed, on one subtask (Selective attention), the Tetris group experienced significantly more gain than the no-contact control group, even though Tetris had been construed as a no-contact control. Despite general practice-related gain in driving simulator performance for all study groups, the results of the study further indicated that the visual attention gains were not transferred to a simulator driving performance. In contrast, differential effects of the three training conditions were observed in participant Flow, an indicator of participant enjoyment and engagement. Participant?s self-rated flow experience suggested that enjoyment improved over time for the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor, Tetris), but decreased for the more traditional computer-based UFOV training group. In a final study aim, consumer-oriented analyses of participants' opinions about the games they played were conducted. Results of these analyses suggested that video game were acceptable to this older adult population, and that many saw the games as a valid tool for mental exercise. Thus, although more work is needed to establish appropriate dosages, outcome measures, and to identify which games best improve visual attention, the positive evaluations of the games and positive Flow results lend preliminary support that video games can be acceptable and promising intervention tool.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patricia Da Cunha Belchior.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Mann, William C.
Local: Co-adviser: Marsiske, Michael.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021218:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





COGNITIVE TRAINING WITH VIDEO GAMES TO IMPROVE DRIVING SKILLS AND
DRIVING SAFETY AMONG OLDER ADULTS






















By

PATRICIA DA CUNHA BELCHIOR


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007




































O 2007 Patricia da Cunha Belchior



































To my grandparents, for their unconditional love









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I want to show my gratitude to my beloved grandparents. Without their support and

unconditional love through my life, I wouldn't be able to make this far. Any further attempt to

use words to thank them would be futile. They are and will forever be the inspiration for my

work. I also would like to thank my parents and step-parents for their patience, love and support.

I would like to apologize to my family for every time I left them waiting for me to come back

home but now I can proudly say I made it. I want to especially apologize to my brother and my

sisters for not being able to share their life with me.

I also want to convey my gratitude to my committee members. First and foremost, my

mentor and my advisor, William Mann, whom I first met during my first year of college in Brazil

more than 10 years ago, and whose work inspired me to come to the United States for my

graduate studies. Thanks for trusting me in this endeavor. Thanks for your patience in showing

me how to get to this point. And thanks for being there every step of the way. I also would like to

say a special thanks my co-chair Michael Marsiske, who I had the pleasure to meet in the last

two years of my studies and from whom I learned so much. The dedication he has to his students

will never be forgotten. I would not get this dissertation done without his help. I also would like

to thank Lorie Richards, Heather Gibson and Ann Horgas for being part of my committee.

Special thanks to Debora Anderson, the director of the International Center who gave me

tremendous help during my first years at the University of Florida. I also would like to thank all

the staff from the occupational therapy department and thanks to my friends that went through

this journey with me, Rick, Michael, Roxanna, Bhagwant, Dennis, Megan, Jessica, Arlene,

Leigh, Eric,Inga, Jia hwa and specially thanks Cristina, my first friend in this program and with

whom I could share my Latin American background.









I can not forget to mention all the students that helped me with my data collection:

Shannon, Jason, Eric, Brian, Matt, Sean, Emily, and Claudia. I hope they all had some fun

teaching older adults to play video games:

I also would like to thank all my Brazilian friends whom I had the opportunity to share my

experience living in a foreign country and that made this journey a little bit more like home. Last

but definitely not least, I want to show my appreciation to a person that I met almost toward the

end of this j ourney but who was able to make it more colorful and who held my hands and that

patiently always cheered me up in moments of despair. "Don't worry paixio, everything will

work out," I think you were right Billy Shields.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ........._.._ ..... ._._ ...............9....


LIST OF FIGURES ........._.._ ..... ._._ ...............11....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 13...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............15.......... ......


D riving ............... ... .. ......... ........ ... .... ........ ..... .... .......1
The International Classification of Function Disability and Health (ICF) ................... .......... 19
ICF Classification ................. .... ....... ... ... ......... ... ....................2

Application of Leisure / Recreation Based Approaches to Maintaining / Enhancing
Cognition and Complex Activity Performance Application at Each Level in the
IC F ............ ....... . ..... ............. ...............2
Participation in Leisure Activities Impacts all Components of ICF Model ................... .25
Study Purpose ................. ...............26.......... .....

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............28................


Cognitive Training With Older Adults ................. ...............28........... ...
Useful Field of View (UFOV) Test................... .........___.....__.....__......32
Driving Performance Tests ............__........... ...............34....
Studies Using Driving Simulator Outcomes .............. ...............36....
UFOV Training With Older Adults ................. ...............37........... ...
Video Game Training of Cognition .................. ... ........ ...............39.....
Video Game Studies Conducted by Green and Bavelier............... ...............42
E ngagem ent .......... ... .. .............................. ..... .. .................4
Current Thinking About Training With Older Adults/Real World/Cognitive Reserve .........46
Importance of the Study ...._.. ................ ...............48. ....

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............. ...............52....


Overall Procedure ..............._ ...............52........_ ......

Study Design............... .. ..... ..... .........5
Study Specific Aims and Hypothesis .............. ...............53....
Participants .............. ... ... ...... ...........5
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria .............. ...............55....
Recruitm ent .............. ...............55....

Sample Characteristics .............. ...............56....
Testing Design and Procedure ................. ...............56........ .....












Baseline Assessment .............. ...............57....
Random Assignment ...................... ...... ... ...... ...............5
Rationale for the Inclusion of a No-Contact Control Group .............. ....................5
P ostte st ................... ........... ...............59......
Measure During Intervention .............. ...............59....
Training ................. .. ........ ...............59......
Overview of Training .............. ...............59....
Medal of Honor Training ................. ...............60.......... ....
Useful Field of View Training ................. ............ ......... ........ ........63
T etris sTraining ................. ...............68.......... ......
M measures ............... ... .. .......... .. ......... .... .......6
Baseline Measures for Participant Characterization............... ............7
Proximal Outcome Variable ................. ...............71........... ....
Primary Outcome Measures .............. .... .............. ..........7
Correlation Between UFOV and Simulator Subtests ................... ...............7
Secondary Outcome............... ...............80
Sam ple Size .............. ...............8 1....

4 RE SULT S .............. ...............98....


Overview ................. ...............98.................
Preliminary Analysis ................... .............. ... .......9
Assessment of Baseline Differences Between Treatment Groups .............. ..................99
A ttrition ............... .. .................... ...............9
Aim 1: Effects of Videogame Training on Visual Attention (UFOV) .............. ... .............100
Analyses on the UFOV Composite .............. ... .. ............... .........0
Re-Examining Training Effects on UFOV by Each Subtask ................ ................ ..102
Speed of Processing Subtask ................. ...............104...............
Divided Attention Subtask .............. ...............104....
Selective Attention Subtask............... ...............105
Same-Different Subtask. ................. .......... ..... .. ............ ..... .............10

Change score analyses of Selective Attention and Same-Different subtasks ................106
Aim 2: Effects of Videogame Training on Driving Simulator Performance. ................... ....107
Driving Simulator Subtask 1: Break Reaction Distance .............. .....................107
Driving Simulator Subtask 2: Lane Maintenance ............_...... ..................110
Driving Simulator Subtask 3: Dog Detection Accuracy ............__.. .....__.........112
Aim 3: Changes in Engagement/Flow over the Course of Training ................. ................113
Aim 4: Qualitative Participant Interviews Regarding Game Design ................. ................114
Sum m ary ................. ...............117......... ......

5 DI SCUS SSION ................. ................. 153........ ....


Overview ................. ........... ... ...............153.....
Summary of M aj or Findings .................. ......... ... ...... ...............153....
Aim 1: Training Effects on Useful Field of View ................. .......... ................1 53
Aim 2: Driving Simulator Outcomes .................... .. ........... .........5
Aim 3: Changes in Flow Experience Through the Course of Training ................... .....155












Aim 4: Participants' Opinions About Game Design ................. ................. ....__155
Theoretical Considerations and Study Implications ......__. ..........._. ........._._. ....156
Limitations ............ ..... ._ ...............162...
Future directions ............ ..... ._ ...............165...
Conclusion ............ ..... ._ ...............168...


APPENDIX


A MOH MANUAL GUIDE ............ ..... ._ ...............170..


B UFOV TRAINING ................. ...............196................


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............199................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............209....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Measures used in the study. ............. ...............83.....

3-2 Sequence of the position of each dog on the scenario ................ ......... ................84

3-3 Correlation between UFOV and simulator subtasks during pretest. .............. ... .............85

3-4 Correlation between UFOV and simulator subtasks during posttest ................ ...............85

4-1 Sample characteristics both for the total group and by intervention subgroup ................119

4-2 Sample characteristics for completers and non-completers of the study protocol........... 120

4-3 UFOV composite scores before and after testing by group (mean +SD) ........................121

4-4 Post hoc analysis of UFOV composite scores by groups. ............. ....................12

4-5 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on four UFOV subtasks by
intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ...............122..............

4-6 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for processing speed subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ...............122..............

4-7 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for divided attention subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ...............123..............

4-8 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for selective attention subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ...............123..............

4-9 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the same different trial subtask
by intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ...............123........... ..

4-10 Post hoc analysis for selective attention subtask by group. .............. ...................12

4-11 Post hoc analysis s for same different trial scores by group ................. ............ .........124

4-12 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the overall driving simulator
score by intervention groups for pre and posttest. .............. ...............125....

4-13 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on four Simulator block by
intervention groups for pre and posttest. ....._.__._ ... ......._. ....__ ..........12

4-14 Mean values and standard deviation for lane maintenance by intervention groups for
pre and posttest. ............. ...............125....











4-15 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on lane maintenance on four
Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest ................. ............... ....126

4-16 Mean standardized scores and standard deviation on accuracy by intervention group
for pre and posttest ................. ...............126...............

4-17 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations of Flow scores for the 6 training
sessions, by intervention group ................. ...............127...............

4-18 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Medal of Honor ................. ............... .....128

4-19 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for UFOV ................. ................ ......... .129

4-20 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Tetris............... ...............130

4-21 Video game ownership and usage ................. ...............131........... ..

4-22 Video game features .............. ...............132....











LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Conceptual Framework for the World Health Organization's International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) ................. ............ .........27

2-1 Processing speed subtask ...........__......___ ...............50...

2-2 Divided attention subtask............... ...............50

2-3 Selective attention subtask............... ...............51

2-4 Same and different subtask ...........__......___ ...............51...

3-1 Diagram of study design presenting: Medal of Honor (MOH) group, Useful Field of
View (UFOV) group, Tetris group and the no contact control group. ............. ................86

3-2 Hypothesis 1............... ...............87...

3-3 Hypothesis 2............... ...............87...

3-4 Example of the controller used by participants to play the game ............_.. ..............88

3-5 Example of a PowerPoint slide with step-by-step instructions given to participants. .......88

3-6 PowerPoint slide with instructions on how to use the "jump" button. ............. ................89

3-7 Screen shot of TETRIS game .............. ...............89....

3-8 Example of a driving simulator used in the study............... ...............90.

3-9 Screen shot of the acclimation scenario. ....__. ...._.__... .......___.. ..........9

3-10 Example of the rural scenario. ............. ...............91.....

3-11 Example of a small town scenario .............. ...............92....

3-12 Example of a beach town scenario............... ...............92

3-13 Example of a metropolis scenario............... ...............93

3-14 Example of a dog from block 1 it is positioned in the center of the road.............._._... ...93

3-15 Example of a dog from block 2 it is positioned in a low eccentricity and without
clutter. ............. ...............94.....

3-16 Example of a dog from block 3 it is placed on high eccentricity with some clutter.......94











3-17 Example of a dog from block 4 it is placed on a medium eccentricity but with
much clutter and distraction. ........._.._.. ...._... ...............95...

3-18 Example of a rural road scenario used as a filler scenario............... ...............95

3-19 Example of a city scenario used as a filler. ...._. ......_._._ .......__. .........9

3-20 Diagram with illustration on how simulator generated data was collected. ......................97









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

COGNITIVE TRAINING WITH VIDEO GAMES TO IMPROVE DRIVING SKILLS AND
DRIVING SAFETY AMONG OLDER ADULTS

By

PATRICIA DA CUNHA BELCHIOR

August 2007

Chair: William Mann
Cochair: Michael Marsiske
Major: Rehabilitation Science

Visual attention is one of the most important cognitive skills required for driving an

automobile. Although this skill declines with aging, training in older ages has been shown to

boost visual attention. Today the most approach for training older adults' visual attention is the

UFOV. A practical drawback of using this training, however, is that equipment demands require

that the training be done in a laboratory or clinical setting, which can be expensive and

inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention for driving

performance and given the lack of widely available approaches to train this skill, there is a need

to explore more inexpensive alternatives for training visual attention. One possible option for

training visual attention in older individuals involves video games. Previous research with

younger adults has shown positive effects of video game in training on the visual attention of

college students, including in useful field of view tasks.

The current study investigated the impact of video game training on older adult' s visual

attention performance; in addition, it was investigated if such improvements would transfer to

improved performance in a driving simulator task. Fifty-eight participants. Forty-five

participants were assigned to one of the three intervention groups (action video game (Medal of









Honor), Useful Field of View (UFOV), placebo control video game (Tetris)) and thirteen

participants were assigned to a no contact control group. Before training and immediately after

training participants from the intervention groups were evaluated in a UFOV test and in a driving

simulator test. The intervention was composed of 6 training sessions, each of 1.5 hour duration.

Overall, the results suggest that the UFOV training improved visual attention significantly

more than any other group. It was noted, however, that the two video game conditions (Medal of

Honor and Tetris) experienced (non-significantly) more visual attention gain than the no contact

control group; indeed, on one subtask (Selective attention), the Tetris group experienced

significantly more gain than the no-contact control group, even though Tetris had been construed

as a no-contact control. Despite general practice-related gain in driving simulator performance

for all study groups, the results of the study further indicated that the visual attention gains were

not transferred to a simulator driving performance.

In contrast, differential effects of the three training conditions were observed in participant

Flow, an indicator of participant enj oyment and engagement. Participant' s self-rated flow

experience suggested that enj oyment improved over time for the two video game conditions

(Medal of Honor, Tetris), but decreased for the more traditional computer-based UFOV training

group. In a final study aim, consumer-oriented analyses of participants' opinions about the games

they played were conducted. Results of these analyses suggested that video game were

acceptable to this older adult population, and that many saw the games as a valid tool for mental

exercise. Thus, although more work is needed to establish appropriate dosages, outcome

measures, and to identify which games best improve visual attention, the positive evaluations of

the games and positive Flow results lend preliminary support that video games can be acceptable

and promising intervention tool.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Driving

Driving is a very important activity for older adults in the United States. It is a means for

achieving independence and social connectedness in American society, especially for those

living in rural areas. In addition, it is linked to other activities of daily living. Isolation and

depression are commonly associated with driving cessation or reduction (Marotolli, Mendes de

Leon, Glass, Williams, Cooney Jr, Berkman, et al., 1997; Fonda, Wallace, & Herzog, 2001).

It is estimated that 89% of American seniors conduct their travel in personal vehicles

(Collia, Sharp, & Giesbrecht, 2003). The total trip miles traveled by people aged 65 and older

increased by 21 percent compared to total trip miles traveled by people aged 25-64 between the

years 1995 and 2001. The average trip miles per person also increased 13 percent for those 65

and older, but stayed almost the same for the younger group (Austin & Faigin, 2003).

With the increase in life expectancy, the number of older adults driving automobiles is also

increasing. It is estimated that by the year 2050 the elderly population will increase to 79 million

persons, more than double its present size (US Census). Older drivers represent 10 percent of the

total driving population in America and, the number of licensed and frail elderly is projected to

increase. In 2002, the elderly population accounted for 150,000 injuries associated with vehicle

crashes or 5% of all people injured in crashes (NHTSA, 2002). This suggests that older drivers'

safety should be considered a public health issue.

Driving is a very complex task that involves several factors, such as mobility, sensory

function, cognition, and the environment per se (e.g., road and vehicle design). Driving can be a

challenge for older individuals due to normally declining factors associated with aging. While

many older adults can modify their driving habits (e.g., drive less, drive only during restricted









hours) due to sensorimotor or cognitive impairments, many continue to drive as long as possible

and do not change their preferred mode of travel (Ball, Owsley, Stalvey, Roenker, Sloane &

Graves, 1998). This behavior puts older drivers at increased risk for crashes. Older drivers are at

a greater risk for crashes and traffic convictions, per capital, than any other adult age group

(Owsley, Ball, Sloane, Roenker & Bruni, 1991; Edward Roybal Center for Research, 2001).

Older drivers with visual and cognitive declines are at a greater risk for crash involvement than

those who do not have similar deficits (Owsley et al., 1991).

Among all the possible cognitive skills related to driving, visual attention has consistently

been found to be one of the most associated factors. It plays a maj or role in driving performance

(Owsley, et al., 1991; Ball, Owsley, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993; Richardson & Marottoli,

2003). Visual attention is commonly defined as the focal area from which information can be

acquired within one eye fixation or "glance" (Ball, Beard, Roenker, Miller & Griggs, 1988).

Richardson et al., (2003) found that visual attention is the cognitive skill related to driving

behaviors that is most problematic for older individuals. In their study, driving behavior was

assessed through a road test that included 36 items (e.g., acceleration, braking, lane change,

speed regulation, response to traffic signals). Visual attention was the cognitive skill most

associated with driving behaviors. Out of 36 maneuvers, 25 required the use of visual attention

skills (e.g., yielding right of way, responding to other vehicles or pedestrians, making turns at an

intersection). In a similar study, Ball and Owsley (1991) investigated the types of crashes in

which older adults are most likely to be involved. They found that maj or crashes among older

individuals are more likely to occur at intersections, where the visual attention requirements

(detection, localization and identification of targets) are more likely to be higher.









Several cognitive tests have been used to investigate the relationship between cognitive

skills and car crashes. Scores on the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test, which is a measure of

speed of processing and visual attention, show the highest relationship to crash involvement in a

number of studies (Goode, Ball, Sloane, Roenker, Roth, Myers, et al., 1998). Thus, several

studies on visual attention have used the UFOV to operationalize this construct. UFOV is said to

decrease with aging (Sekuler, Bennett & Mamelak, 2000). Thus, the deficit in UFOV associated

with aging is a putative cause of increased late-life risk for crashes and driving errors. This age-

related loss of UFOV skill may not be irreversible. A growing body of evidence suggests that

training of this skill may be effective well into late life.

UFOV performance can be improved with training. The ACTIVE clinical trial, a multi-site

NIA-funded study of cognitive interventions with older adults, employed a ten-session training

program for older adults. Participants received customized training (at their level of ability) and

strategy instruction, with extensive practice of sample exercises using a touch screen computer.

Initial findings from the ACTIVE study found an increase in the size of the UFOV immediately

following the training (Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, et al., 2002), and that these

gains were maintained for at least two years. Moreover, a longer-term follow-up with ACTIVE

participants further revealed that persons who received UFOV training continued to show

performance advantages on UFOV tests, relative to untrained controls, up to Hyve years after

training (Willis, Tennstedt, Marsiske, Ball, Elias, Koepke, et al., 2006).

In accordance with the positive results seen in the ACTIVE trial, today the most common

tool to train older adults' visual attention is the UFOV training program, developed by

investigators at Western Kentucky University and the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

UJFOV training, as in ACTIVE, is practiced in a touch screen environment using specialized










equipment and software. A drawback of using this training is that equipment demands require

that the training be done in a laboratory or clinical setting, which can be expensive and

inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention to driving

performance and given the lack of widely available instruments to train this skill, there is a need

to explore more inexpensive alternatives for training visual attention.

A possible option for training visual attention in older individuals is the use of video

games. Previous research with younger adults has shown positive effects of video games playing

in the training of visual attention in college students (Green & Bavelier, 2003). Although there is

evidence that video game playing enhances motor, perceptual, and cognitive abilities among the

elderly (Drew & Waters, 1986; Clark, Lanphear, & Riddick, 1987), the use of video game

playing to train visual attention among the older population has not been investigated.

Above-and-beyond the practical value of exploring video games as a tool for training

visual attention (i.e., video games use widely available and a more affordable technology), a

secondary reason that video games might be worthwhile exploring concerns enj oyability of or

engagement in the training experience. Video games have been designed, after all, to be "fun".

Thus, video games may provide a motivating and engaging tool to increase visual attention

in elders; such motivational benefits may enhance compliance with and effort in training. Thus,

an important piece of information which needs to be collected in video game training studies

with older adults concerns their engagement and motivation to use this technology. Engagement

in activities often uses "Flow" theory, as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1975), and forms a core

concept in the current study. This is described in further detail in the next chapter.

The use of training strategies to improve cognitive skills in old age and therefore, improve

performance of instrumental activities of daily living (e.g., driving) can be put into perspective









by using a conceptual model recognized in rehabilitation science. The World Health

Organization (WHO), International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF), will

be used as the framework for this study (Figure 1-1). The ICF provides a good understanding of

the use of cognitive training in rehabilitation settings. It also provides the basis for understanding

the interrelationship between the person, the environment, health and function.

The International Classification of Function Disability and Health (ICF)

The ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) is a member of

the World Health Organization Family of International Classifications. It defines a new model of

health. ICF is the result of a revision in the previous model ICIDH (International Classification

of Impairment Disability and Handicap), created in 1980 to fulfill the need for a model that could

capture the multidimensional aspect of disability. Prior health assessment had focused on

mortality and cause of death. Within this new perspective, the individual level of functioning was

also considered as a component of health. The ICIDH had many limitations, one of them being

that the linear progression of the model (from impairments to disability and handicaps) could not

really capture the multidimensional aspect of disability. Thirteen years after its approval, ICIDH

went through an in depth review process that lasted 10 years. ICF emerged from this process. It

uses a neutral terminology that can be applied to every person regardless of their health status. In

addition it uses a standardized language which facilitates the communication of health

professionals around the globe. The ICF model brings together the medical model (which views

disability as a problem exclusively of the person) and the social model (which views disability as

a problem exclusively of the environment) to create a biopsychosocial model of health, which

takes into account the body, the individual and society. In contrast to its earlier version (ICIDH),

health is seen in a dynamic process; the environmental component was added to this model, and

it is a very important factor in the understanding of multidimensional aspects of health (Ustun,










Chatterji, Bickenback, Kostanj sek & Schneider, 2003). ICF has multiple applications in the area

of rehabilitation.

ICF Classification

The goal of the ICF is to classify all aspects of health and health related states (World

Health Organization [WHO], 2001). ICF information is organized in two parts: Functioning and

disability and contextual factors. These parts are further categorized into components. The

components of functioning and disability include body functions and structures, activities and

participation. Body function encompasses the physiological function of the body system whereas

body structure encompasses the anatomical part of the body. Activity is defined as the execution

of a task whereas participation is defined as an involvement in a life situation. Activities and

participation also involve two other constructs: capacity and performance. Capacity is the ability

to execute a task in a standardized environment and performance is the ability to execute a task

in the real environment. The components of contextual factors include: environmental factors

and personal factors. Environmental factors are related to the physical, social and attitudinal

environment. Personal factors pertain to the individual background (e.g., lifestyle, age, culture,

race).

ICF provides its classification through a coding system for recording functioning and

disability status under each component of the model. The classification can use from two to four

levels of coding. Codes are represented by an alphanumeric system. The letter "b" denotes

components of body functioning; "s" denotes components of body structure; "d" denotes

components of activities and participation and "e" denotes environmental factors. The first level

coding involves the letters followed by a numeric code that involves the number of a chapter. For

example: "d9" denotes community, social and civic life. The next level coding has two digits,

and will further classify the previous level, for example "d920" denoted the recreation and









leisure. To indicate the level of health or severity of the problem in each domain, "qualifiers" are

placed after a decimal point following the category code. A body function qualifier indicates the

presence of impairment (on a five point scale e.g., no impairment, moderate impairment). Body

structure qualifiers indicate the extent of impairment (e.g., no impairment, mild impairment),

nature of body structure (e.g., no change in structure, partial absence, additional part) and

localization (e.g., right, left, both sides). A capacity qualifier describes the ability to execute a

task in a standardized environment (no support is provided by the environment, e.g., execution of

a task without assistive device). A participation qualifier describes the ability to execute a task in

the current environment (with support form the environment, e.g., use of assistive device). An

environmental factor qualifier describes the extent to which the environment has enabled

(facilitator) or limited (barrier) performance. Both of them use a generic qualifier (0-4 scale), but

facilitators are specified by replacing the decimal point with "+". Personal factors are not coded

in the ICF.

A problem in the body function and structures will cause impairment, while a problem in

executing activities or engaging into life situations will cause an activity limitation or

participation restriction respectively. Disability then is a broad term that encompasses the

negative aspects of health (impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction). It is

viewed by WHO as an outcome of interactions between health conditions and contextual factors.

On the other hand, the successful completion of everyday activities across a wide range of life

areas is termed functioning.

Functioning and disability in the ICF are seen as an interactive and evolutionary processes.

Each entity of the model interacts in a dynamic and non linear relation. For instance; an

individual may have performance problems without impairment or capacity limitation (e.g., an










ex-prisoner facing discrimination and not able to engage in any social relationship). Furthermore,

intervention in one domain has the potential to modify one or more domains. For example, the

use of an assistive device can facilitate execution of a task and in turn facilitate social interaction.

An individual with low vision has a telephone with large keys, being able to perform the task of

dialing activity and making phone call to friends engaging in social interactions -

participation.

ICF classification is used to obtain information of a person functioning instead of a

classification of people with disability. From this perspective, ICF can be used for everybody,

independent of one' s level of health. ICF does not describe disability as a consequence of health

condition; it also involves legislation, attitudes, physical, social environments. The

environmental factor in this model is a key aspect for understanding functioning and disability

because disability must be seen in the societal context (Dahl, 2002).

ICF has an important role in rehabilitation. In contrast to medical interventions that focus

on the disease process, rehabilitation has a broader understanding of the individual, which view

function and health as also associated with personal and environmental factors (Stucki, Ewert &

Cieza, 2002). In this study, the use of cognitive strategies to promote cognitive skills is related to

personal factors, and is associated with each level of the ICF model, as will be described below.

Application of Leisure / Recreation Based Approaches to Maintaining / Enhancing
Cognition and Complex Activity Performance Application at Each Level in the ICF

A set of studies on participation in leisure activities in later life found a relationship

between leisure activities and cognition in later life. A stimulating environment provided by

participation in leisure activities has the potential to improve cognitive capacity and would

reflect in each level in the ICF. From this perspective, participation in leisure activities will be

classified as a lifestyle. Lifestyle seems to represent a number of different constructs, among









them is participation in leisure activities (Scarmeas & Stern, 2003). Richards, Hardy and

Wadsworth (2003), studied the effect of participation in leisure activity in a sample of 5362

individuals over a 43-year period, and found a positive association between participation in

leisure activities through the lifespan and cognitive functioning. An active lifestyle might

enhance functioning in later life and be an important approach for successful aging.

Rowe & Kahn (1997), conceptualize successful aging as a hierarchy that consists of three

tasks: 1. Decreasing the risk of disease and disease-related disability, 2. Increasing or

maintaining physical and mental functioning and 3. Being actively engaged with life.

Participation in mental activities in later life has a positive impact on one's life and can influence

each task in the model proposed by Rowe and Kahn.

Several studies found a positive relationship between participation in leisure activity and

cognitive functioning in later life. These studies give us a broad perspective on the importance of

participation in leisure activity for enhancing or maintaining cognition in later life. Cognitive

ability is not fixed, but environmental factors play a role in augmenting cognitive functions in

later life.

Participation in activities that are cognitively demanding is related to cognitive reserve in

later life. One of the studies related to this topic was conducted by Wilson, Barnes and Bennett

(2003). In this study, older individuals were asked to rate their frequency of participation in

common cognitive activities (e.g., reading, playing games like checkers, visiting a library) at five

points in time (age 6, 12, 18, 40 and currently). Results show that lifetime cognitive activity was

related to semantic memory, perceptual speed and viso-spatial abilities.

Scarmeas, Levy, Tang, Manly and Stern. (2001), proposed that leisure activities also

contribute to the cognitive reserve by preserving a set of skills or repertoires necessary for










cognitive function. Participants of this study were 1,772 non-demented individuals who were

examined annually, up to 7 years.

There is also a relationship between levels of cognitive demands in the activities and levels

of cognitive function. Singh-Manoux, Richards and Marmot (2005) conducted a study to

examine the relationship of leisure activities and cognitive functions. In this study, participants

rated their frequency in participation in cognitive activities. Activities were classified as either

having high or low cognitive effort. High demanding cognitive activities were associated with

higher cognitive abilities. In addition activities that required social interactions had a higher

cognitive demand than activities that did not required social engagement.

Research has also supported the notion that the increase in brain cognitive reserve by

participation in leisure activities lowers the risk of dementia, both Alzheimer' s disease and

vascular dementia. Participation in an activity for one day per week, can reduce the risk of

dementia by 7 percent. Although participation in cognitively stimulating activities is associated

with reduced risk of dementia, participation in physical activity is not (Verghese, Lipton, Katz,

Hall, Derby, Kuslansky, Ambrose, Sliwinski & Buschke (2003).

According to these studies, lifestyle is related to cognitive functions in later life. In the ICF

model, lifestyle is classified under personal factors. In this case, lifestyle would augment

cognitive function in later life. Although ICF does not use "facilitators" and "barriers" as

qualifiers for personal factors, it seems that participation in leisure activities functions as a

facilitator to the maintenance or enhancement of cognitive functions in later life. Future studies

should be done to examine the applicability of these two qualifiers under personal factors.

Furthermore, a relationship is found in the model between personal factors (in this case lifestyle)

and environmental factors. Lifestyle can influence or be influenced by environmental factors. For









instance, if a person lives in a resource-rich environment, this person will be more willing to

have a lifestyle that accounts for improvement in cognitive functioning. The availability of

programs that would promote participation in leisure activities program for older adults in the

community would act as an environmental facilitator for leisure participation.

Participation in Leisure Activities Impacts all Components of ICF Model

Body Structure As the results of previous studies indicate, participation in leisure

activities contributes to cognitive reserve. Cognitive reserve is a term commonly used to explain

the great variability in the severity of cognitive aging in the face of neurodegenerative changes

that are similar in nature and extent. Studies suggest that cognitive reserve probably involves

processes that support neuroplasticity, which is defined as the "self-organization of the brain to

meet environmental demands (Whalley, Deary, Appleton & Starr, 2004). Scarmeas and Stern,

(2003), suggests different ways in which leisure activities may enhance cognitive reserve: First,

an engaged lifestyle may increase synaptic density in neocortical association cortex, second,

better circuits of synaptic activity may exist in subj ects who participate in leisure activities (even

though the number of neurons or synapses might be the same) and third, more efficient use of

brain networks. ICF gives classifications of structure of the brain under "body structure"

component, under code "s110".

Body Functioning Studies discussed in this section indicated that participation in

cognitive stimulating activities, specifically leisure activities, reduce the decline of memory

(Verghese et. al., 2003; Wilson et. al., 2003; Singh-Manoux et. al., 2005) inductive reasoning,

verbal meaning, verbal fluency (Singh-Manoux et al., 2005), perceptual speed, visuo-spatial

ability (Wilson et. al., 2003). The classification of cognitive functioning in found in the ICF

under "body functioning". Cognitive functioning can be classified under global functioning and

specific mental functions.









Activities and participation The performance of activities of daily living (ADL) and

instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as driving, involves the use of fundamental

cognitive skills. Studies show that poor cognitive function leads to increased risk of limitation in

ADL performance (Moritz, Kasl, & Berkman, 1995). In this case, lifestyle would not specifically

affect participation in leisure activities, but lifestyle would increase cognitive function needed to

perform all the array of everyday activities. All activities classified in the ICF could be affected

by enhancing cognitive capacity.

The potential of using ICF to classify cognitive disorders has already being stated

(Arthanat, Nochaj ski & Stone, 2004), however, in the present discussion, the personal level,

defined as positive lifestyle by participation in leisure activities, was added. Thus, the use of

cognitive training to promote cognitive function can be seen as part of the personal component,

and has the potential to influence each level of the model by improving visual attention (body

function and structures level), having an impact on driving performance (activities level) and

promoting independence in other activities by driving (participation level).

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of using an action video game

(Medal of Honor; MOH) to improve the visual attention (UFOV) performance of older adults.

The study also investigated the effects of MOH training on a "real-world" outcome of older

adults' simulated driving performance. Another purpose of this study was to investigate

participants' engagement with/enj oyment of videogame- or UFOV-training, and to query

participants' opinions about exiting interface design.





Health condition
(Disorder or disease)
Disorders that can
impact c.*,,,,lo ,


I -
Body function
and structures ~
Visual attention
disorders |


Participation
Activities ~IIndependence;
SEngagement in other
Driving | activities


Figure 1-1. Conceptual Framework for the World Health Organization's International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Cognitive Training With Older Adults

There has been a growing body of literature over the last three decades suggesting that age-

related decline in cognition can be reduced or even reversed through cognitive training. The

cognitive abilities trained in the maj ority of the studies have been the ones that typically show

early cognitive declines e.g., speed of processing, memory and reasoning.

Decline in speed of processing is normatively experienced in middle age and decline in

memory and reasoning generally begins by the 6th decade of life (Schaie, 1996; Baltes, & Mayer,

1999; Christensen, MacKinnon, Korten, Jorm, Henderson, Jacomb, et al., 1999; Colsher, &

Wallace, 1991). Age related declines in these cognitive abilities are on the order of one-quarter

of a standard deviation over a four- to seven-year interval in late adulthood (Schaie, 1996;

Zelinski, & Burnight, 1997; Hultsch, Hertzog, Dixon, & Small, 1998; Zelinski, & Stewart, 1998;

Luszcz, 1998; Sliwinski, & Buschke, 1999).

The magnitude of decline for reasoning reported in the literature has ranged from .22 SD

over 7 years to .42 SD over 14 years (Schaie, 1996). Memory changes have been described with

estimates including (a) .25 SD over 7 years for semantic lists (Schaie, 1996), (b) half of a

standard deviation over 16 years for immediate word recall and 1.00 SD for immediate text recall

(Zelinski, & Burnight, 1997), (c) one quarter of a standard deviation over 6 years for immediate

word recall (Small, Dixon, Hultsch & Hertzog, 1999) and (d) .33 SD over 4 years for word

recall (Singer, Verhaeghen, Ghisletta, Lindenburger, & Baltes, 2003). Reported speed changes

have ranged from .16 SD over 2 years (Ball, & Owsley, 2000) to .25 SD over 4 years (Singer et

al, 2002).










Despite the cognitive declines experienced in later life, the research literature suggests that

cognitive training may have the potential to reverse such declines. However, it is important to

note that cognitive training effects have not been broad and general, but really targeted and

narrow. Generally, cognitive gains reported in the literature have been significant and specific to

the ability trained (Plemons, Willis, & Baltes, 1978; Willis, Blieszner, & Baltes, 1981; Blieszner,

Willis, & Baltes, 1981; Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Kliegl, 1986). ACTIVE is currently the

largest clinical trial of cognitive interventions for older adults. It is a six-site trial funded, since

1996, by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Nursing Research. The

design of ACTIVE was to use interventions that had proven effective in previous research, that

focused on enhancing basic cognitive skills in older adults, and that might improve everyday

function in older adults who had not yet experienced functional decline but were at risk for such

decline. ACTIVE improved on preceding training research by (a) using a larger (i.e., well

powered with 2,802 participants) and more heterogeneous sample, including 27% African

American elders, and (b) implementing the training protocol simultaneously at multiple site, to

guard against laboratory-specific findings. (Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, et al.,

2002; Willis, Tennstedt, Marsiske, Ball, Elias, Koepke, et al., 2006).

In the ACTIVE study, participants were randomized to one of four conditions: Reasoning

training, Memory training, Useful Field of View (Speed) training, and no-contact control. In all

three training groups, participants initially received ten 60-90 minute training sessions, typically

administered over five weeks. Initial study results suggested that participants in all three

intervention aims experienced immediate significant gains on their targets of training (for

reasoning gains averaged .48 SD, for memory they were .26 SD and for Useful Field of View

they averaged 1.45 SD), and training group advantages were still observed two years post-









training. (Ball et al., 2002). In a subsequent long-term follow-up, conducted five years after the

initial training, there were still persist advantages for trained participants on their targets of

training, relative to untrained controls.

The five year net effect of reasoning training was found to be .26 SD; for memory it was

.23 SD, and for Useful Field of View (named "Speed of Processing" in study papers), it was .76

SD (Willis, et al., 2006). In addition, in the five year follow-up, participants in all three training

groups reported less perceived difficulty with IADLs relative to no-contact controls, a difference

which reached significance for the Reasoning group. In addition, in a subgroup of participants

who received extra "booster" training (i.e., yielding a total of eighteen 60-90 minute sessions

from Year 1 to Year 3 of the study), the extra training (compared to the basic ten-session

program) yielded significant improvements on several observed tasks of daily living, as rated by

blind raters. Specifically, persons who received booster Reasoning training experienced

significantly more gain on measures of Everyday Problem Solving (i.e., the ability to read and

understand medication labels, recipes, financial documents, etc.), and persons who received

booster Useful Field of View training experienced significantly more gain on measures of

Everyday Speed (e.g., ability to quickly and accurately read medication labels, find items in a

pantry, look up a phone number in the phone book).

Despite these initially promising results from the ACTIVE trial, built on three decades of

successful training research with older adults (LabouvieVief, & Gonda, 1976; Blieszner, Willis

& Balter, 1981; Scogin, & Bienias, 1988; Willis & Nesselroade, 1990; Verhaeghen, Marcoen &

Goossens, 1992), the more general finding in the literature, across the life span, is that transfer of

training to real-world skills is difficult to achieve (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986; Salomon &

Perkins, 1989). Even in ACTIVE, transfer effects where small and fairly ephemeral. A broad









conclusion is that studies on the effects of transfer of skills from laboratory to real life situations

is scarce.

For older adults, the relative absence of training transfer may be due to the fact that many

studies generally exclude persons thought to have incipient dementia, so study participants are

not cognitively impaired in the domains of training. In addition it has been reported that IADL

performance does not start to decline until the 70's or 80's (Willis, 1996). Taken together, this

implies that many older adults may be at "ceiling" in their everyday performance, so measures of

everyday functioning may not have enough "room for improvement" to show training effects.

More generally, there is an absence of careful taxonomic research linking cognitive domains to

everyday functions (Marsiske & Margrett, 2006), and the psychometrics of everyday function

measurement often do not produce scores with substantial variance (Velozo, Magalhaes, Pan &

Leiter, 1995).

Few studies exist in the research literature that investigated the effect of the transfer of

cognitive training to everyday performance. The ACTIVE interventions seem to be a fairly

noteworthy late life exception (both within and outside of the ACTIVE study), with a

particularly positive pattern noted for Useful Field of View training. UFOV training was found

to improve performance of IADL. After participating in 10 1-hour training sessions, participants

performed more quickly and accurately on the Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living

(TIADL) tasks than the control group. The TIADL test emulates everyday tasks such as: looking

up phone numbers, counting change and, reading medication bottles (Edwards, Wadley, Myers,

Roenker, Cissel & Ball, 2002; Edwards, Wadley, Vance, Wood, Roenker & Ball, 2005). In

addition to improvement in TIADL scores, speed of processing training has also been found to

transfer to the Road sign test (Roenker, Cissell, Ball, Wadley & Edwards, 2003) and driving









performance (Ball, & Owsley, 2000). These studies support the hypothesis that transfer was only

found for the specific cognitive measure being trained. Owsley, Sloane, McGwin and Ball (2002)

also investigated which cognitive abilities were independently associated with the time required

by older adults to complete IADLs. Results showed that only processing speed was

independently associated with TIADL scores: those individuals with slower processing speeds

were more likely to require longer times to complete everyday tasks.

These studies support the contention that, among all the cognitive skills usually studied in

gerontology research (reasoning, memory and, useful field of view), UFOV training has shown

to be the most successful in showing training effects that transfer to everyday activities. The

Useful Field of View concept and test are described in greater detail in the next section.

Useful Field of View (UFOV) Test

The UFOV is a measure of speed of processing and visual attention. Visual attention is

defined as the area in which information can be acquired within one eye fixation (Ball, Beard,

Roenker, Miller, & Griggs, 1988). It is also used as a functional measure of visual processing in

older driver performance (Ball, Owsley, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993). Deterioration of the

UFOV begins at age 20 or younger. This deterioration is characterized by a decrease in the

efficiency with which individuals can extract information from a cluttered scene, rather than by a

shrinking of the field of view per se. Furthermore, the decrease in efficiency is increased when

conditions require the division of attention between central and peripheral tasks (Sekuler,

Bennett, & Mamelak, 2000).

The UFOV test was developed by investigators from Alabama and Western Kentucky

(UFOV" users guide"). The UFOV test is divided into four subtests that assess speed of visual

processing under increasingly complex task demands. Using both eyes, the examinee must

detect, identify and localize briefly presented targets.









The first subtest ("Speed") consists of identification of a target presented in a centrally

located box (figure 2-1). In the beginning of the test, a white box containing an icon of a car is

presented on a stationary display. After the participant receives the instruction to examine the

target, he or she touches the continue button and a second screen appears. The participant is then

asked to select the target that had been presented on the previous screen (in this case, a car). The

next screen introduces the truck icon. As in the previous instructions, the participant is asked to

select the target presented in the previous screen (in this case the truck). After these introduction

screens, the participant has four trials to practice. The participant can guess, without penalty.

There is no feedback with responses throughout the test. Practice continues until the participant

scores 3 out of 4 correct on a single practice trial. The length of the stimulus presentation in

milliseconds is automatically adjusted for each participant. After two correct responses,

presentation time is shortened. However, if the response is incorrect, presentation time will

increase. The process of tracking the perceptual thresholds is continued until a stable estimate of

the presentation time needed for the respondent to achieve 75% of trials correct is calculated.

The minimum (best score) for each test is 16ms; the maximum score is 500ms.

The second subtest is labeled Divided Attention (Figure 2-2). In this case, the participant is

asked to identify the centrally presented obj ect and locate a simultaneously presented car

displayed in the periphery. A central box, along with a series of 8 boxes attached with radial

spokes is numbered from 1 to 8 in a clockwise direction.

Presentation time varies according to the accuracy of the participant, and the subtest

continues until a stable measure of the threshold is determined. Again, the 75% correct threshold

for correct performance is calculated.









The third subtest is Selective Attention (Figure 2-3). This subtest is identical to subtest 2

except that the target displayed in the periphery (which is always a car) is embedded in a field of

47 triangles or distracters.

The fourth subtest is a modified selective attention subtest, named Same-Different, with

two icons in the center of the screen (inside the white box) (Figure 2-4). In this subtest, the

examinee is presented with two obj ects inside the white box in the center of the screen. The

examinees have to distinguish if the two obj ects are the same (two cars or two trucks) or

different (a car and a truck). There is also a target in the periphery in a clustered scene.

The UFOV measure has been widely used in clinical and rehabilitation settings and

normative UFOV data to adjust performance comparisons across demographically-similar elders

has been developed (Edwards et al, 2006) The UFOV has also been widely used in research

designed to examine driving performance with older adults and it is the primary outcome of the

present study but other outcomes have been investigated and will be described bellow.

Driving Performance Tests

Three other outcome measures are commonly used in studies on driving performance:

accident frequency, driving simulator, and road test. The use of each of these variables has

advantages and disadvantages.

Accident frequency This outcome can be measured either by self-report or state report.

State report of accident frequency has an advantage over self-report because all licensed drivers

have accident records in a standardized format. In addition, state reports include more detailed

information about the accident (e.g., road type, time of a day, location) (Owsley et al., 1991).

The disadvantages of these state reports are: underreporting of accidents are common and can

occur either because of the person or because of the state police. Vehicle accidents can also be

caused by factors that are not intrinsic to the driver (e.g., poor mechanical conditions of the car,










weather) (Ball et al., 1991). In addition, accidents are rare events. Owsley et al. (1991),

compared self-report police accidents (accidents where the police were at the scene, as indicated

by the Driving Habit Questionnaire) with state record accidents (number of accidents on the state

record), and found that the number of state record accidents and self-report police accidents did

not match. Both types of reports were expected to be related because in Alabama (where the

study was conducted), police are required to submit written accident reports to the state every

time they go the scene of an accident.

Raedt and Ponj aert-Kristoffersen (2000) used two outcome measures to identify cognitive

factors and driving problems in older adults: accident frequency and road performance. While

cognitive tests accounted for 64 percent of the variance of the scores on the road performance,

cognitive tests accounted for only 19 percent of the variance of the scores on accident frequency.

On-road driving performance On-road driving performance, when used as an outcome

measure for driving research, has the great advantage of measuring one' s ability in a real-life

situation. Although on-road performance seems to be one of the best outcome measures to

measure driving performance, it has some drawbacks. First, there is no control over the

environment and the stimulus presented to the participants, which makes it difficult to generalize

conclusions. Second, when two or more evaluators take part in the study, inter-rater reliability

should be set (Roneker et al, 2003), otherwise data might be compromised. Third, participants

can make mistakes because of the pressure of being tested, and they might also not be familiar

with the car. On-road tests are usually very expensive.

Driving simulator An alternative to on-road measures is the driving simulator. In a

simulator, the environment can be totally controlled, the same scenarios can be used for every

participant and the availability of low cost simulators is also increasing. However, the use of a









simulator has some disadvantages including high cost and possible simulator sickness among

participants (Mourant & Thattacheny, 2000). Participants do not have the same experience as a

real life situation. However, simulation has a great advantage- it provides a more controlled

testing situation. For this reason, and because a simulator was available for use in this study, this

was the outcome measure used. Simulator driving performance in this study will be measured by

brake reaction distance, lane maintenance and accuracy.

Studies Using Driving Simulator Outcomes

The use of a driving simulator either to educate (Fisher, Laurie, Glasser, Connerney,

Pollatsek, Duffy et al., 2002) or train (Dorn & Barker, 2005) the general population is found in

the literature. Driving simulators have also been useful to investigate the safety of display

positions while driving (Wittmann, Kiss, Gugg, Steffen, Fink, Poippel et al., 2006) with study

participants providing feedback (Donmez, Boyle & Lee, 2007). Another area in which driving

simulators have been gaining attention is to measure driving performance of older adults. In this

situation, driving performance is generally measured by assessing one's reaction time using

different tasks in the simulator. Ronker et. al (2003) measured reaction time in a simulator using

a light display located on the top panel of the driver' s unit. Participants were instructed to brake

as quickly as possible when the two red lights were illuminated. In another experiment, the

participants at a distance of 5.8 meters viewed a narrated film, the stimuli were road signs, with

and without a red slash through them. Participants were instructed to react only to signs without

a red slash. In another study, Lee, Lee and Cameron (2003), used a driving simulator to assess

visual attention skills by participant's reaction time. Reaction time was measured by displaying

two red diamond-shaped images at the top corners of the monitor screen, which changed to red

triangles after every 700 yards of simulated driving. Participants were supposed to engage the

turn signal whenever the triangles image appeared on the screen. The validation of a laboratory-









based driving simulator in measuring on-road driving performance has been supported by the

literature (Lee, Cameron & Lee, 2003).

Lee and Lee (2005) used a driving simulator to determine which simulated driving tasks

can be used to identify older drivers at risk of traffic violations. The simulator was used to assess

10 driving tasks specifically for testing older adults. The driving tasks consisted of: rule

compliance, traffic sign compliance, driving speed, use of indicator, decision and judgment,

speed compliance, visual attention task, working memory, multi-tasks, and road use obligation.

The simulator computer automatically measured the first five tasks whereas a laboratory

technician collected the remaining data. Recently, researchers from the University of Florida

used a driving simulator to replicate actual road locations. In this study participants drove

through the same scenario on the road and in the replicated scenario in the simulator (Shechtman,

Classen, Stephens, Bendixen, Belchior, Sandhu, et al., 2007). In this study the simulator' s

controls were integrated with an actual vehicle which improved the driving experience.

As has been discussed, the driving simulator has been extensively used in research for

different tasks, however, standardized tests to measure the same constructs are still missing from

the literature. The goal of the present study is to measure visual attention in a simulator. Visual

attention will be measured by brake reaction distance but will use tasks not mentioned in

previous literature. The next chapter has more details about this measure. The next section will

discuss specific interventions that might have the chance to improved scores on either useful

field of view and driving simulator.

UFOV Training With Older Adults

UFOV was one of three abilities trained in the NIA-funded ACTIVE trial (see above). In

ACTIVE, with a total sample of 2,802 at six sites throughout the US, 25% of participants were

randomized to receive UFOV training (other groups received training in reasoning, memory, or









no contact). The content of training was identical to that used in this study. Participants in this

condition received 10 sessions (60-90 minutes each). Posttest assessments were conducted

immediately, and 1, 2, 3 and 5 years post-training. Immediately after training, on the UFOV test,

the pre-post improvement of UFOV-trained participants was 1.45 SD higher than that of

untraining controls (Ball et al). Moreover, five years later, the UFOV performance advantage of

UFOV-trained participants was still .75 SD greater than untrained controls (Willis et al).

Speed of processing training not only appears to improve processing speed, but also

transferred to certain everyday functions, as indicated by improved performance on Timed IADL

(Edwards et al, 2005). In ACTIVE, there was less evidence of transfer to real-world functions

from the basic 10-session training program. However, a subset of 50% of UFOV-trained

participants received up to eight additional booster training sessions (four 12-months after initial

training, and four 36-months after initial training). For boosted participants, Willis et al (2006)

found that, five years post-training, performance on observed tasks of everyday speed (e.g.,

speed and accuracy of reading medication labels, finding items in a pantry, looking up numbers

in a phone book) was significantly higher than that of participants who received only the basic

ten sessions. This seems to strongly argue for extended training and greater training dosages.

Roenker et al (2003) evaluated the effect of UFOV training and simulator training on

UFOV test performance and simulator driving performance. Participants were randomized into a

speed of processing training group, traditional driver training program performed in a driving

simulator, and a low risk control group. The UFOV test consisted of the same test described in

previous section and for simulator measure, participants reaction time was assessed. It was found

that speed of processing training, but not simulator training improved UFOV scores and had

fewer dangerous maneuvers during driving evaluation.









In addition to the cognitive benefits of speed of processing training, a recent study found

that speed of processing training protects against extensive clinically relevant decline in health-

related quality of life (HRQoL). HRQoL was measured using the eight item Short-Form 36 scale

(Wolinsky, Unverzagt, & Smith, 2006).

Video Game Training of Cognition

Video games have become a large form of entertainment in the American society and the

average age of video game players also has been increasing. Therefore, researchers are spending

more time investigating the effects of video game play on behavior and the brain. Research on

video game play goes back to the early 1980's. The earliest studies on the effect of video games

investigated the effect of video game on visuo-motor coordination (Griffith, Voloschin, Gibb, &

Bailey, 1983), reaction time (Orosy-Fildes, & Allan, 1989; Yuji, 1996) and spatial skills (Dorval,

& Pepin, 1986; Gagnon, 1985). Studies not only addressed theoretical findings but also the

practical implications of playing video game. Researchers were interested in investigating if the

decline in cognitive skills in late life could be improved or even reversed by using video game

training. One study found that playing a game called "Crystal Castle" for two months (1 hour of

training per week) improved both eye-hand coordination and verbal knowledge in a group of

older adults. In addition, participants of this study reported being more careful in the

performance of activities of daily living (Drew, & Waters, 1986).

Another study investigated the effects of playing Pac Man and Donkey Kong. This study

explored the performance of older adults on speeded tasks. Participants played these games for

seven weeks (for at least two hours a week). It was found that the experimental group average

time dropped 25 milliseconds (Clark, Lanphear, & Riddick, 1987). Drews and Waters (1986)

examined the abilities of video game playing to improve perceptual-motor skills and cognitive









functioning. Clark et al., (1987) examined the possibility that the slowdown in performance

among the elderly could be reversed through the use of video games.

Recently researchers have been investigating the use of video game playing in the training

of laparoscopic surgeons. It has been suggested that video game play may improve laparoscopic

skills (Enochsson, Isaksson, Tour, Kjellin, Hedman, Wredmark, et al., 2004; Rosenberg,

Landsittel, & Averch, 2005; Stefanidis, Korndorffer, Dunne, Black, Sierra, Touchard, et al.,

2006). Because laparoscopic surgery uses very small incisions, adequate eye-hand coordination

is required and, studies suggest that video game players increase the efficiency of screening and

decrease the duration of examination. Video game playing has also practical implications in the

military. Cadets trained on video games had a higher flight performance than their untrained

peers (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994)

The effects of video game playing on visual attention has been the focus of more recent

studies. Although these studies were not conducted with older adults, they have promising

findings that might be further replicated in the older population. Studies found that video game

playing increases efficiency in dividing attention (Greenfield, DeWinstanley, Kilpatrick, &

Kaye, 1994). A similar measure to The Useful Field of View (UFOV) test was used to assess the

efficiency in which participants distributed their attention. Relative to non video game players

(NVGPs), video game players (VGPs) relied on similar types of visual processing strategies but

possessed faster stimulus-response mappings in visual attention tasks (Castel, Pratt, &

Drummond, 2005). Researchers have been also interested in the neurochemical consequences of

video game playing. Using a form of brain imaging (Positron Emission Tomography or PET)

researchers observed a large increase in the amount of dopamine released in the brain, in

particular areas thought to control reward and learning. Dopamine may be important in the









modification of the brain following perceptual training, leading to faster and more widespread

learning (Koepp, Gunn, Lawrence, Cunningham, Dagher, Jones, et al., 1998). Another study

investigated whether 30 minutes of playing a video game would result in differences in brain

functioning. It was found that video game playing provided more emotional arousal activation

(Wang, Mathews, Kalnin, Mosier, Dunn, & Kronenberger, 2006 ).

The idea that playing a computer-based game can improve or even reverse the effects of

aging related decline has caught the attention of the popular news media. Video games that claim

to improve or even reverse the effects of aging can be found in the market. Even though these

products may be effective, there is little scientific evidence behind it. One of these video games

is Brain Age, developed by Nintendo. It claims to be a way to exercise your brain giving the

workout it needs such as arithmetic, memory and reading aloud. It was developed by a Japanese

neuroscientist (Kawashima, Okita, Yamazaki, Tajima, Yoshida, Taira, et al., 2005) based, in

part, on previous studies in which the cognitive functioning of patients with Alzheimer' s disease

improved after 6 months of (paper and pencil, tutor-guided) training on arithmetic and reading

skills. However, there is no research developed on the effect of this particular game. Another

example is a product named Positscience. It consists of a series of computer-based exercises that

have the goal of boosting a variety of brain functions. The Positscience program it consists of 40

one-hour sessions. Some positive scientific evidence for enhancement in cognitive skill has been

reported (Mahncke, Connor, Appleman, Ahsanuddin, Hardy, Wood, et al., 2006), although long-

term follow-up and training transfer have not yet been reported in sizable, diverse controlled

trials. Although there might be products on the market that can promote cognitive skills in older

adults, more research needs to investigate its effect. This current study examines the effect of









video games, which are widely available, and might have benefits in terms improving cognitive

skills in older adults.

Video Game Studies Conducted by Green and Bavelier

Green and Bavelier (2003) showed that playing a first person action video game improved

a range of visual skills in undergraduate students. In their assessment battery was a measure that

was designed to capture aspects of Useful Field of View; this task differed from the Alabama

version, and focused mostly on peripheral target detection (without the central foveal task). A

first substudy compared students with extensive experience playing action video games to

novices, and found that experienced games outperformed participants without experience on

multiple visual attention tasks. In a second training study, novices were randomized to two

conditions (ten hours of Medal of Honor (MOH), an action video game, or ten hours of Tetris,

conceptualized as a placebo control). This substudy found that non-experienced players who

MOH-trained in the study for 10 1-hour sessions showed significantly greater improvement in

visual attention skills, including a UFOV-type task, than Tetris controls. The current study was a

replication and extension of Green et al.'s, visual attention study, extending the prior study by

using an older sample, a widely used measure of Useful Field of View as the proximal outcome,

and by examining transfer to driving-simulator based measures of driving performance.

Playing a first person action video game improves a range of visual skills (Green &

Bavelier, 2006a) such as: "the overall capacity of the attentional system (the number of items

that can be attended), the ability to effectively deploy attention over space and the temporal

resolution of attention (the efficiency with which attention acts over time)". Participants in this

study underwent training for an hour per day for 10 days. The experimental group played the

game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. This game simulates Second World War combat

situations, has a relatively simple interface, uses first-person point of view and requires effective









monitoring of the whole visual field. The control group played Tetris, chosen to control for

visuo-motor coordination. In addition to the effects on the spatial and temporal aspects of visual

attention, playing action video games also enhances the number of objects that can be

apprehended and it is suggested that this enhancement is mediated by changes in visual short-

term memory skills (Green & Bavelier, 2006a).

Green and Bavelier (2006b) also investigated the characteristics of the games that

contributed to enhancement of visual attention. Participants with little or no experience with

video games were recruited to participate in the study and they were selected to participate in

different games. Participants received training for twelve hours and their performance on two

visual attention measures were assessed: 1) the attentional blink measure, designed to measure

the temporal resolution of visual attention and, 2) the multiple obj ect tracking task, designed to

measure the number of moving objects that can be attended simultaneously over a period of

several seconds. Several games were used in the study. The experimental group played Unreal

Tournament. This is a first person shooter game and requires effective monitoring of the entire

visual field. The second group played the America's Army, a free access game created by the US

Army. This game is also a first person shooter, but it differs from the experimental game because

the participants go through a lot of training exercises which reduces the time spent in a battle.

The game also emphasizes strategy and teamwork. The third group played Harry Potter:

Quidditch World Cup. This game also has the visual attention component but it also requires the

completion of training exercises which took time away from actual playing of the main gain. The

fourth group played Tetris, and this game was selected to control for the effect of improved

visio-motor coordination. The fifth group underwent rhythmicity training designed by Interactive

Metronome Inc. and this training relies on accurate timing. Results showed that the experimental










group (Unreal Tournament) was the only one with significant changes in scores in the outcome

measures of attentional blink and multiple object tracking. The authors proposed game

characteristics that might improve visual attention, including: the need to be fast and

unpredictable stimuli. The games must, have unexpected events that require a fast and accurate

response from the player and games that do not encourage the use of passive strategies which

might reduce attentional load.

In a more recent study, Green and Bavelier (2007) investigated mechanisms underlying

improvement in visual attention. They found that video game playing can alter fundamental

characteristics of the visual system such as the spatial resolution of visual processing across the

visual field. The spatial resolution of visual attention was measured by the smallest distance a

distracter could be from a target without compromising target identification. Results showed that,

compared with a non-video game player, an action video game player could tolerate smaller

target-distracter distances. Similar effects were also observed in non video game players who

underwent training in action video games. The authors concluded that there is a causal

relationship between video game playing and augmented spatial resolution.

Although there are several studies that show improvement in visual attention, these studies

were conducted with young participants. There is no investigation of the effect of video game

training to improve visual attention in older adults. Given the importance of visual attention skill

for driving, and given the importance of driving for older adults and the lack of visual attention

training, it is important to investigate possible interventions. It is also necessary to investigate the

acceptance of these games by the older population and their engagement in the games.

Engagement

Engagement in the activity will greatly influence the video game experience. In addition,

engagement in meaningful activities can increase quality of life for many individuals (Suto,










1998), contribute to life satisfaction in later life (Kelly, Steinkamp, & Kelly, 1987), and reduce

mortality rates (Lennartsson, & Silverstein, 2001).

Engagement in leisure activities can be conceptualized via Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi,

1975). Flow can be said to occur when people are able to meet the challenges of their

environment with appropriate skills and accordingly feel a sense of well-being, a sense of

mastery, and a heightened sense of self-esteem (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow is also

characterized by a deep sense of enj oyment. The enj oyment is not simply the result of satisfying

a need, but occurs when a person achieves something unexpected which has a sense of novelty

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Csikszentmihalyi describes flow as happening most easily in sports,

games, and hobbies because these activities are created in a way to facilitate flow.

According to Flow theory research, when a person perceives a challenge (an intrinsic

demand experienced when engaged in an activity) as being greater than his or her perceived

skills (the individual's perception of his or her capacity to meet the demands of the activity), the

person experiences worry and anxiety. On the other hand, if the person perceives his or her skills

as being greater than the challenge at hand, he or she will experience boredom and apathy

(Massimini, Csikzentmihalyi & Massimo, 1987). The goal is to find a match between challenges

and skills in order to have an optimal experience.

Farrow and Reid (2004) found that older adults experienced flow when participating in a

virtual reality rehabilitation program. Participants who participated in this program described a

sense of involvement, enj oyment, and control over the environment, which contributed to the

flow experience.

Because video games are thought to represent an innovative approach for training visual

attention in older adults, it is also important to investigate participants' engagement with this









technology. Such engagement may serve as an indicator of potential compliance with video

game training, and speaks more generally to the acceptability and motivation potential that such

training offers.

Current Thinking About Training With Older Adults/Real World/Cognitive Reserve

This study also falls within the growing body of literature that suggests that there may be

an association between participation in cognitively stimulating everyday activities and one's

cognitive status. Studies suggest that participation in common cognitive activities such as:

playing games such as cards, crossword puzzles, checkers and other puzzles is associated with

reduced risk for Alzheimer' s disease (Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Barnes, Schneider, Bienias,

Evans, & Bennett, 2002). In addition, it seems to be have a protective effect against dementia in

people who maintain intellectual and social engagement through participation in everyday

activities (Scarmeas, Levy, & Tang, 2001). Other studies have examined the effect of

engagement in mental, physical and social activities on non-demented individuals. Researchers

often assess activity level using self-report measures of the amount of time spent in a range of

specific activities (Mackinnon, Christensen, Hofer, Korten, & Jorm, 2003; Kramer, Bherer,

Colcombe, Dong, & Greenough, 2004; Milgram, Siwak-Trapp, Araujo, & Head, 2006). After

controlling for sensory functions Newson (2005) found that activity was a significant predictor

of current level of speed, picture naming, incident recall, and verbal fluency and of cognitive

changes in speed, picture naming and incident recall (Newson, & Kemps, 2005 ).

Ghisletta (2006) found that increased media (e.g., listening to the radio, watching

television) and leisure activity engagement (e.g., playing games, doing crossword puzzles) may

lessen decline in perceptual speed but not in verbal fluency or performance (Ghisletta, Bickel, &

Lovden, 2006). Wilson (2003) constructed a measure of lifelong participation in cognitive

activities (Fratiglioni, Paillard-Borg, & Winblad, 2004). Participants were rated according to









how often they participated in common cognitive activities at the age of 6, 12, 18, 40 and current

age. This study found that more frequent cognitive activity was related to better perceptual

speed, visuo-spatial ability and semantic memory but not to episodic memory or working

memory. Scarmeas (2003) discussed the importance of a lifestyle change that would supply a

reserve that would allow individuals to cope longer before AD is manifested (Scarmeas, & Stern,

2003).

Fratiglioni (2004) argues that the three lifestyle components described above (mental,

physical and social), have a common pathway .Research from both animal (Winocur, 1988;

Pham, Winblad, Granholm, & Mohammed, 2002) and human studies suggest that there is a

developmental neuron plasticity with regard to cognition and that cognitive stimulation in the

environment is an important predictor of enhancement and maintenance of cognitive functioning.

One such environmental factor that has received a lot of attention by researchers is an engaged

lifestyle. It has been proposed that older adults who are engaged in a more active lifestyle can

promote their cognitive functioning. Hence, frequent use of challenging mental tasks would be

associated with a relatively higher level of cognitive reserve (Hultsch, Hertzog, Small, & Dixon,

1999). Although there is cognitive and neural plasticity across the adult life span, there is still the

potential for improvement (Jones, Nyberg, Sandblom, Stigsdotter Neely, Ingvar, Magnus

Petersson, & Backman, 2006).

Although most of these studies are correlational in nature, experimental research, as

described in the previous sections support such findings and gives more evidence for a causal

relationship between cognitive training and improvement in cognitive skills.

Although the body of research on the effects of participating in cognitively stimulating

activities and the improvement in cognition is broad and leads to optimistic conclusions, to date










there are not many programs designed to provide opportunities for mental stimulation in later

life. Therefore, identifying techniques to enhance cognitive function in older adults are of utmost

importance. Few examples of cognitive training programs are reported in the literature. One such

program is the Experience Corps, which is a social model for health promotion in older adults

(Fried, Carlson, Freedman, Frick, Glass, Hill, et al., 2004; Glass, Freedman, Carlson, Hill, Frick,

Ialongo, et al., 2004). This program found some short-term improvement in cognitive, social and

physical factors. In this program, older volunteers were place in elementary schools in roles

designed to meet school needs. Participants spent 15 hours a week in the school for

approximately 9 months. Further studies are necessary to investigate more specific cognitive

measures.

Virtual reality has also been used as a tool for cognitive training (more precisely, cognitive

rehabilitation) research. Weiss (2003) investigated the effects of virtual reality in training stroke

patients with unilateral neglect in relearning how to cross a street independently (Weiss, Naveh,

& Katz, 2003). Gourlay (2000), used virtual reality technology to help cognitively impaired

individuals to relearn important daily living skills (Gourlay, Lun, & Lee, 2000). Lee (2003)

developed a virtual supermarket to assess and train cognitive abilities in ADL (Lee, Ku, Cho,

Hahn, Kim, Lee, Kang, Kim, Yu, Wiederhold, Wiederhold, & Kim, 2003).

Importance of the Study

Driving is one of the most important activities in late life because it facilitates engagement

in several other activities. Driving is a very complex task and can represent a challenge to older

adults due to the normal declines associated with aging. Visual attention is one of the main

cognitive functions related to driving, and research has shown that this cognitive skill can be

improved with training. However, there are not many options for visual attention training









available. This study explored a potentially new form of training of visual attention, which is the

video game.

The magnitude of video game playing training effects might not correspond that of the

UFOV" training, but video game playing has the advantage of being more available and perhaps

more enjoyable. In addition, video game training can be done at home, which in turn might lead

to an increase in training time. The increase in training time might enhance training effect and,

video game training can be compared to UFOV training.




























Figure 2-1. Processing speed subtask


gure L-L. Dvivaea attention suotaSK



























Figure 2-3. Selective attention subtask


gure 2-4. Same









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall Procedure

Participants were recruited by phone calls, by mail and through flyers that were distributed

in the community. Potential participants were pre-screened by telephone and to eligibility criteria

should be met in order for them to be scheduled for a baseline assessment (65 or older, current

driving, willing to participate in 6 training sessions and no previous experience with video

games). The baseline assessment took about I hour and a half to be completed. Participants were

then randomized to one of three intervention groups (MOH-UFOV-Tetris). Training consisted of

6 training sessions of 90 minutes each. After each training session, participants completed a flow

questionnaire to measure their engagement with the training. One week after intervention,

participants returned for posttest. A no-contact control group were added to the study after the

intervention study was completed, this group were not randomized but were recruited from the

same recruitment pool. Participants from the no-contact control group completed pre and posttest

within three weeks interval.

Study Design

The current study employed a pretest-posttest control group design. Analytically, the

study included one within-person condition (i.e., pretest-posttest) and one between-person

condition factor (i.e., four intervention groups). The within-person condition assessed change in

performance on several cognitive and non-cognitive measures over time; for three of four

groups, this was change pre- and post-intervention. The between-persons condition assessed

differences between persons assigned to each of the four treatment conditions. The critical

analytic effect of interest in this study, the occasion X group interaction, assessed whether

change differed by intervention group, such that members of some groups experienced more









improvement than others. For individuals randomly assigned to the three intervention groups,

between the pretest and posttest they participated in 6 training sessions of approximately 90

minutes duration. Participants from the no-contact control group received a pretest, followed by

a posttest three weeks later.

The four interventions used in the current study were: 1) Medal of Honor (MOH), which is

a "first person shooter" video game; 2) Useful Field of View (UFOV), which is an adaptive,

customized visual attention training program using iterative training rules and a touch screen

computer and 3) Tetris which is an arcade video game, and which was here construed as a

placebo control condition, and 4) a no-contact control group. This fourth group did not receive

any intervention. Detailed information for each training intervention is provided below. A

schematic diagram of the study design is shown in figure 3-1.

Study Specific Aims and Hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of using an action video game

(Medal of Honor; MOH) to improve the visual attention (UFOV) performance of older adults.

The study will also investigate the effects of MOH training on a "real-world" outcome of older

adults' simulated driving performance.

The specific aims of this study are:

Aim 1 To investigate whether UFOV performance can be improved by training via a

first-person action video game (MOH) and to compare such training to: (a) "gold- standard"

touch screen based UFOV training, b) an alternative video game (Tetris) construed as a placebo

control and c) no-contact pre post only control group.

Hypothesis: The UFOV training protocol has been found to be effective in training the

visual attention of older individuals. We expect participants receiving the classic UFOV training

to experience greater performance improvements than all other participants; we expect those









receiving MOH training to experience more visual attention improvements than either the

placebo control (Tetris) or no-contact control conditions. This hypothesis can be illustrated with

the following diagram (Figure 3-2):

Aim 2 To investigate if video game training benefits also transfer to simulated driving

performance The ultimate goal of this study is to investigate if visual attention training can be

transferred to a real life situation, which will be measured by driving performance in a simulator.

Simulator driving performance will be measured by three dependent variables: (a) Brake

reaction distance after participants perceive an obj ect (a dog) in or near the roadway; (b) Lane

maintenance as participants approach and pass the dogs; and (c) Accuracy of detection of dogs

in/near the roadway (i.e., do participants brake for the dog, or do they pass it by without

braking).

Hypothesis: The UFOV training group will obtain better scores than the MOH video game

groups, MOH group will obtain higher scores than the two control groups (Tetris, no-contact).

This hypothesis can be illustrated with the following diagram (Figure 3-3):

Aim 3 To investigate participants' engagement, or perceived Flow, through the course of

video game or UFOV training. Degree of engagement in the training experience may serve as an

indicator of potential compliance with and effort/motivation in training. Flow was assessed at the

end of each training session in which participants engaged. Thus, it was assessed only for

participants in the three training conditions, and it was not assessed in the pretest-posttest design,

but in each of the six training sessions.

Hypothesis: Participants who received video game training (MOH or Tetris) will

experience a greater increase in Flow scores as compared to participants who received UFOV

training. For the video game players, we expected that the improvement in Flow would occur










due to increasing match between the challenges of the game (MOH, Tetris) and participants'

skill level. In addition, the game itself is entertaining and enjoyable. On the other hand, UFOV

is less entertaining and enj oyable, and it also provides participants with less explicit feedback

about their performance improvements. Thus, we did not expect Flow improvements in UFOV

training.

Aim 4 To explore participants' opinion about game design This is a consumer-oriented

aim and this data was intended to provide information that may assist in future improvements of

game design, so that games are more responsive to the needs of older adults.

Participants

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria for this study included: a) 65 years or older, b) no previous experience

with video games, because previous experience with video games can mask the real effects of

training, c) be a current driver, as driving performance will be tested on a simulator, the

participant must be a current driver d) MMSE of 24 or higher, e) be willing to participate in 6

training sessions, f) visual acuity of 20/70, visual acuity tests were used because eye sensory

function plays an important role in UFOV test performance. In addition, training effects could be

compromised by a lack of visual acuity. Participants with scores of 200 or lower in the UFOV

(accumulated scores) were excluded from the study because they would not have room for

improvement.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited by phone calls, by mail and through flyers that were distributed

in the community. Participants from 3 recruitment pools were contacted. Individuals from the

Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) and the National Older Driver Research

and Training Center (NODRTC) were contacted by telephone, and individuals from the Institute










on Aging (IOA) registry first received a letter by mail with study information and were asked to

contact study staff if they were interested in more information about the study. Out of 58

participants who completed the study, 7 participants were recruited from the RERC recruitment

pool, 36 were recruited by mail from the loA registry, 10 responded to a press release in the

Senior Times Magazine, 2 were referred by friends and 2 were recruited at a townhouse meeting

at a senior residential community in Gainesville. Participants received $10.00 for each visit. A

participant who attended baseline testing, six training sessions, and the post-training testing

received $80.00. Participants from the no-contact control group received a maximum of $20.00

(pre and posttest).

Sample Characteristics

A total of 70 participants completed the pretest battery for this study. All participants who

completed the pretest battery were then eligible to be randomized to a treatment condition. A

total of 12 (17%) participants withdrew from the study; 9 of these participants withdrew prior to

randomization because the training schedule could not accommodate their personal schedule.

Three participants (one of each training group) withdrew post-randomization, during the training

intervention. Two of those participants were employed and their schedules were in conflict with

the training schedule and one of them withdrew due to perceived boredom of the training task.

All participants from the no-contact control group appeared at both the pre- and post-test

assessments. A total of 58 participants completed the study. In general, participants were young-

old, college educated, they were equally distributed across gender and all participants were

Caucasian, except one Asian participant who withdraw before random assignment.

Testing Design and Procedure

Prior to in-person contact with the study, potential participants were first pre-screened via

telephone. In the phone interview, four inclusion criteria were assessed: a) 65 years or older, b)










current driver, c) no previous experience with video games and d) be willing to participate in 6

training sessions. If these requirements were met, participants were scheduled for a baseline

assessment.

Baseline Assessment

During the intake session, participants were informed about the research purposes and

procedures, and (if willing) completed an informed consent form. After consenting, the

participants took two more tests to determine their eligibility: 1) Mini Mental State Examination

(MMSE), in which participants were required to score 24 or higher; and 2) a visual acuity test, in

which participants were required to have a score of 20/70 or better. After administration of these

tests, eligible participants were administered the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test. If a

participant had a score of 200 or higher in this test, participants completed the remaining baseline

measures. These included a driving simulator test, a memory test and questionnaires regarding

(a) demographics, (b) depression; and (c) hearing impairment. The duration of the baseline

session was approximately 1.5 hours, and participants could take as many breaks as they needed.

After the baseline assessment was completed, participants were randomized, and scheduled for

their 6 training sessions. Participants from the no-contact control group returned three weeks

after baseline assessment for a posttest.

Random Assignment

After baseline assessment participants who were determined to have met the inclusion

criteria for the study were randomized into one of three gro s (Medal of Honor, UFOV, or

Tetris). Randomization occurred in "triplets" (i.e., after a group of three participants had met

eligibility, one participant was assigned to each of the three groups). After the conclusion of the

interventions for the three groups, and after interim data analyses had been conducted, a fourth

non-equivalent control group was recruited. This separate group of participants was recruited for









the sole purpose of protesting and posttesting (without intervention) and was not randomized to

this condition. More detail on the rationale for this group is provided below. Although the no-

contact control group was recruited later in the study and was not randomized, participants came

from the same recruitment sources as the experimental participants.

Rationale for the Inclusion of a No-Contact Control Group

Interim data analyses from the three intervention groups revealed that there were

improvements in the primary outcome measure (UFOV) for all three treatment groups (MOH,

UFOV, Tetris). The improvements for the Tetris group (in particular) were not expected (on the

basis of the earlier Green and Bavelier group, who conceptualized Tetris as a kind of placebo

control condition). Thus, it was difficult (conceptually) to determine whether the improvements

in the two video game groups (MOH and tetris) were due to playing these games, or whether

they reflected simple practice effects due to protesting and posttesting. A prior intervention

study (ACTIVE, Ball et a., 2002) had shown that no-contact control participants experienced

about as much pre-post gain as shown by the videogame groups in this study, which suggested

that the observed improvement might be due to testing alone.

The decision was made, within the context of the current population, to verify that simple

pretest-posttest improvements in participants who received no intervention would, in fact, be as

large as those recruited for the two videogame groups. While the late inclusion of such a group

would raise concerns of non-equivalence, careful comparisons of the no-contact group to the

randomized groups would permit a quantitative characterization of the magnitude of bias, if any.

(As the foregoing participants section revealed, the no-contact control group did not differ on

any assessed variables from the other groups, at baseline).

To summarize: A no-contact control group was added to the study after the data from the

intervention groups was collected. This no-contact group was not randomized but was recruited









from the same recruitment pool from the previous participants. This was necessary to assess the

simple effect of taking the pretest-posttest battery twice. Participants took the pre- and posttest

about three weeks apart, with no treatment/stimulation/contact between testing. Group

comparison analyses for Aims 1 and 2 (see next chapter) include this no-contact group.

Posttest

Within one week of completing the training, participants were asked to come back for a

post-testing session. The content of this session was almost identical to that of the initial

assessment. Participants were asked to answer some extra opinion questions regarding the design

of the games and controllers they used during the training. The posttesting required about one

hour and 15 minutes to be completed.

Measure During Intervention

A perceived engagement, or "Flow", questionnaire was administered to the intervention

groups after each training session. The measure required about 5 minutes for completion. All

measures are described in greater detail in the measures section below.

Training

Overview of Training

In this study, for all training interventions, the intervention was provided in small groups,

in six 90 minutes sessions. Participants received two or three training sessions each week. The

first group played a first action video game (Medal of Honor). This game was specifically chosen

because it was found to be the best game to train visual attention (in college students; Green et

al., 2003) in one study. The second group received instruction in Useful Field of View (UFOV).

UFOV was chosen because this is the gold standard training and we wanted to compare training

effect. The third group, Tetris served as a control group, and followed the same training










procedures of the first group, except they played a "placebo" game (i.e., reported by Green et al.

NOT to improve visual attention in college students)

Trainers were undergraduate student assistants who had extensive self-reported experience

with action video games. All trainers received instruction in the implementation of the study's

interventions, which were manualized. All undergrad students who worked in this proj ect were

trained by the doctoral student. Prior to start of intervention with participants, they spent time

playing the game using the manuals that were developed. Then, they practiced training with one

another and whenever possible with somebody not familiar with video games. It was important

to make sure that the training was standardized and all students used the same procedures with

all participants.

Medal of Honor Training

The two video game training conditions (MOH and Tetris) differed from UFOV in not

using a computer, but in using a commercially-available video game system instead. The study

employed a Sony PlayStation 2, console model 97060 and dual shock 2 analog controller, model

97026. The game was presented on a 19" TV monitor.

In this training, participants were asked to play the "first person shooter" video game

Medal of Honor Rising Sun, first with a tutor and then more independently. The game is made

up of multiple missions. In each session, participants were first asked to navigate through a

particular on-screen mission (for example, after one's ship is hit by enemy torpedoes while one is

two levels below, one must struggle to reach the ship's deck, extinguishing fires and assisting

crew members along the way; once atop, one must use an artillery gun to discourage combatants'

airplanes, which are dropping bombs on the ship). The missions were broken into step-by-step

maneuvers (Appendix A), and the tutor provided participants with complete assistance to

navigate the scene. When participants successfully made it through the mission, they were asked









to repeat the mission on their own, drawing on their tutor' s help if needed. Once they had

mastered a mission on their own, they moved on to the next mission. This was the main

intervention under study; Green & Bavelier (2003), have reported that playing this game

boosts visual attention, as assessed with their measures, in young adults. The remainder of

this section describes the training procedure in greater detail.

In session 1, the participants had about 15 minutes of tutoring on the video game, as none

of them had previous experience with video games before. The tutor explained to the participants

that Medal of Honor is a game based on the Second World War. The tutors explained that MOH

is an action game; thus, there would be considerable shooting and some scenes of violence. If at

any time participants did not feel comfortable with the game, they were allowed to stop playing.

No participant withdrew for this reason. Participants were also asked to take a 5-minute break

after 45 minutes of playing.

The participants also learned that the game was divided into missions. It was expected that

each participant would be able to complete about 4 missions during the 6 training sessions. In

order to finish each mission, several "mission obj ectives" (that were explained in details during

each game) would be completed. A guide with step-by-step instructions for each mission was

developed and the participants were expected to follow instructions provided by the manual.

Each mission would be completed twice. The first time, a tutor would give step-by-step

instructions. Once the participant completed the mission once, they were expected to repeat the

mission without much help from the tutor. We expected that by playing each mission twice, the

participant would be able to spend more time concentrating on the parts of the game supposed to

promote visual learning rather then trying to learn the game.










If participants did not have any further questions about the training, after the tutor' s

instructions the tutor modeled by playing the game for about 10 minutes and the participants

watched them playing. Next, the tutors explained how the controller works and what each button

does. This was a brief explanation because a detailed explanation was provided during the first

mission, which served as a tutorial. In the first mission, the participants had a chance to practice

each button. Figure 3-4 presents the controller used by participants and the description of some

of the buttons used to play this game.

Once each button was introduced to the participants during the first mission, they were

expected to practice using it until they felt comfortable doing so. The tutor moved forward with

the instructions only once the participants successfully completed the task controlled by that

button, e.g., use the button to jump over the wires on the floor. Step-by-step instructions were

presented through PowerPoint slides on a computer that was placed next to the participants. The

trainers would control the speed of the presentation of each PowerPoint slide. The instructions

were divided step-by-step (an example is presented on Eigure 3-5) and at the end of each

instruction (or slide), the participants were asked to pause the game before moving forward in the

game. This was done, during the learning phase, to reduce all time pressure that might have

impaired learning. During the first time the participants played the mission, the tutors were very

involved in helping them to finish the missions, but the second time the participants went

through the missions, the tutors only helped if required.

Also, each time a new button was introduced to the participants, the instruction was

presented in the slides (Figure 3-6). The participants would keep practicing the use of each

button until they could perform the task successfully.










The difficulty level increased at each new mission. Mission 1 Day of Infamy is

designed to learn the basic maneuvers used through the game, such as turn right/left, look

up/down, jump, crouch. The game starts in a bunker room. The goal is to leave the room, walk

upstairs, and put out a fire. After extinguishing the fire you have to keep moving forward and go

up another set of stairs. You will be given a gun and you have to shoot at some enemy planes.

This completes the mission. Mission 2 Pearl Harbor is a very short mission. It starts on a boat

and the only job is to shoot down planes flying through the area. Mission 3 Fall of the

Philippines starts on a bridge with fires around you. You need to walk out of the bridge, meet

some friends and fire on some enemies. Through the mission there are several "mission

obj ectives" that need to be completed in order to keep moving, such as find the cogwheel of a

tank and repair it. Once the tank is fixed you should follow it through a village, enemies will be

shooting at you and your goal is to search for the enemies in different scenarios, sometimes they

are easy to see, sometimes they are hidden. The next mission in the game is the midnight raid on

Guadalcanal, but because this scenario happens at night, and the scenes were very dark and hard

to see it was skipped. For this study purpose, mission 4 was the Pistol Pete Shutdown in this

mission you have a lot of "mission obj ectives" to complete, such as releasing some of your

teammates being held captive. Through all the missions, participants must continuously visually

scan the scenarios because there are enemies who try to shoot at you. The game was set up in a

way that the participants would have unlimited ammunition and a have a "bulletproof vest." By

using these options, the game was less challenging and the participants could play for a longer

time.

Useful Field of View Training

The Useful Field of View training was administered via a computer. A CPU was

connected to a 21" ELO touch screen. The training consisted of six 90-minute sessions. This









was a deviation from a published version, which included ten 60-90 minutes sessions (Ball et al.,

2000) but which was instituted due to resource constraints (the available time for the researcher

and volunteer trainers to complete the study) and participant schedules. The complexity of the

UFOV subtests is modified by holding the duration of the display constant and by gradually

increasing the complexity of the central task, the peripheral task or both. These modifications

allow individuals to practice the task at customized levels of difficulty until mastery is achieved.

Training sessions for UFOV have been described in previous research (Edwards, Wadley,

Myers, Roenker, Cissell, & Ball, 2002).

This training was adapted from the UFOV training guide from previous studies (Appendix

B). In the initial assessment, participants received a preliminary score on the Useful Field of

View (UFOV) test (see below for how these scores influenced training decisions). In general,

training was started at participants' current skill level, and after they had mastered that level, the

challenge increased, either by reducing the amount of time available to perform the task, or by

increasing the visual complexity of the display to be studied. Based on prior literature, this

training represented the "gold standard" for improving the visual attention of older adults.

It was selected to be used as the reference condition against which the efficacy of video

game training could be compared. The remainder of this section describes the training

procedure in greater detail.

In Session 1, training was customized to participants' baseline UFOV performance. As

noted below, the UFOV consisted of four subtasks. Due to lower bound timing limits and upper

bound time-out programming, possible scores ranged from 16 ms to 500 ms for each subtask.









Subtask 1, Speed: Measures the average presentation time needed for participants to detect

whether a centrally presented two-dimensional white obj ect (against a black background) is a car

or a truck, with 75% accuracy.

Subtask 2, Divided Attention: Measures the average presentation time needed for

participants to detect whether a centrally presented two-dimensional white obj ect (against a black

background) is a car or a truck while simultaneously noting the screen location of a peripherally

presented car, with 75% accuracy.

Subtask 3, Selective Attention: Measures the average presentation time needed for

participants to detect whether a centrally presented two-dimensional white obj ect (against a black

background) is a car or a truck while simultaneously noting the screen location of a peripherally

located car that is presented in screen clutter, with 75% accuracy.

Subtask 4, Same Different: Measures the average presentation time needed for participants

to detect whether two centrally presented two-dimensional white obj ects (vertically arrayed,

against a black background) are (a) two cars--same; (b) two trucks--same; or (c) a car and a

truck--different, while simultaneously noting the screen location of a peripherally located car that

is presented in screen clutter, with 75% accuracy.

Customization rules were as follows:

1. If the participant scored greater than 30 ms on the Speed task, they were first trained on

Speed. In this case, participants were presented with the Speed task again, and allowed to

practice. They continued to practice until their score moved below 30 ms. If participants

remained stuck at a "plateau", a simpler center task (not identifying whether the center object

was a car or truck, but simply identifying whether an obj ect was present) was selected, until

participants achieved a score of 30 ms or faster on this simpler ("presence-absence"') center task.









Once participants reached 30 ms or faster, they returned to the "identify (car or truck)" center

task until they achieved a score of 30 ms or faster. Finally, before progressing to the next

training level, participants moved to the most difficult center task ("same-different", see above),

until they achieved a score of 30 ms or faster. At this point, they progressed to the next Divided

Attention training track.

2. If the participant was below criterion (30 ms) on the Speed Subtask 1, but above 40 ms

on the Divided Attention Subtask 2, training began at this level. (Participants who "graduated"

from the Speed training above also progressed next to this training level). Participants moving

here from Speed training always started at 200 ms presentation time. Participants moving

directly to this level of training had their initial presentation time set to their score in the baseline

screening UFOV score, within 40 ms in multiples of 40 ms (i.e., if their baseline screening score

on Divided Attention Subtask 2 was 162 ms, the participant would start at 200 ms; if the baseline

Divided Attention score was 251, participants would start at 280 ms). In this training, and in all

other training tracks, participants would receive a block of 16 trials at the selected speed, with

the peripheral obj ect presented at close eccentricity (i.e., close to the center of the screen). Once

the participant achieved two consecutive blocks with at least 12-out-of-16 correct responses, the

task would be made more difficult by keeping the participant at the same presentation speed, but

moving the peripheral obj ect to a moderate level of eccentricity. Once the participant achieved

two consecutive blocks with at least 12-out-of-16 correct responses at this moderate eccentricity,

the task would be made more difficult by keeping the participant at the same presentation speed,

but moving the peripheral obj ect to a distant/outer level of eccentricity. Once the participant

achieved two consecutive blocks with at least 12-out-of-16 correct responses at this outer

eccentricity, the task would be made more difficult by increasing the presentation speed (i.e.,









making it 40 ms faster; e.g., going from 240 ms to 200 ms or going from 160 ms to 120 ms), and

returning the peripheral obj ect to the inner eccentricity. Again, the participant progressed at this

speed from inner to outer eccentricity before the task was made 40 ms faster. Training at this

level terminated when the participant achieved a score of 12-out-of-16 or better on at least two

blocks presented at 40 ms and outer eccentricity.

3. If the participant scored below criterion (40 ms) on the Divided Attention Subtask 2,

but above 80 ms on the Selective Attention Subtask 3, training began at this level. (Participants

who "graduated" from the Divided Attention training above also progressed next to this training

level). Participants moving here from Divided Attention training always started at 200 ms

presentation time. As with Divided Attention, participants moving directly to this level of

training had their initial presentation time set to their score in the baseline screening UFOV

score, within 40 ms in multiples of 40 ms. The block-by-block training procedure described

above (i.e., moving to the next level when there were two consecutive trials of 12-out-of-16

correct, and progressing at each speed level from inner-to-outer distracter eccentricity before

moving to the next speed, which was 40 ms faster) was employed until participants achieved

criterion accuracy at an 80 ms presentation speed at the outer eccentricity.

4. If the participant was below criterion (80 ms) on the Selective Attention Subtask 3,

participants automatically progressed to the hardest training level, Same Different Subtask 4.

(Participants who "graduated" from the Selective Attention training also progressed here, starting

at a 200 ms presentation time). As with the other training tracks, the initial level of training set

presentation time set to within 40 ms of baseline UFOV score on this task, in multiples of 40 ms.

Again, the adaptive training method described for Tracks 2 and 3 (after two consecutive trials of

12-out-of-16 correct, participants progressed from inner-to-outer distracter eccentricity before









moving to the next speed, which was 40 ms faster) was employed until the end of training. No

participants in this study reached "ceiling" on this task before concluding training.

Tetris Training

In this placebo training condition, participants were asked to play the video game Tetris,

with a tutor. In the game, which is a classic 1980s arcade game, seven randomly rendered

tetrominoes or tetrads shapes composed of four blocks each fall down the playing field

(Figure 3-7). The object of the game is to manipulate these tetrominoes with the aim of creating a

horizontal line of blocks without gaps. When such a line is created, it disappears, and the blocks

above (if any) fall. As the game progresses, the tetrominoes fall faster, and the game ends when

the stack of Tetrominoes reaches the top of the playing field. Participants' tutors provided them

with game instructions, and demonstrated/model effective play. Then, the tutor acted as a

"coach", as participants played the game themselves. The goal of this training was to increase

participants' independence, and to increase the number of rows they could clear before ending

the game. This game was selected because, based on the work of Green and Bavelier, playing

of this game for up to ten hours had little or no effect on visual attention performance in

college students. Thus, this condition was construed as a "placebo control" for the Medal

of Honor group. It was thought to control for contact hours with study staff, out-of-house

time for older adults, and any stimulating effects of interacting with video games. The

remainder of this section describes the training procedure in greater detail.

In the first session, the tutors explained to the participants how video games are used and

played. However, before the participants actually started the game, they were given some paper

cuts in the same shapes as the tetraminoes that they would see on the screen (shapes composed of

four blocks each). They were asked to play with them and try to fit them together (create a

horizontal line without gap). Once they successfully completed the task, the tutor introduced the










game in the screen. The trainers played the game for about 10 minutes for the participants to

watch, in order to model game play and the requisite skills. Next, the tutor demonstrated the

controller to the participants. It was the same controller used to play Medal of Honor. However,

in this game, fewer buttons were necessary. The buttons were introduced one at a time and in the

beginning the participants were told not to worry about creating a horizontal line, but rather that

they should attempt to get comfortable with each button. In this condition, there were no step by-

step instructions on a computer screen, because there is no story line in this game. Unlike MOH,

the game scenario did not change over the course of the following sessions. The participants had

to repeat the same task over and over again.

As game play improved, the speed of tetramino dropping changed. In the earlier stages of

game play, the pieces would drop very slowly. Once the participants mastered that level of game

play, which was assessed by the game, the game would automatically move them to the next

level. The task in each level was exactly the same, except that the pieces would fall faster and the

participants had less time to decide where they would place each piece. Unlike the Medal of

Honor game, less active visual scanning required in this game. (It should be noted, however, that

participants needed to note the shape of each new tetramino at the top of the screen, while

simultaneously noting the optimal position for dropping the blocks at the bottom of the screen.

Thus, even in Tetris some continuous visual scanning was required, although Tetris obj ects were

usually presented more in the central and less peripheral fixation region).

Measures

Table 3-1, presents information on each measure used in this test. A detailed description of

each of these measures follows below.










Baseline Measures for Participant Characterization

MMSE MMSE is scored by calculating the total scores of the 7 items. The minimum

possible score is 0 and the maximum possible score is 30. The usual cut-off point for cognitive

impairment is 23/24, with lower scores indicating cognitive impairment (Folstein, Folstein, &

McHugh, 1975). Those with an MMSE score of 24 or higher were included. All participants that

came for baseline assessment met this inclusion criteria. The MMSE score were required because

participants might be randomized to a video game training, which involved a learning process; it

was thought that persons with dementia might not permit training gains, so low MMSE scores

could not profit from the interventions in this study.

Visual Acuity A visual acuity eye test was performed using a GoodLite backlit Snellen

distance-vision chart, presented at a 10-foot viewing distance. The 10-foot presentation distance

was practical to accommodate in the testing office. Participants were positioned 10 feet from the

chart and asked to start reading the letters on the 20/50 line and proceed downward. If the

participant got more than three correct scores they would move to a more difficult level but if

they got fewer than three correct they were moved to an easier level. Participants had to score

higher than 20/70 to remain in the tudy. All participants that came from baseline met this

inclusion criteria.

Hearing impairment The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIES) (Newman,

Weinstein, Jacobson & Hug, 1991) was used to evaluate hearing performance. The HHIES is

composed of 10 items, with a mixed pattern of "yes" and "no" indicating less hearing handicap.

Inclusion/exclusion of participants was not based on this score, but it was collected as a possible

covariate and to characterize the sample. In the final tabulated score, the higher the score, the

greater the severity of hearing loss.









Geriatric Depression Scale The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) (Yesavage, Brink,

Rose, Lum, Huang, Adey, et al., 1983) is a 30-item self-report assessment designed to identify

depression in the elderly. Each item is constructed to be answered yes or no, to reduce cognitive

complexity of the items. The measure was designed to minimize the influence of somatic

symptoms, which may not be accurate reflections of depression in older adults. One commonly

used cutoff point for mild depression is 10.

HVLT The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Rei lsedi' (HVLT-R) (Shapiro, Benedict,

Schretlen, & Brandt, 1999) was used to test individual memory and verbal learning performance.

In this test individuals repeated a list of 12 words read by the instructor. The test consisted of

three learning trials, a delayed/recall trial (20-25 minutes delay) and yes/no delayed recognition

trial. This later trial consisted of a randomized list that included the 12 target words and 12 non

target words, six of which are drawn from the same semantic category as the targets. Raw scores

were derived for total recall, delayed recall, retention (% retained), and a Recognition

discrimination index. No inclusion/exclusion was based on this score, but it was collected as a

possible covariate and to characterize the sample.

Proximal Outcome Variable

A proximal outcome refers to the direct outcome being measured, and is sometimes

construed as the "mechanism" by which training effects are carried to real world outcomes. In

other words, in order for the training effect be transferred to the real world, the training must first

be proven effective on the basic skill or ability that is trained. The proximal outcome in this

study is visual attention, as assessed with the Useful Field of View test (UFOVm; Owsley, Ball,

Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1991; Ball, Owsley, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993; Myers, Ball,

Kalina, Roth, & Goode, 2000; Raedt., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, 2000; Edwards, Wadley, Myers,









Roenker, Cissell, & Ball, 2002; Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, et al., 2002;

Roenker, Cissell, Ball, Wadley, & Edward, 2003).

Useful Field Of View (UFOV) test The UFOV (UFOV" User' s Guide ) is a computer-

administered test. It measures the speed at which individuals can process information within a

300 radius visual field under a variety of cognitively demanding conditions. The test can be

administered in about 15 minutes. The test is assessed binocularly and it involves the detection,

localization, or identification of targets against more complex backgrounds. It consists of four

subtests that assess the speed of processing under increasingly complex task demands (e.g.,

divided attention, selective attention). These were described in detail in the UFOV training

section above. Participants end up with four subtask scores, which can also be summed into a

composite. Each subtask score ranges from 16 ms (fastest) to 500 ms (slowest), and represents

the average presentation time needed for the participant to perform that task with 75% accuracy.

As described elsewhere in detail, the four subtasks are:

(1) Subtask 1, Speed, identify a centrally presented obj ect as car or truck

(2) Subtask 2, Divided attention, identify a centrally presented obj ect as car or truck, while

noting the location of a peripherally presented obj ect

(3) Subtask 3, Selective attention, identify a centrally presented obj ect as car or truck,

while noting the location of a peripheral obj ect that is presented in clutter

(4) Subtask 4, Same-different, note whether two centrally presented obj ects are the same or

different (two cars, two trucks, or a car and a truck), while simultaneously noting the location of

a peripheral obj ect that is presented in clutter

Primary Outcome Measures

The primary, or 'real world', outcome for this study was simulated driving performance.

This primary outcome was selected because it speaks to the practical value, if any, of the visual










attention training, and extends the video game training results to a real world outcome that has

not yet been adequately studied, vis-a-vis video games, in older adults. Moreover, driving

performance is greatly influenced by visual attention (Ball, Owsley, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni,

1993).

In this study, a driving simulator program was used to assess the primary outcome

measure. It is difficult to measure visual attention in situ, on the road, because one cannot control

the environment. A high-fidelity driving simulator was available to the researchers, which

permits controlled visual environments, millisecond timing at a high sampling rate (50 Hz), and

ensures the safety of participants. Of course, as a simulator, ecological validity concerns are also

present. In this task, participants used a steering wheel and gas-brake-pedal controller, which

was thought to enhance the realism of the simulation.

Type of simulator The simulator used in this study was the STISM Driving simulator

developed by Systems Technology Incorporated. Scenarios were presented using a Dell

Optiplex GX270 CPU, 19 inch flat screen monitor, and Logitech MOMO Force Feedback

steering wheel (Figure 3-8). A range of scenes was generated by the simulator. The simulator

included driving controls such as accelerator, break pedal and steering wheel. Participants sat

about 18' from the monitor. Participants' brake reaction distance was assessed in the driving

simulator.

Simulator task warm up -First, the participants received instructions on how to operate

the simulator. In this task, participants had to use the steering wheels, brakes and accelerator, as

in a real car. They had about 5 minutes to practice driving the simulator before the test begun.

Simulator task: Roadway obstacle detection (dog) and responsive braking During the

test, the participants were asked to behave as they would behave in a real environment e.g.,










stopping for pedestrians, obeying the speed limit. Participants were informed that as they drove,

they would encounter dogs that had been placed in different parts of the scenario (i.e, in the

center of the roadway or at the side of the road, either close to or far from the road). They were

instructed that the main task while driving the simulator was to visually scan the entire screen

and try to detect the location of the target stimulus (i.e., dog). Each time a participant thought

they saw the dog, the instant they saw it, they were instructed to perform a "brake reaction" task.

Participants were instructed to "j am on the brake" (i.e., not gentle braking) when they saw a dog,

even if the dog was not in or near the roadway. This represented one maj or difference between

the simulator and real behind-the-wheel performance. In the simulator, participants needed to

react as fast as possible by depressing the brake pedal when they observed the target "stimulus"

that was embedded into the scenarios. Some of the "stimuli" (e.g., dogs) would be in the middle

of the road, some were in the periphery. There were a total of 18 dogs through the scenarios.

Participants had to depress the brake each time a dog was seen. No cars were placed behind the

cars the participants were driving so there was no risk of a crash by suddenly pressing the brakes.

The scenarios would gradually increase in complexity and are described further below.

Rationale for using the dog -Studies using the simulator to measure reaction time mainly

use two approaches: Using a light display located on the top panel of the driver' s unit in which

participants were instructed to brake as quickly as possible when the lights were illuminated

(Roenker, et. al, 2003), and by displaying figure shaped images (e.g., diamond) at the monitor

screen, in which participants are supposed to engage the turn signal whenever the shapes

appeared on the screen (Lee et al., 2003). Although these approaches would be easier to use, it

would not allow placing the "stimulus" in different parts of the scenario. Moreover, in this study

we tried to replicate the UFOV subtasks in a driving simulator.









Different scenarios The participants started driving in an "acclimation" scenario (Figure

3-9). This scenario was simply a roadway without distractions (e.g., roadside obj ects) and it was

created to get participants familiar with the simulation projection, the steering wheels, brakes and

accelerator. During this scenario, the participants were asked to depress the brakes until they

were comfortable doing so. Throughout the scenarios there were speed limit signs that the

participants had to obey. Participants were asked to control their speed by looking at the

speedometer located in the bottom of the screen, and depressing the accelerometer as required.

Following the acclimation scenario, the participants drove through a rural scenario. In this

village, there was some oncoming traffic and some houses but there was not much clutter (Figure

3-10). The entire scenario had straight roads; the participants did not have to turn right or left.

The task continued with participants driving through a small town. In this town there was

more clutter and distraction as can be seen in figure 3-11.

Then the participants drove through a beach town (Figure 3-12) and then a metropolis,

depicted in the subsequent figure (Figure 3-13).

Position of the dogs through the scenes- There were a total of 18 dogs located throughout

the scenarios. The placement of dogs throughout the scenarios was constructed to approximate

the 4 different UFOV subtasks (processing speed, divided attention, selective attention and

selective attention with a same-different judgment). In this simulator task, the dogs were

positioned from 0 to 1 10 degree eccentricities either on the right or left side of the road. Some

dogs were very easy to find because they were placed either on the center of the road or at a low

eccentricity and there was not much clutter next to them. Other dogs were placed in locations

that were more difficult to find because there was more clutter and distractions on the road, such

as a bicyclist driving in front of the participant' s car.









For didactic purposes and to better understand the position of the dogs through the

scenario, the different position of the dogs will be referred to by using the term "blocks". Thus,

the position of dogs was divided into four "blocks" that represented the easiest (Block 1) to

hardest (Block 4) locations (e.g., in the center of the screen versus far from the road). However,

block numbers do not reflect the sequence at which dog positions of varying difficulty appeared

throughout the scenario, which were more or less randomly arrayed, but merely the difficulty of

the different positions of the dogs through the scenario.

Block one represented the dogs that are located in the center of the road and are the

easiest to seen (between 0 and 10 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog from Block 1 is

presented in figure 3-14, this dog is positioned right in the center of the road and it is very easy

to be seen. There were a total of 3 dogs in Blockl.

Block two represented the dogs located at a low to medium eccentricity but there was no

clutter or distraction next to them (between 20 and 65 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog

from the second Block is presented in figure 3-15, this dog is located in the periphery, but is

close to the road and there is not clutter next to it. There were a total of 6 dogs in this Block.

Block three represented the dogs located at a higher eccentricity and with more clutter

around them (between 80-1 10 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog from the third Block is

presented in figure 3-16, this dog is also located in the periphery, but it is not very close to the

road and there is clutter around it. There were a total of 4 dogs in this Block.

Block four represented dogs located at a low to high eccentricity but they are surrounded

by clutter and distractions (between 25-90 degrees eccentricity). An example of the fourth Block

of dog is presented in figure 3-17. This dog is at a medium eccentricity, however there is









substantial clutter surrounding it and distractions such as other cars driving next to it. There

were a total of 5 dogs in this Block.

Although the pictures can give a good idea of the position of the dogs on the screen, it does

not give a good representation of the dynamics of the simulation run, showing the clutter and

di stracti ons.

The position of each dog (with distance from the center of the road) and the sequence that

they appear on the screen is shown in table 3-2.

"Filler scenarios" -The entire simulation run took about 20 minutes to complete.

Between the onset of each dog there were some "filler" scenarios in which participants had to

keep driving (see figures 3-18 and 3-19 for example of the "filler scenarios").

How data were collected. In this study, data were collected in two ways: 1) by simulator-

generated data and, 2) behavioral data. In the case of the simulator-generated data, although the

participants would drive for approximately 20 minutes, the simulator was programmed to collect

data only where the dogs were located. Data started to be recorded at 400 feet before the dog

could be seen and stop being collected as soon as the participant passed the dog. Between the

onset of each dog, the participant drove into a "filler scenario" (as described above). As soon as

the participant depressed the brake pedal, this was recorded by the simulator as a marking point.

If participant did not see the dog and continued driving, there would be no marking point in that

block, and the block would be recorded as an inaccurate/error trial. The simulator generated three

types of data: brake reaction distance, lane maintenance, and accuracy.

(1) Brake reaction distance was measured as the distance from when the dog first

appeared on the screen (whether the participant could see it or not) to the first instant when the

participant first depressed the brake. The potential scores for brake reaction distance ranged from









1to 400 meters, where 400 meters represented the case where the participant did not see the dog.

The participant would score 1 if he or she pressed the brakes on the first moment the dog could

be seen in the simulator and they would score 400 if they missed the dog. Because participants

might drive at different speeds, there was inter-participant variability in the amount of time they

would have between when the dog was first perceptible on-screen and when they would be

laterally positioned with the dog. Thus, using brake reaction time as a dependent variable would

introduce inter-individual differences in response time that had nothing do with actual reaction

time, but with the driving speed. On the other hand, regardless of speed, the dog always

appeared at 400 feet before the person was laterally adj acent to it; thus, brake reaction distance

was selected as a dependent measure because inter-participant differences would be solely due to

the amount of distance traversed before the dog was noticed (i.e., how far the participant had to

drive before he/she noticed the dog). We assumed that driving distance would be more

equivalent and standard between participants, and less contaminated by individual differences in

driving speed.

(2) Lane maintenance score The roadway in which the participant drove always had a

width of 12 meters; the car was six meters wide, so a perfectly centered car would have a lateral

lane position of 6 meters (from the left side of the road). Since the sampling rate of the simulator

was 50 Hz, fifty times a second, the lateral position of the car-in-lane was assessed. Based on

other recent research with the simulator (Cook, 2007), it was determined that the standard

deviation of this lateral position was a good indicator of lane maintenance. The smaller the SD,

the less "weaving" the participant did while driving. This indicator was assessed under the

assumption that driving that was under less attentional control (e.g, because the participant was

distracted by effortfully looking for the dog) would be characterized by more "weaving". If the










participant became more confident and effective in dog detection due to training, it was

hypothesized that there would be less "weaving" and the standard deviation should be decreased

post-training. Thus, the expectation was that lane maintenance might improve with visual

attention improvements.

(3) Accuracy score The accuracy data was related to the fact that participants depressed

the brakes at that time or not. The accuracy data ranged from 0 to 18. A participant would score

0 if they could not see any dog in that trial and they would score 18 if they saw all the dogs in the

trial. A composite score was calculated by computing a mean score of the 18 trials from each

participant either for brake reaction distance or for accuracy. To give a better representation of

how the simulator generated data was collected, figure 3-20 presents a diagram with detail

description of data collection.

The behavioral data was collected by the instructor. The instructor would make notes about

the participants' driving behavior throughout the run. There were situations in which bicyclists or

pedestrians were close to the road and the participants would brake for the bikes or pedestrian

instead of the dogs. To account for the possibility of errors (e.g., braking for pedestrians instead

of dogs during the trial), the instructor collected the behavioral data. Following each run, the

behavioral data was compared to the simulator-generated data for each block of dogs for each

participant. For example: if in a certain block the simulator recorded an accurate trial (meaning

that they depressed the brake), but according to the behavioral notes the participants stopped for

a bicycle instead of the dog in that particular trial, the data was corrected in the system.

Correlation Between UFOV and Simulator Subtests

A correlation analysis was performed to explore: 1) the correlation among different group

of dogs (center, low to medium eccentricity little clutter, high eccentricity much clutter, and low

to high eccentricity with much clutter and distraction); 2) the correlation among the UFOV









scores (speed of processing, divided attention, selective attention and same different); and 3) the

correlation among the four Blocks of dogs with the UFOV scores either at pre and posttest. Table

3-3 presents the correlations at pretest and Table 3-4 shows the correlations at posttest. At both

occasions, there was positive manifold among all UFOV measures and all brake reaction

distance Blocks, suggesting that in general performance was consistent across the subtasks

within a measure. These correlations had a quasi-simplex pattern, meaning that adj acent

subtasks/Blocks thought to be closer in difficulty/complexity were also more associated

correlationally.

At pretest, Simulator Blocks 2, 3 and 4 (all had dogs at the side of the roadway, and were

characterized by increasing eccentricity and clutter in the higher blocks) were all associated with

UJFOV subtasks 3 and 4 (Selective Attention and Selective Attention with a Same-Different

judgment). Thus, the more difficult (and therefore more variable) tasks from UFOV and the

Simulator were associated. The results lend some support to the idea that simulator and UFOV

measures reflect, at least somewhat, overlapping constructs. However, given the fairly modest

associations between them, and drawing on the logic of "indirect effects" in regression (Baron &

Kenny, 1986), the correlations also imply that very large UFOV effect sizes would be needed

before transfer to the simulator outcome could be expected. At posttest, there was a narrower

band of transfer, with only the Block 3 simulator brake reaction distance related to UFOV tasks

2-4. This may be due partly to the fact that training may have reduced variability in the UFOV

and/or simulator outcomes (due to more participants moved to ceiling-level performance), which

could have attenuated correlations as well.

Secondary Outcome

This study has two secondary outcomes measures: Flow and a game design questionnaire.

As discussed in the introduction, a secondary outcome measure, "Flow", explored individual's










personal experience with video game playing. This could only be administered to participants in

the video game groups, and was collected during their six training sessions. This variable was

included to determine one's personal experience with video game playing and how it would

influence individuals' compliance with future programs using video games. This variable was

operationalized by a Flow questionnaire.

The Flow experience was measured using the Flow State Scale (FSS). This scale was

developed by Jackson & Marsh (1996) using the Csikszentmihalyi, (1990) concept of flow. The

FSS conceptualizes Flow in nine dimensions: Challenge-skill balance, action-awareness

merging, clear goals, unambiguous feedback, concentration on task at hand, sense of control, loss

of self-consciousness, transformation of time and autotelic experience. These dimensions were

described previously by Csikszentmihalyi (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and they are also related to

use of games and flow. Participants in the two video game groups answered the Flow

questionnaire at the end of each of the six training sessions, after they had played games with a

coach for about 90 minutes. Thus, each participant had a total of six flow scores. Scores (for each

trial) could range from 30-180, higher scores means more flow experience.

Game design questionnaire The model of the game design questionnaire was adapted

from a previous study designed to investigate older adults' opinion about technologies.

Sample Size

Power analysis was conducted with data from the ACTIVE clinical trial. A repeated

measure design with 3 experimental groups (action video game, UFOV, and "placebo" control

group) and, 2 occasions (pre-test and post-test) was used. Using the ACTIVE data, we estimated

residual covariance between occasions provided by SPSS. This analysis suggested the effect

size, Cohen' s fof occasion (pre/posttest) by group interaction was 0.48, which corresponds to a

medium effect size. Using NCSS/PASS program to estimate required sample size using their










effect size, it was found that groups of 16 or more participants should have adequate power to

detect the critical interaction.









Table 3-1. Measures used in the study.
Measure Pretest During Posttest
Baseline measures
Mini Mental Status X
Examination
(MMSE)
Snellen vision chart X
Hearing Handicap X
Inventory for Adults
(HHIES)
Geriatric Depression X
Scale (GDS)
Hopkin Verbal X
Learning Test
(HVLT)
Proximal outcome
Useful Field of View X X
Test (UFOV)
Primary outcomes
Driving simulator X X
(Brake reaction
distance, lane
maintenance, and
obstacle detection
accuracy)
Secondary outcomes
Flow X
Game design X
Note: MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; HHIES = Hearing Handicap Inventory for
Adults; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; UFOV
Useful Field of View.










Table 3-2. Sequence of the position of each dog on the scenario
Distance Condition Left side Center Right side
0 Center of road

65 Low to medium eccentricity, little
clutter X
65 Low to medium eccentricity, little
clutter X
95 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter
110 igheccntriity a ot o clttX

110 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter



800 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter

10 Center of road


50 Low to medium eccentricity, little
clutter X
100 Ho t igh eccentricity, a lot of clte

90 Cen terof roadcetrct, ot

20 Low to meium eccentricity, little
clutter Xn itato
40 Low to meium eccentricity, little
clutter Xn itato
40 Low to heigh eccentricity,a lot of
clutter an itato
90 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of X
clutter and distraction










Table 3-3. Correlation between UFOV and simulator subtasks during pretest.
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 UFOV 1 UFOV 2 UFOV 3 UFOV 4
Block 1 1
Block 2 0.41** 1
Blcok 3 0.27* 0.54** 1
Block 4 0.30* 0.61** 0.56** 1
UJFOV 1 -0.10 0.26 0.24 0.21 1
UJFOV 2 -0.08 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.48** 1
UFOV 3 0.21 0.33* 0.32* 0.42** 0.42** 0.70** 1
UJFOV 4 0.03 0.27* 0.30* 0.26* 0.15 0.32* 0.43** 1
Note: ** = p < .001; = p < .05; UFOV_1 = processing speed subtask; UFOV_2. = divided
attention subtask; UFOV 3 = selective attention subtask; UFOV 4 = selective attention with two
central icons; Block_1 = block of dogs that are centered to the road; Block_2 = block of dogs on
close distance to road without much clutter; Block_3 = block of dogs on far distance to road with
a lot of clutter; Block_4 = block of dogs located at low to high eccentricity but they are
surrounded by clutter and distractions.


Table 3-4. Correlation between UFOV and simulator subtasks during posttest.
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 UFOV 1 UFOV 2 UFOV 3 UFOV 4
Block 1 1
Block 2 0.39** 1
Block 3 0.22 0.41** 1
Block 4 0.42** 0.48** 0.28* 1
UJFOV 1 0.13 0.25 0.22 0.16 1
UFOV 2 0.05 0.24 0.31* 0.22 0.22 1
UFOV 3 -0.01 0.18 0.34* 0.21 0.19 0.69** 1
UJFOV 4 0.24 0.17 0.38** 0.16 0.18 0.41** 0.51** 1
Note: ** = p < .001; = p < .05; UFOV_1 = processing speed subtask; UFOV_2. = divided
attention subtask; UFOV 3 = selective attention subtask; UFOV 4 = selective attention with two
central icons; Block_1 = block of dogs that are centered to the road; Block_2 = block of dogs on
close distance to road without much clutter; Block_3 = block of dogs on far distance to road with
a lot of clutter; Block_4 = block of dogs located at low to high eccentricity but they are
surrounded by clutter and distractions.









































Figure 3-1. Diagram of study design presenting: Medal of Honor (MOH) group, Useful Field of
View (UFOV) group, Tetris group and the no contact control group.





1600

500

4100

300

200

100

0


-UFOV
- MOH
- --Tetris
-------- No -contact


1 2
P retest O cca si on Po sttest


Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor
Figure 3-2. Hypothesis 1:


-UFOV
--MOH
- --Tetris
----No -Contact


P rete st O cca si on Posattest
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor
Figure 3-3. Hypothesis 2:











































Figure 3-5. Example of a PowerPoint slide with step-by-step instructions given to participants.


ii~o v I ,,,, Jnv




Move forward/bckf 'u Tueft/righl
Strate lefthght Look upidown

Figure 3-4. Example of the controller used by participants to play the game


General Gamleplay
Ca~ll





























Figure 3-6. PowerPoint slide with instructions on how to use the "jump" button.
















Figure 3-7. Screen shot of TETRIS game


































gure 3-8. Example of a driving simulator used in the study
































Figure 3-9. Screen shot of the acclimation scenario.


Figure 3-10. Example of the rural scenario.
































Figure 3-11i. Example of a small town scenario


gure 3-12. Example of a beach town scenario.


































Figure 3-13. Example of a metropolis scenario


f figure 3-14. Example or a dog trom block 1 It Is positioned In the center or the road.
































Figure 3-15. Example of a dog from block 2 it is positioned in a low eccentricity and without
clutter.


Figure 3-16. Example of a dog from block 3


it is placed on high eccentricity with some clutter.
































Figure 3-17. Example of a dog from block 4 it is placed on a medium eccentricity but with
much clutter and distraction.


Figure 3-18 Example of a rural road scenario used as a filler scenario
































Figure 3-19. Example of a city scenario used as a filler.


















End of trial for assessment
for accurate participant trial ~













FILLER DRIVING






Meas~ureme~nt begns here




Brake

DOG

En I of assess me t for inaccurate
participant trial


Me.'surs_ma;nt.1egins_h~;ere_


Brake


DOG

Ed of asses ment for inaccurate
participant trial


End of trial for assessment
for accurate participant trial


Figure 3-20. Diagram with illustration on how simulator generated data was collected.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Overview

This chapter includes Hyve broad sections. The first section corresponds to a preliminary

analysis and the following sections correspond to the primary aims of this study. A preliminary

analysis was conducted in order to determine whether there were differences between the

training and control group at the baseline assessments, thereby addressing the effectiveness of

the study's randomization. The preliminary analysis also investigated the difference between

participants who completed the training and participants who dropped out of the study. This

attrition analysis addressed whether dropout was selective (thereby potentially biasing the study

findings). The second section examined whether older participants who received videogame

training experienced gains in visual attention performance. More specifically, analyses compared

four groups (Medal of Honor [MOH], Useful Field of View [UFOV], Tetris, no-contact Control)

in their pretest-posttest changes in a measure of visual attention, to see whether participants in

the MOH group, in particular, experienced gains comparable to traditional UFOV training, and

greater than the other two groups. The third set of analyses examined whether videogame

playing might also improve performance on several measures from a driving simulator (e.g.,

brake reaction distance, accuracy of detecting a peripheral obj ect, and lane maintenance). The

fourth set of analyses examined whether changes in perceived enj oyment and engagement

("Flow") in participants in the three intervention groups (MOH, UFOV, and Tetris), and whether

the pattern of changes varied by group. The last set of analyses used descriptive statistics and

anecdotal data to explore participants' opinion about videogame design.









Preliminary Analysis

Assessment of Baseline Differences Between Treatment Groups

An analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether there were differences

between the four intervention groups in demographic status, age, years of education, gender,

race, two cognitive measures (MMSE and HVLT), depression, and two sensory measures (visual

acuity and hearing). The omnibus test revealed that there were no significant differences between

the four groups, suggesting that randomization had distributed participant characteristics

similarly across the groups. Table 4-1 shows the characteristics of the sample on the variables

assessed, both for the total group and by intervention subgroup. P-values shown reflect the

absence of a significant overall difference between groups.

Attrition

Given the duration and time commitment required for the current study, and the fact that

twelve participants withdrew, it was important to determine whether dropout was selective.

(Selectivity of dropout would suggest that the remaining sample on which the results were based

was positively biased). To examine this, returning and non-returning participants were compared

in baseline characteristics; specifically, analysis of variance was conducted to examine whether

participants who dropped out of the study prior to its completion differed at pretest from the

participants that completed the study (e.g., completed training intervention and posttest) on

demographic and cognitive variables. As shown in Table 4-2, no significant differences emerged

between completers and non-completers of the study protocol, suggesting that dropout did not

bias the generalizability of the study findings. Also, only three participants who dropped out (one

from each intervention group MOH, UFOV, Tetris) knew to which training they were

randomized because they dropped out during the training. The remaining of the participants who









dropped out (n = 9) did not know to which training they were randomized because they dropped

out before the first training session, when the intervention assignment were revealed.

Aim 1: Effects of Videogame Training on Visual Attention (UFOV)

The first set of analyses examined the core four-group design that was the basis for this

study. The underlying hypothesis, drawn from Green and Bavelier (2003), was that exposure to a

first-person shooter action video game (MOH) would cause improvements in a measure of visual

attention (the UFOV test). We sought to expand prior work in this area, which had been done

with undergraduates, by considering an older adult sample. We also wanted to compare the

magnitude of expected UFOV gains due to MOH by comparing the MOH intervention to the

"gold standard" for this visual attention outcome, the University of Alabama-Birmingham' s

computer-based UFOV training program (Ball et al., 1988). Green and Bavelier had included a

Tetris intervention group in their study as a placebo control, and we added that to this study as

well. Finally, as described in the Methods chapter, because interim analyses suggested it might

be difficult to disentangle simple pretest-to-posttest practice effects from the actual effects of

videogame playing, we added a fourth non-equivalent no-contact Control group, which permitted

us to compare the size of the MOH training effects, if any, to the simple effects of taking the

UJFOV test twice. Prior to conducting these planned analyses, we first sought to investigate

whether randomization had worked to, in fact, equate groups at baseline. We assessed whether

the four treatment groups were significantly different at pretest on either the UFOV composite

score and or any of its' four constituent subtask scores. For none of the measures were the groups

significantly different (p > .05).

Throughout this text r12 is shown to indicate a partial eta-squared, which is an indicator of

effect size. Values closer to 1.0 indicate a stronger effect size.










Analyses on the UFOV Composite

Our initial analysis was conducted, following published work (e.g., Ball et al., 2002;

Willis et al., 2006) on the UFOV composite score. Thus, the dependent variable is the UFOV

composite score (Speed + Divided attention + Selective attention score + Same-Different). The

design was a mixed between-within design. The within-persons independent variable was

Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons independent variable was Group (4:

MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The critical effect of interest was the Occasion by

Group interaction, which would inform us about whether there were group differences in the

pattern of pre-post change. A significant main effect was revealed for Occasion (pre post), F (1,

54) = 34.07, p < .001, r12 = .38, suggesting that, across all groups, participants tended to improve

their performance. No significant main effect was found for Group, F (3, 54) = 1.4, p > .005, r12

.07, which suggests that there were no overall group differences, averaging across pre- and

posttest. In general, this reassures that randomization equated groups. With regard to the critical

Occasion by Group interaction, there was a significant interaction effect F (3, 54) = 5.8, p =.002,

12 = .24. Thus, there was a significant differences in change by intervention group. The mean

values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-3.

Pre-post change in UFOV composite performance, and group differences in change, are

illustrated in Figure 4-1.

To further understand this interaction effect (i.e., which groups were changing at a

different rate from others), we computed UFOV change scores (post pre) for each participant.

These were computed by subtracting the composite pretest scores from the composite posttest

scores. A univariate ANOVA using change in the UFOV composite score as the dependent

variable (composite posttest score composite pretest score) was conducted. Treatment group

membership was the independent variable (MOH, UFOV, Tetris, No-contact control). Results









revealed a significant main effect of group membership on UFOV change, F (3, 54) = 5.8, p =

.002, 12 = .24. Follow-up Bonferroni post-hoc t-tests were conducted to determine which groups

differed from one another significantly in their UFOV change from pretest to posttest. The

UFOV group improved significantly more than the Tetris group (p = .05) and the no-contact

Control group (p < .01), but the difference in change between MOH and UFOV training groups

did not reach significance (p = .08). Mean differences in change score, by group, are shown in

Table 4-4. While the mean trends in the data suggest that participants in either videogame group

improved more than the control group (see Figure 4-2), this difference did not reach significance.

We also examined this analysis on residual change scores pretestt is entered as a

covariate, and posttest score is the dependent variable; because of the tendency to have high test-

retest correlations between pretest and posttest, this will tend to substantially increase the

statistical power of analyses on change scores), but the pattern of results was similar, and is

therefore not expanded upon here in order to reduce redundancies.

Re-Examining Training Effects on UFOV by Each Subtask

The analyses on the composite score failed to Eind that the MOH intervention improved

UFOV scores significantly more than Tetris or the no-contact Control condition. We thus

decided, as a follow up analysis, to re-examine this main analysis using each of the four UFOV

subtasks as distinct dependent variables. Previous research has suggested that many older adults

are at ceiling on the UFOV Subtask 1 (Speed), and at floor on the UFOV Subtask 4 (Same-

different), suggesting these subtasks may not be very sensitive to change. (Edwards et. a., 2006)

Thus, we were particularly focused on UFOV Subtask 2 (Divided Attention) and Subtask 3

(Selective Attention). A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted with two within-persons

variables and one between-persons variable. The first within-persons variable was UFOV Task

(4: Speed, Divided Attention, Selective Attention, Same-Different). The second within-persons









variable was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons variable was again Group (4:

MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The mean values and standard deviation for each

UJFOV subtest are shown by group and by occasion in Table 4-5.

A significant main effect was revealed for Occasion (pre post), F (1, 54) = 34.0, p < .001,

YI2= .38 and UFOV subtask F (3, 162) = 484.9, p < .001, rl2= .90 but no significant main effect

was found for Group F (3, 54) = 1.4, p = .232, r12 = .07. For the two way interactions, a

significant interaction effect was revealed for Occasion x Group, F (3, 54) = 5.8, p = .002, 12=

.24 and Occasion x UFOV subtasks, F (3, 162) = 5.3, p < .002 r12= .09 but no significant

interaction effects were revealed for UFOV subtask x Group F (9, 162) = 1.2, p = .248, r12= .06.

A significant three-way interaction was found for the Occasion x UFOV subtask x Group effect,

F (9, 162) = 4.5, p < .001, r12= .20.

The main effect of Occasion reflected a general decrease in the UFOV scores over time

and the main effect of UFOV subtask reflected the Einding that in the subtasks 3 and 4 there was

more room for improvement. The Occasion x Group interaction reflected the fact that, in general,

the UFOV group had greater improvement at posttest. The Occasion by UFOV subtask

interaction reflected the fact that the amounts of improvement in scores at posttest was seen on

particular subtasks; i.e., subtasks 3 and 4 which had more room for improvement. The

significance in the three way interaction (Group x Occasion x UFOV subtask) revealed that the

pattern of group differences in rates of pre-post change varied by UFOV subtask, again reflecting

that group difference Eindings were most concentrated on UFOV subtasks 3 and 4.

To decompose the three-way interaction, a follow-up univariate two-way mixed between-

within ANOVA was conducted on each of the four UFOV Subtasks (Speed, Divided Attention,

Selective Attention, Same-Different). For each of these analyses, Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest)









was the within-persons independent variable, and Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact

Control) was the between-persons independent variable. The dependent measure for each of the

four UFOV subtasks was the average time, in milliseconds (range = 16-500 ms) for participants

to complete the subtask with 75% accuracy.

Speed of Processing Subtask

For the Speed UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which participants could

judge whether they had seen a car or a truck, a significant main effect of Occasion was not found

F (1, 54) = .27, p = .104, r12= .04, also there was no significant main effect of Group F (3, 54) =

.75, p = .526, r12= .04. The Occasion by Group interaction was also not significant, F (3, 54) =

1.4, p = .238, 12 = .07. There was no improvement on this task, because participants were already

at ceiling. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are

presented in table 4-6. Figure 4-3 illustrates the change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the

Speed of processing UFOV subtask.

Divided Attention Subtask

For the Divided Attention UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which

participants could judge whether they had seen a car or a truck while also looking for the

peripheral location of a second car, there was a significant effect of Occasion F (1, 54) = 5.9, p =

.018, rl2= .09 but there was no significant main effect of Group F (3, 54) = 1.7, p = .163, rl2= .09.

The Occasion by Group interaction was also not significant, F (3, 54) = 1.0, p = .379, 12 = .05.

Thus, although there was a significant Occasion main effect (i.e., on average, all participants got

better from the first to the second test), the absence of an interaction indicates that there were no

group differences in change on this measure. In this test, participants were, on average, already

close to ceiling. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are









presented in table 4-7. Figure 4-4 illustrates the change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the

Divided Attention UFOV subtask.

Selective Attention Subtask

For the Selective Attention UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which

participants could judge whether they had seen a car or a truck while also looking for the

peripheral location of a second car in clutter, the main effect of Occasion was significant F (1,

54) = 26.49, p = <. 001, r1 = .32 but the main effect of Group was not significant F (3, 54) = .93,

p = .430, r1 = .04. The Occasion by Group interaction was significant, F (3, 54) = 4.4, p = .007,

r1 = .20. This interaction suggests that there were group differences in pre-post change on this

measure. This effect is further explored with a change score analysis after the next section on the

Same-Different task. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by

group are presented in table 4-8. Figure 4-5 illustrates the change from pretest to posttest, by

group, for the Selective Attention UFOV subtask.

Same-Different Subtask

For the Same-different UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which participants

could decide whether two centrally presented obj ects were the same or different, while also

looking for the peripheral location of a second car in clutter, there was a significant main effect

of Occasion F (3, 54) = 9.8, p = .003, r1 .15 but there was no significant main effect of Group F

(3, 54) = 1.9, p = .132, r1 .09. The Occasion by Group interaction was again significant, F (3, 54)

= 7.2, p < .001, r1 = .28. Thus, the significant interaction says that there were again group

differences in pre-post change on this measure, an effect which is further explored with the

change score analysis that follows. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent

measure by group are presented in table 4-9. Figure 4-6 illustrates the change from pretest to

posttest, by group, for the Same-Different UFOV subtask.










Change score analyses of Selective Attention and Same-Different subtasks

To further explore the significant Occasion by Group interaction for the Selective

Attention subtask and the Same-Different subtask, a follow-up analysis was conducted using

change scores. Specifically, for both subtasks, change scores were computed by subtracting the

pretest score from the posttest scores for each subtask. Negative changes would represent

improvement in performance (faster times). Additionally, Bonferroni corrected follow up t-tests

were used to examine whether there were significant group differences in pre-post change scores

over the two occasions. As noted above for the composite score, we also examined this analysis

on residual change scores (where pretest scores on the dependent measure served as the

covariate, and posttest was the dependent variable) and this did not alter the pattern of findings;

details are omitted here in the service of conciseness.

Selective attention subtask using change scores For the selective attention subtask, a

significant main effect of Group was found, F (3, 54) = 4.4, p = .007, 12 = .20. A post hoc t-test

analysis using Bonferroni correction (Table 4-10) revealed that the UFOV-trained group

improved significantly more (p < .05) than the control group. In addition, the Tetris group

improved significantly more (p < .05) than the control group as well. The UFOV group did not

improve significantly more than either the Tetris or MOH groups, and the two video game

groups did not differ significantly from one another. Figure 4-7 displays the trends in the data.

Same-different change scores For the Same Different subtask, a significant main

effect of Group was also found, F (3, 54) = 7.2 p < .001, r12 = .28. A post hoc analysis using

Bonferroni correction revealed that the UFOV group improved significantly more (p < .05) than

all other groups, and that this was the only significant set of comparisons in these data. Unlike

the Selective Attention task, there was no evidence that either of the video game groups










improved more than the no-contact control group, and they did not differ from one another.

Mean trends are shown in table 4. 11, and illustrated in Figure 4-8.


Aim 2: Effects of Videogame Training on Driving Simulator Performance

Results in this section focused on our three simulator-based dependent measures: (1)

Brake reaction distance, (2) lane maintenance, and (3) obj ect detection accuracy (i.e., number of

trials in which a dog was correctly detected and responded to). The intent of the analyses in this

section was to examine whether videogame training might transfer to aspects of simulated

driving performance. This conformed with the ultimate goal of this study, which was to

investigate whether visual attention training might be transferred to a real life situation. Despite

the preceding analyses, which found little support for our experimental hypotheses (i.e., that the

Medal of Honor group would experience more visual attention gain than Tetris or no-contact

Controls; instead, the only evidence that video games affected visual attention was for the

placebo control condition, Tetris, which improved more than no-contact controls on the Selective

Attention subtask of the UFOV), this planned analysis was nevertheless examined. The goal of

this set of analyses was to investigate whether there were any preliminary indications of real-

world transfer, even for the traditional (and highly effective) UFOV training.

Driving Simulator Subtask 1: Break Reaction Distance

Analysis on the composite Brake Reaction Distance A mixed between-within ANOVA

was conducted on Brake Reaction Distance. As a reminder, a dog appeared on screen eighteen

(18) times throughout the course of the driving task. The dog always appeared on screen about

400 feet before the car was laterally adjacent to it. The 400 feet before the car was laterally

adj acent to the dog is referred to as a "trial". The position of the dog varied from center-of-road

to varying degrees of eccentricity, with right-or-left positioning counterbalanced.









Participants were allowed to control their speed, in accordance with posted speed levels.

Thus, Brake Reaction Time was considered not to be a useful indicator of participant response,

since task difficulty and presentation rate of the dog would vary with the speed driven. Brake

reaction distance was found to be less sensitive to individual differences in driving speed, and

was selected as the indicator of choice. The composite score was computed as the average brake

reaction distance, computed for all 18 trials in which the dog appeared. For "error trials" (i.e.,

where the dog was not detected), a "time-out" distance (set to an arbitrary maximum of 400 feet)

was used.

In the mixed between-within ANOVA, the same effects as in all precedent analysis were

used. Group (4, MOH, UFOV, Tetris, and no-contact Control) was the between-persons

variable, and Occasion (2, Pretest, Posttest) was the within-persons variable. The dependent

score was the average brake reaction distance over the 18 dog trials. There was a significant

main effect of Occasion F (1, 51) = 8.5, p = .005, 12 = .14 (indicating that people improved,

requiring shorter reaction distances from pre to posttest), but the main effect of Group was not

significant F (3, 51) = .04, p = .989, 12 = .002. Analyses also revealed a non-significant Group X

Occasion interaction, F (3, 51) = .85, p = .107, r12 = .04. Although there is a significant main

effect for Occasion, the absence of an interaction indicates there were no group differences on

this measure. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are

presented in table 4-12. The relationship between baseline and posttest performance are

illustrated in figure 4-9.

Analysis on the Brake Reaction Distance by Trial Type As with the Useful Field of

View, a concern was that the aggregate, composite mean brake reaction distance across all 18

dog-trials may have obscured any effects that were specific to particular trial types. In particular,









since the UFOV training had the largest effects, in the preceding section, on the more difficult

UFOV subtasks (Selective Attention, Same-Different), a question was whether transfer to

simulator-measured Brake Reaction distance might be greatest for dog trials in which the dog

was more peripherally located and/or in clutter. To further explore this question, the eighteen dog

trials were grouped into four blocks of trials: (a) Block 1: Dog was located in the center of the

road, (b) Block 2: Dog was located at the side of the road, but close to the road, with minimal

clutter (e.g., country road), (c) Block 3: Dog was located a substantial distance from the side of

the road (between 80-110 degrees eccentricity) with more clutter (e.g., the dog was located

between houses or trees), and (d) Block 4: Dog was located a certain distance from the side of

the road (between 25 -90 degrees eccentricity) but with extensive clutter and distraction (e.g.,

traffic, cyclists, pedestrians). Our question of interest was whether evidence of training transfer

(from UFOV or from one of the videogame training conditions) might be greatest on the more

difficult subgroups of simulator trials

A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted, with two within-persons conditions

and one between-person condition. The first within-person condition was Block (4; centered

dog; dog with minimal eccentricity; dog with substantial eccentricity; dog with substantial

eccentricity and clutter/distraction). The second within-person condition was Occasion (2:

Pretest, Posttest). The between-person condition was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact

Control). The dependent measure was the mean brake reaction distance in each of these

conditions. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are

presented in table 4-13.

Significant effects were revealed for Occasion (pre post), F (1, 51) = 5.7, p = .020, 12=

.10; Block, F (3, 153) = 337.5, p < .001, r12= .86; and Block X Group, F (9, 153) = 3.0, p = .005,









r12= .15. No significant interaction was found for Occasion X Block, F (3, 51) = .74, p = .107,

YI2= .04; Occasion X Group, F (3, 153) = 2.1i, p = .533, rl2= .04. The three-way Occasion X

Group X Block interaction was also not significant F (9, 153) = 1.3, p = .244, r12 = 0.7.

The main effect of Occasion reflected a general reduction in brake distance over time,

and the main effect of Block reflected that the conditions hypothesized to have greater difficulty

(e.g., Blocks 3 and 4, where the dog was at substantial eccentricity and in clutter) had longer

brake reaction distances. The Group x Block interaction seems to reflect the fact that, especially

on Blocks 1 and 2, the rank order of some groups varied across the Blocks of trials.

The change between baseline and posttest performance for block 1 (Figure 4-10); block 2

(Figure 4-11); block 3(Figure 4-12) and block 4 (Figure 4-13) are also presented.

Driving Simulator Subtask 2: Lane Maintenance

A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted on lane maintenance. The within-

persons independent variable was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons

independent variable was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, No-contact Control). The critical

effect of interest was the Occasion by Group interaction, which would inform us about whether

there were group differences in the pattern of pre-post change. A significant main effect for

Occasion was found F (1, 51) = 6.6, p = .013, r12 = .11 but no significant main effect was found

for Group F (3, 51) = .22, p = .091, r12 = .11. With regard to the critical Occasion by Group

interaction, there was no significant interaction F (3, 51) = .79, p = .503, r12 = .04. Thus, the

groups got better at lane maintenance at posttest, but there were no group difference change on

this measure. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are

presented in table 4-14. Pre-post accuracy performance and group difference in change, are

illustrated in figure 4-14.










Analysis of Lane Maintenance by Trial Type As with the brake reaction distance a

concern was whether the lane maintenance might differ for particular trial types (i.e., if training

improved dog detection, and this meant that drivers could attend better to lane maintenance at

posttest, would this effect be particularly strong for some types of dog distracters than others?).

To further explore this question, the eighteen dog trials were grouped into four blocks of trials:

(a) Block 1: Dog was located in the center of the road, (b) Block 2: Dog was located at the side

of the road, but close to the road, with minimal clutter (e.g., country road), (c) Block 3: Dog was

located a substantial distance from the side of the road (between 80-1 10 degrees eccentricity)

with more clutter (e.g., the dog was located between houses or trees), and (d) Block 4: Dog was

located a certain distance from the side of the road (between 25 -90 degrees eccentricity) but

with extensive clutter and distraction (e.g., traffic, cyclists, pedestrians). Our question of interest

was whether evidence of training transfer (from UFOV or from one of the video game

conditions) might be greatest on the more difficult subgroup of simulator trials.

A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted, with two-within-persons conditions and

one between-person condition. The first within-persons condition was Block (4: centered dog;

dog with minimal eccentricity; dog with substantial eccentricity; dog with substantial

eccentricity and clutter/distraction). The second within-person condition was Occasion (2:

Pretest Posttest). The between-person condition was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact

Control). The dependent measure was the standard deviation of lane maintenance in each of the

condition.

Significant effects were revealed for Occasion (pre post) F (1, 51) = 6.7, p = .012, r12 =.

Bloc F (, 13) =3062, p< .01, 2 =.85 and Block x Group F (9, 153) = 306.2, p = .031, r2

.14. No significant interaction was found for Occasion x Group F (3, 51) = .52, p = .667, r12









.03; Occasion x Block F (3, 153) = .92, p = .363, r12 = .01. The three way Occasion x Group x

Block interaction was also not significant F (9, 153) = 1.6, p = .171, r12 = .08. The mean values

and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-15. It looks

like occasion signals general improvement over time (less variability while driving), and block

reflects the fact that later blocks were more difficult, so SD is great in those blocks. The block by

group effect seems to reflect that the rank order of groups varies across the four different types of

dog distracter trials, but doesn't seem to be a meaningful effect or one related to the

interventions. The change between baseline and posttest performance is presented in the

following figures: for block 1 (figure 4-15), block 2 (Figure 4-16), block 3 (Figure 4-17), and

block 4 (Figure 4-18).

Driving Simulator Subtask 3: Dog Detection Accuracy

Another question regarding the driving simulator performance was whether dog detection

accuracy (saw the dog or not) differed for each intervention group (i.e., if participants could

accurately detect more dogs at posttest than at pretest). Did the interventions (especially UFOV

and MOH) make participants more accurate detectors of roadside obstacles?

Analysis on 18-trial Dog detection accuracy A mixed between-within ANOVA was

conducted on Dog detection accuracy. The within-persons independent variable was Occasion

(2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons independent variable was Group (4: MOH, UFOV,

Tetris, No-contact Control). The critical effect of interest was the Occasion by Group interaction,

which would inform us about whether there were group differences in the pattern of pre-post

change. A significant main effect for Occasion was found F (1, 51) = 4.6, p = .037, r12 = .08 but

no significant main effect was found for Group F (3, 51) = .22, p = .876, r12 = .013. With regard

to the critical Occasion by Group interaction, there was no significant interaction F (3, 51) =

.135, p = .939, r12 = .008. Thus, there was an overall increase in accuracy at the posttest but the










increase did not differ by intervention group, suggesting that it was a generalized practice effect.

The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are presented in

table 4-16. Pre-post accuracy performance and group difference in change, are illustrated in

figure 4-19.

We did not conduct an analysis by block type for this dependent variable, because

numbers of trials in each block was very low, thus not providing enough variability in the

dependent variable for the statistical analysis.

Aim 3: Changes in Engagement/Flow over the Course of Training

This set of analyses was confined to the three groups of participants who were involved in

interventions (MOH, UFOV, Tetris), and constitutes the original fully randomized sample. The

question to be asked here was whether there were differences in participants' task engagement by

intervention group, and whether this changed over the course of training. One rationale for using

video games to train elders' visual attention has been the assumption that games are more

interesting and engaging. Thus, Flow scores were assessed from all intervention groups after

each of their six intervention sessions. The resulting mixed between-within ANOVA included

one within-persons factor, Occasion (6, Training Sessions 1 6), and one between-persons

factor, Group (3, MOH, UFOV, Tetris). The dependent measure was the Flow score obtained at

the end of each of the six intervention sessions. Flow scores could range from 30-180, where

higher scores represented more (positive engagement) flow experience. Results revealed a

significant Occasion X Group interaction, F (10, 185) = 2.0, p < .05, r1 = .10. Table 4-17 shows

the mean and standard deviation for each training group at each session. Figure 4-20 illustrates

the six training session Flow experience trend in the data, by intervention group.

A post hoc t-test analysis using Bonferroni correction was conducted. However, given the

number of comparisons (45), the resulting corrected p-value (.05/45) was so low as to not shed










any light on the reason for the significant interaction. Thus, a Least Squares Difference post-hoc

analysis was conducted to provide a preliminary, exploratory insight into the interaction,

acknowledging that family-wise error was probably inflated in these comparisons. Here, the six

training sessions were compared to one another, separately by training group (Tables 4-18; 4-19

and 4-20). The LSD results revealed different temporal trends for the three intervention groups.

For the MOH group, there was a significant increase in Flow after the first sessions (Sessions 2

and 3 were significantly greater than Session 1) and this persisted through the end (Session 5 was

also significantly higher than Session 1). This suggests that participants experienced more Flow

right after beginning the training sequence, and maintained these gains over time. A congruent

pattern was found for the Tetris group. Although the visual pattern of Flow improvement for this

group was one of monotonic linear increase over the six sessions, concretely Session 6 was

significantly higher than Sessions 1 and 2. Thus, as with MOH, participants ended the training

with much higher self-rated Flow experience than they began with. A very different pattern was

observed for the UFOV training condition. Here, the pattern was more congruent with little

change over the six sessions, with the exception of one "outlier" session, Session 4. Session 4

was significantly lower in Flow than Sessions 1 and 5. Overall, then, the results suggested that

the two videogame conditions experienced growths in Flow over time, a phenomenon which was

not observed in the UFOV training.

Aim 4: Qualitative Participant Interviews Regarding Game Design

A final consumer-oriented aim of this study was "qualitative" in nature, in that we wanted

participants to relate their phenomenological experience with video games, and what

recommendations they would make for change. These final analyses examined only the subset

of participants who were in one of the two video game conditions (MOH, Tetris). A total of 27

participants, thirteen from the MOH group and fourteen from the Tetris group answered a










qualitative questionnaire. This questionnaire was given to the participants as part of their posttest

battery. Descriptive analysis was used to examine this aim, and was supplemented with

anecdotal data from participants.

The questionnaire was designed to measure participants' interest in videogame ownership,

issues that had prevented them from using videogames in the past, and possible barriers to use of

videogames in the future. A checklist was provided for each of these questions, and participants

could choose multiple answers (Table 4-21). The questionnaire also asked for participants'

opinions about the design of the game they played, and how they perceived video game playing

might have affected them. This part of the questionnaire was open-ended, and participants'

answers were grouped into post-hoc categories via the investigator' s thematic analysis (Table 4-

22). For the current purposes, only a single rater was used to code the themes in participants'

open-ended results; thus, future congruence among multiple coders will need to be assessed.

With regard to the quantitative elements of the questionnaire, almost half of the

participants (40.7%) said they were interested in owning a video game. The most cited reason for

not owning a video game in the past was lack of interest (44.0%) and cost (33.3%).

Correspondingly, when asked "What do you foresee preventing you from using a video game in

the future?" cost was the most cited reason (40.7 %), followed by lack of interest (37.0%) and

lack of knowledge of the game (14.8%).

Table 4-22 displays a summary of responses to our questions about videogame design, and

about perceived benefits attributable to videogames. Not every participant answered these

questions, so the number of participants who responded to each part of the questionnaire is

indicated in the table. Participants reported few problems with the screen/screen size (which was

a 19" CRT television), and while most of the participants reported that the controller was good, a










small sample said that the controller should be made easier to use (25.9%). When asked "How

would you change these features?", most participants reported they would change nothing about

the screen (55.5%) or the controller (55.0%).

With regard to perceived benefits, the most common perceived benefit reported was that of

mental exercise (33.3%), but an almost equal percentage (25.0%) felt that gaming could not help

them in any way.

Anecdotal data from participants who played the video games was also collected during

the posttest battery. In general, it seems participants enjoyed the study/gaming experience.

"I enjoyed the training and looked forward to next class each time"

"This has been a very enj oyable experience".

"I enjoyed the whole experience whether or not it stimulated my mind (I hope it did)"

"I enjoyed the computer game. This makes a good competitive game playing with others.

Thanks for introducing me to a game that I have never played before".

"The game playing was fun at times frustrating when I did not perform well".

One pre-experimental concern (that violence, especially in the MOH game, might be off-

putting to some) was affirmed by some respondents. Specifically, a subset of female participants

in the action-game Medal of Honor group did express some concerns about the violence of the

game

"I enjoyed learning the game, as I was curious how the games are played. I could probably

become addicted to them, but I do not intend to buy one. I get no satisfaction out of killing

people..."

"... I was bothered by the violent content...I found the instructors very patient and helpful.

I enjoyed the experience".










The training manual and the step-by-step instructions guide developed to be used in this

study seems to be generally adequate for the participants.

"Overall the training was understandable with goals that were easily identifiable and fun".

"Found the whole experience very interesting. Game was interesting and adequate..."

"The training was well conducted, challenging and the level of difficulty was adequate".

"I enjoyed the challenge of the game very much. I am continuing to play it on line at

home..."

"Training was a fun experience. Testing my skills against the program. Feeling good about

my success.. "

Some participants commented about how the video game training stimulated their brain.

"It stimulated my brain..."

"I think the training did help stimulate my hand-eye coordination. It also helped my

anticipation in looking ahead to prepare for the next action..."

In general, anecdotal data from participants suggests that video game playing can be an

enj oyable experience for the participants, although the violence in the game is not appealing for

some, especially female participants. The development of a manual guide with detailed

instructions on game playing seems important in training older adults to play these games.

Summary

Overall, the results suggest that only UFOV training improved visual attention

significantly more than the other video game training. However, although not significant, the two

video game conditions experienced more visual attention gain than the no contact control group,

a difference which reached significance for the Tetris group on the Selective Attention UFOV

subtask. The results also suggest that the visual attention gains were not transferred to a

simulator driving performance. In addition, when examining participant' s engagement with the









training ("Flow"), Flow improved over time for the two video game conditions, but decreased for

UFOV training group. Finally, when querying participants' opinions about the video games they

had played (in the Tetris and Medal of Honor conditions only), results suggested that video

games have high acceptability for this population, and are perceived as potential "mental

exercise" tools by older respondents.









Table 4-1. Sample characteristics both for the total group and by intervention subgroup.


Total
Sample
(N = 5 8)


MOH
group
(N = 14)

74.8
(6.3)

15.8
(2.5)


UJFOV
group
(N = 16)

73.7
(6.2)

15.6
(2.6)


Tetri s
group
(N = 15)

75.8
(8.5)

16.5
(2.6)


Non
Contact
(N = 13)

73.7
(5.3)


p-values


.81


Age
M4
(SI))
Education
M4
(SI))


74.7
(6.4)

16.0
(2.4)


28
(48.3)

30
(51.7)


16.3
(1.7)


7
(53.8)

6
(46.2)

29.0
(1.2)

8.7
(3.4)

2.8
(2.4)

3.1
(3.8)

79.6
(22.3)

20/20


Male
N4
(%')
Female
N4
(0)
MMSE


9
(64.3)

5
(35.7)

29.2
(.97)

9.0
(2.7)

5.5
(4.9)

5.7
(5.5)

87.2
(5.9)

20/17


5
(31.2)

11
(68.8)

29.2
(1.5)

10.5
(1.7)

3.0
(2.6)

2.0
(2.6)

86.8
(3.9)

20/17


7
(46.6)

8
(53.4)

29.4
(.*91)

10.3
(1.3)

5.2
(5.3)

4.3
(5.3)

86.3
(5.1)

20/17


M 29.8
(SI)) (5.2)
HVLT Delayed recall
M 9.7
(SI)) (2.4)
GDS


M4
(SI))
Hearing
M4
(SI))


4.1
(4.1)

3.7
(4.5)


Vision
M 85.2
(SI)) (11.5)
Snellen equivalent
20/18


Note: MOH


Medal of Honor; UFOV


Useful Field of View; MMSE = Mini Mental State


Examination; HVLT
Scal~e.


Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; GDS = Geriatric Depression










Table 4-2. Sample characteristics for completers and non-completers of the study protocol.
Total Completed Drop out p-value
Sample (N = 58) (N = 12)
(N = 70)
Age .69


M
(SD)
Education
M
SD


74.6
(6.3)

16.0
(2.3)


33
(47.1)


75.3
(4.8)

16.3
(1.9)


5
(41.7)

7
(58.3)

28.7
(1.6)

9.0
(2.2)

6.0
(5.2)

2.4
(5.1)

87.5
(4.7)

20/17


5
(45.5)

4
(36.6)


Male
N
(%)


Female
N 37
(%) (52.9)
MMSE
M 29.1
(SD) (1.2)
HVLT Delaved recall
M 9.6
(SD) (2.4)
GDS


M
(SD)
Hearing
M
(SD)
Vision

(SD)
Snellen equivalent


4.4
(4.3)

3.5
(4.6)

86.7
(5.0)


20/17
Training group and attrition group*
MOH


(%)
Tetri s
N4
(%)
UFOV


74.5
(6.6)

15.9
(2.4)


28
(48.3)

30
(51.7)

29.2
(1.2)

9.7
(2.4)

4.1
(4.1)

3.7
(4.5)

86.6
(5.1)

20/17


14
(31.1)

15
(33.3)


N 16 2
(%) (35.5) (18.2)
Note: = 1 participants dropped out before randomization; MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV
Useful Field of View; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal
Learning Test-Revised; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale.










Table 4-3. UFOV composite scores before and after testing by group (mean +SD)
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact
pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
UJFOV
Composite
M 704.48 582.59 693.00 589.43 685.31 440.06 778.80 681.13 654.69 636.92
SD 232.70 246.08 254.83 209.67 94.29 171.25 272.76 219.00 280.56 323.91
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor, UFOV = Useful Field of View


Table 4-4. Post hoc analysis of UFOV composite scores by groups.
Intervention Intervention Mean p.
group group Difference Std. Error t df value


0.08
1
0.88
0.08
0.05
<0.01
1
0.05
1
0.88
<0.01


2.5
-0.1
-1.4
-2.5
-2.7
-4.0
0.1
2.7
-1.4
1.4
4.0
1.4


28
27
25
28
29
27
27
29
26
25
27
26


MOH


UJFOV


Tetri s


Control


UJFOV
Tetri s
Control
MOH
Tetri s
Control
MOH
UJFOV
Control
MOH
UFOV
Tetri s


141.68
-5.90
-85.80
-141.68
-147.58
-227.48
5.90
147.58
-79.90
85.80
227.48
79.90


55.25
56.10
58.15
55.25
54.26
56.37
56.10
54.26
57.21
58.15
56.37
57.21


Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View





































Table 4-6. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for processing speed subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact
Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
UFOV
speed


Table 4-5. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on four UFOV subtasks by
intervention groups for pre and posttest.


Total


MOH


UFOV


Tetris


No-contact


Measure
UFOV
speed
M
SD
UFOV
divided
M
SD
UFOV
selected
M
SD
UFOV
Same
different
M
S


pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


21.86 17.93 18.29 19.43 19.88 16.94 20.13 18.53 30.15 16.85
19.33 3.26 3.27 4.22 5.48 2.11 8.92 3.62 39.17 2.15


70.74 48.83 85.36 43.43 41.69 24.56 95.73 66.67 61.92 63.92
76.72 60.67 86.24 37.96 20.52 11.55 100.61 70.68 72.98 92.01


225.53 171.34 225.64 172.64 209.00 118.63 256.93 185.33 209.54 218.69
105.82 116.52 114.76 108.39 54.44 72.71 131.91 119.85 114.22 148.38



386.34 344.48 363.71 353.93 414.75 279.94 406.00 410.60 353.08 337.46
89.14 108.82 93.20 95.34 62.39 107.03 90.63 83.82 102.60 112.73


Note: MOH = Medal of Honor, UFOV = Useful Field of View


M
SD
Note :


21.86 17.93 18.29 19.43 19.88 16.94
19.33 3.26 3.27 4.22 5.48 2.11
MOH = Medal of Honor, UFOV = Useful Field of View.


20.13 18.53 30.15 16.85
8.92 3.62 39.17 2.15























Table 4-8. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for selective attention subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact
Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
UFOV
selected
M 225.53 171.34 225.64 172.64 209.00 118.63 256.93 185.33 209.54 218.69
SD 105.82 116.52 114.76 108.39 54.44 72.71 131.91 119.85 114.22 148.38
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.


Table 4-9. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the same different trial subtask
by intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact
Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post
UFOV
Same
different
M 386.34 344.48 363.71 353.93 414.75 279.94 406.00 410.60 353.08 337.46
S 89.14 108.82 93.20 95.34 62.39 107.03 90.63 83.82 102.60 112.73
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.


Table 4-7. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for divided attention subtask by
intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact
measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


UFOV
divided
M
SD
Note :


M


70.74 48.83 85.36 43.43 41.69 24.56
76.72 60.67 86.24 37.96 20.52 11.55
MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.


95.73 66.67 61.92 63.92
100.61 70.68 72.98 92.01




































p. value
<0.01
1
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1
<0.01
1
1
<0.01
1


group
UFOV
Tetri s
Control
MOH
Tetri s
Control
MOH
UJFOV
Control
MOH
UJFOV
Tetri s


UFOV



Tetris



Control



Note: MOH


Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.


Mean
Difference Std. Error
125.03 34.52
-14.39 35.05
5.83 36.33
-125.03 34.52
-139.41 33.90
-119.20 35.22
14.39 35.05
139.41 33.90
20.22 35.74
-5.83 36.33
119.20 35.22
-20.22 35.74


t d~f
3.6 28
-0.4 27
0.1 25
-3.6 28
-4.1 29
3.3 27
0.4 27
4.1 29
0.5 26
-0.1 25
3.3 27
-0.5 26


Intervention Intervention


group
MOH


Table 4-10. Post hoc analysis for selective attention subtask by group.


Intervention
group
MOH



UFOV



Tetris



Control



Note: MOH


Mean
Difference Std. Error t
37.38 27.78
18.60 28.21
-62.15 29.24
-37.38 27.78
-18.78 27.28
-99.53 28.34
-18.60 28.21
18.78 27.28
-80.75 28.76
62.15 29.24
99.53 28.34
80.75 28.76
UJFOV = Useful Field of View.


Intervention
group
UFOV
Tetri s
Control
MOH
Tetri s
Control
MOH
UFOV
Control
MOH
UFOV
Tetri s
Medal of Honor;


lr


value
1
1
0.23
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.04
0.23
0.01
0.04


afd


p.
28
27
25
28
29
27
27
29
26
25
27
26


1.3
0.6
-2.1
-1.3
-0.6
-3.5
-0.6
-0.6
-2.8
2.1
3.5
2.8


Table 4-11. Post hoc analysis for same different trial scores by group.










Table 4-12. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the overall driving simulator
score by intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s No-contact


Measure
Simulator
Composite
M
SD


pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


243.24 230.57 244.19 226.93
43.25 38.22 45.42 27.14


248.32 227.68 237.57 231.99 242.59 236.27
44.37 42.94 49.33 39.52 35.41 43.23


Table 4-13. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on four Simulator block by


intervention groups for pre and posttest.
Total MOH


UFOV


Tetri s


No-contact


Measure
Block
M
SD
Block2
M
SD
Block3
M
SD
Block4
M
S
Note :


pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


165.66 158.92 172.20 173.30 176.21
50.36 53.27 49.43 54.53 40.83


161.00 170.85 144.63
52.72 57.66 53.35


138.55 159.63
49.55 55.10

187.84 160.21
44.41 56.47

265.61 277.41
63.06 66.19

352.32 340.62
36.94 35.18


190.13
63.21


165.14 210.50 175.43
53.72 67.09 48.13


198.26
67.40


156.38
61.96


167.01 170.20
66.70 49.65


248.21 245.90 225.85 212.92 244.21
68.57 71.78 59.32 66.23 72.43


231.62 256.46 262.31
72.93 76.47 70.56


349.53 339.80 342.49 332.13 354.94 350.11
35.36 32.71 38.11 30.05 30.09 24.29
MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View


347.16 334.30
39.39 40.11


Table 4-14. Mean values and standard deviation for lane maintenance by intervention groups for
pre and posttest.
Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact
Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


Lane
maintenance
14 .679 .616 .624 .513 .738 .698
S .188 .192 .173 .136 .164 .203
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View


.626 .610 .720 .616
.181 .190 .227 .196










Table 4-15. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on lane maintenance on four
Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest.


Total


MOH


UJFOV


Tetris


No-contact


Measure
Block
M
SD
Block2
M
SD
Block3
M
SD
Block4


pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post

0.28 0.25 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.27
0.16 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.23

0.31 0.26 0.37 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.24
0.15 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.16

0.37 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.42 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.28 0.38
0.21 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.32 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.28


M
S
Note :


1.60 1.48 1.35 1.11 1.72 1.80
0.64 0.60 0.56 0.34 0.61 0.68
MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View


1.46 1.46 1.86 1.46
0.63 0.62 0.60 0.67




accuracy by intervention group


Table 4-16. Mean standardized scores and standard deviation on
for pre and posttest.


Total


MOH


UFOV


Tetns


INo-contact


cy


Measure
Accuracy
score
M
SD
Note :


pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post


11.7 12.2 12.0 12.6 11.6 12.3
2.4 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.5
MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.


11.7 12.2 11.5 11.8
2.5 2.2 2.3 1.8










Table 4-17. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations of Flow scores for the 6 training
sessions, by intervention group.
Total MOH UFOV Tetri s


Training
Session 1
M
SD
Training
Session 2
M
SD
Training
Session 3
M
SD
Training
Session 4
M
SD
Training
Session 5
M
SD
Training
Session 6
M
SD
Note: UFOV


115.78 106.5 123.5 116.0
18.96 23.43 11.13 18.62


118.68 118.0
20.93 23.97


120.57 117.36
17.6 22.63


117.35
22.06


115.58
25.0


119.36
12.62


116.86
27.66


115.18 113.5 110.14 121.64
26.23 24.51 29.92 24.19


120.68 118.25 119.5 123.93
24.11 26.95 17.29 28.49


120.43 117.08 115.57 128.14
27.67 28.28 23.99 30.73


MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV


Useful Field of View










Table 4-18. Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Medal of Honor
Occasion Occasion Mean Difference Std. Error t dSf p. value
1 2 -11.50 4.73 12 12 0.02
3 -9.08 4.18 12 12 0.04
4 -7.00 6.20 12 12 0.27
5 -11.75 5.29 12 12 0.03
6 -10.58 5.42 12 12 0.06
2 1 11.50 4.73 12 12 0.02
3 2.42 3.94 12 12 0.54
4 4.50 6.54 12 12 0.50
5 -0.25 3.97 12 12 0.95
6 0.92 5.49 12 12 0.87
3 1 9.08 4.18 12 12 0.04
2 -2.42 3.94 12 12 0.54
4 2.08 5.68 12 12 0.72
5 -2.67 4.12 12 12 0.52
6 -1.50 4.94 12 12 0.76
4 1 7.00 6.20 12 12 0.27
2 -4.50 6.54 12 12 0.50
3 -2.08 5.68 12 12 0.72
5 -4.75 5.07 12 12 0.35
6 -3.58 6.07 12 12 0.56
5 1 11.75 5.29 12 12 0.03
2 0.25 3.97 12 12 0.95
3 2.67 4.12 12 12 0.52
4 4.75 5.07 12 12 0.35
6 1.17 3.88 12 12 0.77
6 1 10.58 5.42 12 12 0.06
2 -0.92 5.49 12 12 0.87
3 1.50 4.94 12 12 0.76
4 3.58 6.07 12 12 0.56
5 -1.17 3.88 12 12 0.77










Table 4-19. Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for UFOV
Mean
Occasion Occasion Difference Std. Error t df p. value
1 2 2.93 4.38 15 15 0.51
3 4.14 3.87 15 15 0.29
4 13.36 5.74 15 15 0.03
5 4.00 4.90 15 15 0.42
6 7.93 5.01 15 15 0.12
2 1 -2.93 4.38 15 15 0.51
3 1.21 3.65 15 15 0.74
4 10.43 6.05 15 15 0.09
5 1.07 3.67 15 15 0.77
6 5.00 5.08 15 15 0.33
3 1 -4.14 3.87 15 15 0.29
2 -1.21 3.65 15 15 0.74
4 9.21 5.26 15 15 0.09
5 -0.14 3.81 15 15 0.97
6 3.79 4.57 15 15 0.41
4 1 -13.36 5.74 15 15 0.03
2 -10.43 6.05 15 15 0.09
3 -9.21 5.26 15 15 0.09
5 -9.36 4.69 15 15 0.05
6 -5.43 5.62 15 15 0.34
5 1 -4.00 4.90 15 15 0.42
2 -1.07 3.67 15 15 0.77
3 0.14 3.81 15 15 0.97
4 9.36 4.69 15 15 0.05
6 3.93 3.59 15 15 0.28
6 1 -7.93 5.01 15 15 0.12
2 -5.00 5.08 15 15 0.33
3 -3.79 4.57 15 15 0.41
4 5.43 5.62 15 15 0.34
5 -3.93 3.59 15 15 0.28










Table 4-20. Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Tetris


Mean
Occasion Difference Std. Error


Occasion


p. value
14 0.76
14 0.83
14 0.33
14 0.11
14 0.02
14 0.76
14 0.89
14 0.48
14 0.08
14 0.04
14 0.83
14 0.89
14 0.37
14 0.07
14 0.02
14 0.33
14 0.48
14 0.37
14 0.63
14 0.25
14 0.11
14 0.08
14 0.07
14 0.63
14 0.25
14 0.02
14 0.04
14 0.02
14 0.25
14 0.25


-1.36
-0.86
-5.64
-7.93
-12.14
1.36
0.50
-4.29
-6.57
-10.79
0.86
-0.50
-4.79
-7.07
-11.29
5.64
4.29
4.79
-2.29
-6.50
7.93
6.57
7.07
2.29
-4.21
12.14
10.79
11.29
6.50
4.21


4.38
3.87
5.74
4.90
5.01
4.38
3.65
6.05
3.67
5.08
3.87
3.65
5.26
3.81
4.57
5.74
6.05
5.26
4.69
5.62
4.90
3.67
3.81
4.69
3.59
5.01
5.08
4.57
5.62
3.59









Table 4-21. Video game ownership and usage
Are you interested in owning a video game?
N (% )
Yes 11 (40.7)
No 16 (59.3)
What had prevented you in the past from
owning a video game? *
N(%)
Lack of interest 12 (44.0)
Cost 9 (33.3)
Knowledge of the game 8 (29.6)
Lack of perceived need 6 (22.2)
Lack of time 4 (14.8)
Training not available 3 (11.1)
Too hard to learn 3 (11.1)
Others 2 (7.4)
What do you foresee preventing you from using
a video game in the future? *
N(%)
Cost 11 (40.7)
Lack of interest 10 (37.0)
Knowledge of the game 4 (14.8)
Lack of perceived need 6 (22.2)
Lack of time 3 (11.1)
Training not available 3 (11.1)
Too hard to learn 3 (11.1)
Others 2 (7.4)
Note: Participants could choose more than one answer.









Table 4-22. Video game features
What do you think about these features?
N (%)
Screen (n=26)
Good 26 (100)

Controller
Good 17 (62.9)
Make it easier to use 7 (25.9)
Other 3 (11.1)
How would you change these features?
N (%)
Screening (n = 17)
Nothing 15 (55.5)
Others 2 (7.4)

Controller (n = 20)
Nothing 11 (55.0)
Make it easier 7 (35.0)
Others 2 (7.4)
How do you think the video game can help
you? (n=20)
N(%)
Mental exercise 9 (33.3)
I do not think it can help 5 (25.0)
Eye hand coordination 4 (20.0)
Others 2 (10.0)



















Q I ~P~ : Tetris

-0Control
O
Q. 600 -'
E~ MOH
o

O'





UFOV

400-

1 2

Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-1. Pre-post change in UFOV composite performance, by training group
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.



















0.00


-50.00-




-!100.00-
O



mJ -150.00-



-200.00-




-250.00-

Medal of Honor UFOV Tetris Control

Intervention group

Figure 4-2. Mean UFOV composite pretest-posttest change scores, by training group
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View


























O




UFO


Prts TIE ottest




Figure 4-3. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the Speed of processing UFOV subtask
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor























135



























O

UFO

I I



>1 20- 0




Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-4. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the Divided Attention UFOV subtask.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor























136




















250 -'



r I ...- --4 Control

S200-

a, 9 Tetris

a, MOH



O
L.

UFOV




1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-5. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the Selective Attention UFOV subtask.
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.



























137




















.... ..-- ---- -'d Tetris


S390-



S360-
C- .. MOH


E 33~Control
330


O
L.
300-



UFOV
270-

1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-6. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the Same Different UFOV subtask.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor



























138




















20.00-



0.00-



-20.00-
O

O -00
C~

5 -60.00-

O

L.

-80.00-



-100.00-


Medal of Honor UFOV Tetris Control

Intervention group

Figure 4-7. Pretest-posttest improvement on the UFOV Selective attention subtask, by treatment
group
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View





























139
























0.00


O




O
LI.
a,-100.00








grou







Noe UO =Ueful Fedof ViewUO TtisCnt


















250.00 -


245.00-



S240.00-


E --z control


O. Tetris

E 230.00-
UFOV

MOH
225.00-

1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-9. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the average Brake Reaction Distance
(18-trial average). Distance between the onset of an on-screen dog and the depression
of the brake pedal was recorded, in meters.
Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.




















360.00


330.00-


300.00-


270.00-


240.00-


210.00-


180.00-- MOH
'`-- -------2 UFOV
150.00 .. -. Control
r'- -Tetris

120.00
1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest



Figure 4-10. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 1.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor





















360.00-


330.00-


300.00-


270.00-


240.00-


210.00-


180.00-- ** MOH
.. ... ... ... --- --. Tetris

150.00-Control
UFOV


120.00
1 2

Pretest TIME Posttest



Figure 4-11. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 2.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor





















360.00


330.00


300.00

Control
270.00 -..
----- ..Tetris

~J240.00-UO


210.00- O


180.00-


150.00-


120.00

1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest



Figure 4-12. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 3.
Note: UFOV Useful Field of View; MOH Medal of Honor




















360.00-
UFOV

330.00-Cno
MOH

300.00-


270.00-


O 240.00-
C)

S210.00-


180.00-


150.00-


120.00-

1 2

Pretest TIMIE Posttest


Figure 4-13. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 4.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor




















0.75-




0.70-
UFOV



a,0.65-


---....Control
S0.60 Tetris




0.55-



MOH
0.50-

1 2

Pretest TIE Posttest

Figure 4-14. Change between baseline and posttest performance for lane maintenance.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor





























146
































S0.90-



0.60-


MOH

0.30-- net 01



1 2
Pretest TIMIE Posttest



Figure 4-15. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane
maintenance for blockl.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor



























1.0






a,0.90-



0.60-


MOH

0.30- nt 0



1 2

Pretest TIMIE Posttest



Figure 4-16. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane
maintenance for block.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor
























$ 1.5-








C o



0.30-UO


MOH


1 2
Pretest TIMIE Posttest


Figure 4-17. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane
maintenance for block.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor





















UFOV



..........................g~6 Control
Tetris


MOH


1.50-



1.20-



0.90



0.60



0.30-


Pretest


TIMIE


Posttest


Figure 4-18. Change from pretest to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane


maintenance for block.
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH =


Medal of Honor



















12.75-
MOH


12.5

UFOV

S12.25-
,D Tetris





C Control





11.5-1 c/

1 2
Pretest TIME Posttest


Figure 4-19. Change from pretest to posttest, by group for the accuracy (18-trial average).
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor





















,4Tetris


125- ,'





O '-


110-- *






1105


11111

1 2 3 4 5 6

Training Session


Figure 4-20. Six training session. Flow experience trend in the data, by intervention group
Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Overview

This final chapter is organized into four maj or sections. The chapter first provides a

narrative review of the maj or findings of this study, followed by attempts to interpret these

findings. First, the maj or results of each study's specific aim will be reviewed. Second, a brief

consideration of the limitation of the study will be considered. Finally, directions for future

research on cognitive training with video games among older adults will be suggested.

Summary of Major Findings

Aim 1: Training Effects on Useful Field of View

The first aim of this study was to investigate whether UFOV performance can be improved

by providing training in first person action video games (Medal of Honor (MOH)) and

comparing this training to: (a) "gold- standard" touch screen based UFOV training, b) alternative

video game (Tetris) construed as a placebo control and c) no-contact pre post only group. It was

hypothesized that the UFOV training group would experience the most improvement in UFOV

test scores; moreover, the MOH videogame group was expected to experience more gain in

UJFOV performance than the Tetris group and the no-contact control group (based on the work of

Green and Bavelier, 2003). Results provided partial support for these hypotheses.

First, the UFOV composite score (the sum of four UFOV subtasks) was examined as a

dependent variable. Overall results revealed significant improvement only for the UFOV training

group, which experienced significantly more pre-post gain than the two control conditions

(Tetris, no-contact).

Subsequent analysis was conducted examining the four UFOV subtasks separately as

dependent measures. While there was no significant difference between groups for the easier










Speed of processing and Divided attention subtasks, there was a significant group difference in

pre-post change for the Selective attention and Same-different subtasks. In the Selective attention

subtask, results revealed that both the UFOV and the Tetris training groups improved

significantly more than the no-contact controls. Improvement in the two videogame training

conditions was not significantly different between groups, and did not differ significantly from

that seen in the UFOV group. For the Same-Different subtask, the UFOV group improved

significantly more than all other groups, but no other group differences (e.g., in favor of

videogame training) were observed. Our next section below considers several reasons for this

pattern of findings.

Aim 2: Driving Simulator Outcomes

The second aim of this study was to investigate whether video game training might transfer

to simulated driving performance. Given previous research suggesting that UFOV training also

yielded improved driving simulator performance (Roenker et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that

the UFOV-trained participants might show more simulator improvement than all other groups.

In addition, if visual attention had been boosted by MOH training, it was hypothesized that the

MOH group might also show more improvement on driving simulator outcomes than the two

control groups (i.e., Tetris, no-contact). The results did not support this set of hypotheses. None

of the groups, including the UFOV-trained group, improved their scores disproportionately on

any of the three simulator outcomes. There was, however, a general practice-related

improvement on the simulator for all three groups. However, at least one simulator outcome

(brake reaction distance) was significantly correlated with UFOV performance, suggesting that

there was a correlational basis for expecting transfer from improved UFOV scores.









Aim 3: Changes in Flow Experience Through the Course of Training

The third aim of this study was to investigate participants' engagement with their training

activities, and to assess whether there were any group differences in the pattern of change in

Flow over the six training session. The analyses revealed an interesting dissociation in pattern

between the two video game groups and the UFOV trained group. Although the exact pattern

differed slightly between the two video game groups, in both MOH and Tetris participants ended

up with significantly higher Flow ratings than they began the training with. This suggested that

there was growing enj oyment of and engagement with the games over the course of training. In

contrast, the overall trend in Flow for the more mechanistic UFOV training was flat. There was

one outlier session (Session 4), which was significantly lower than all other sessions, but this did

not seem to indicate an overall downward trend in Flow. Instead, it appeared that the two game

group experienced improvements in Flow (sudden and lasting for MOH, gradually incremental

for Tetris), but this was not true for the UFOV group.

Aim 4: Participants' Opinions About Game Design

The last aim of this study was to explore participants' opinion about game design. This

was a consumer-oriented aim, with the goal of shaping future game design so that it might be

more responsive to the needs of the older adult population.

Contrary to the stereotype that older adults are unwilling to explore new activities or take

advantages of later technologies, the current study showed that this might not be the case. None

of the participants from this study had previous contact with video games. This was a completely

new technology for them. Recruitment of participants was not a maj or challenge for this study.

The results showed that almost half the participants, all video game novices, would be

willing to acquire a video game system. In fact, past research gives support to the receptivity of

new technologies among older adults. Previous research has supported the idea that receptivity of









new technologies is directly influenced by one's level of concern for problems that could be

alleviated through the use of technology (Zimmer & Chappel, 1999). Relevant to this study, a

substantial group of participants did perceive possible benefits from video games. About one

third of the participants reported that they believed that the video games could serve as a positive

form of mental exercise.

An encouraging finding from this study was the participants' willingness to learn how to

use the video games. Anecdotally, in the early training sessions, some participants frequently

expressed feelings of difficulty and challenge and even boredom with the games. But, most

participants persisted with the games, and showed marked progress in game play (i.e.,

progressing to more difficult levels, mastering controller operation). Thus, although the pattern

of transfer to UFOV test performance and driving simulator outcomes was not as strong as

hypothesized, the positive comments of participants and the Flow-related findings summarized

above continue to support the notion that video games may be a worthwhile and pleasing

interface for cognitive interventions with older adults.

Theoretical Considerations and Study Implications

Why did we not replicate MOH training effects on visual attention?

The results of this study stand in marked counterpoint to those of Green and Bavelier

(2003). Their study, with undergraduates, found that as little as ten hours of training with MOH

(but not Tetris) could produce significant improvement in UFOV-like visual attention. In this

study, after nine hours of MOH exposure, healthy older adults did not experience significant gain

on a different version of the UFOV task. There are several possible explanations for the lack of

effect.

Ceiling performance on some UFOV subtasks Our participants did not have much

room for improvement in subtask one (processing speed) and subtask two (divided attention) of









the UFOV at pre-test. Most participants performed at ceiling level (highest score possible) or

close to ceiling in these two subtasks, suggesting that there may have been insufficient sensitivity

to change on these tasks. Our sample performed substantially better at pretest than, for example,

the ACTIVE sample (Ball et al., 2002), suggesting that the advantaged nature of our cohort may

have affected training outcomes.

The third (selective attention) and fourth subtasks (same-different) offered higher levels of

challenge to participants, and correspondingly, it was these two tasks that varied across training

groups. However, even for these tasks, results suggested no effect of video game training

(Same-different task) or a counter-intuitive effect (Tetris, not MOH, improved more than no-

contact controls).

Insufficient training dosage in the video game conditions The second explanation for

the absence of expected training findings may be related to the time that participants spent

learning how to play each of the video games. It was hypothesized that participants from the

MOH group would show more improvement than participants who received Tetris training. The

rationale for this hypothesis was taken from previous studies on video games and visual

attention. (Green et al, 2003). Green et al, 2003 used an experimental study design to test the

hypothesis that action video game players would have more improvement in visual attention

scores as compared to a "placebo control" game. The video game that they used for control was

the Tetris game. Their hypothesis was supported by their findings. In fact, action video game

players (undergraduates, in their work) improved in a range of visual attention scores while

Tetris players did not. Our current findings were contrary to what they found.

In the current study, older adults may have spent too much time trying to learn the action

video game, specially the game interface. In other words, instead of practicing the dynamic









visual attention skills they needed to bolster, they were "stuck" at an earlier stage...spending too

much time trying to figure out controllers and what steps to follow in playing the game. This

would suggest that future video game training with older adults would need to (a) spend much

more time on pre-training game orientation; (b) might need to select games with less complex

interface learning; and (c) might need to spend much more time on game practice to achieve

comparable effects to those seen with undergraduates. This latter point is underscored by the

work of Charness Schumann, & Boritz (1992), who has reported on other computer learning

tasks (e.g., word processing) that older adults need much more training time to achieve levels of

performance comparable to that of younger adults.

Larger training dosages may be needed for adults of all ages Above and beyond the

unique challenges of training novice older adults how to play games, Green and Bavelier have

themselves recently indicated that much higher training dosages (30 to 50 hours) may be needed

to achieve optimal visual attention gains (Green and Bavelier, 2006c). The dosage in this study,

nine hours, was based on the report of Green and Bavelier that ten hours of active play would be

sufficient (for younger adults).

Poor selection of visual attention outcomes A third possible explanation for the absence

of MOH training effects may be related to the fact that past studies on video games have reported

improvement in very specific aspects of visual selective attention (Green et al, 2003: & Green et

al, 2006c), and the UFOV subtasks selected for this study may have insufficiently tapped these

aspects of visual attention.

In more recent work, Green and Bavelier have begun to shift to other visual attention

outcomes. While in previous studies they demonstrated that video game players outperformed

non-players on different aspects of visual attention, they recently investigated the effects of video










game playing on individual differences in the number of simultaneous visual obj ects that could

be readily tracked and attended to(Green et al., 2006a). Two outcome measures have had

particular salience: 1) an enumeration task, in which participants have to report the number of

briefly flashed items in a display as quickly and as accurately as possible and; 2) multiple obj ect

tracking, in which participants are required to allocate their attention to several (moving) items

over time. Video game players showed enhanced performance on both tasks. These results

suggest that future studies may consider broadening the set of outcome measures, which might

be more sensitive to attentional gains produced by video game play than the task used in the

current study.

Why did Tetris appear to have a stronger effect than MOH?

An unexpected finding in this study was that Tetris group participants experienced

significantly more Selective Attention UFOV gain than no-contract control participants. Several

possibilities exist to explain this effect. First, while Green and Bavelier (2003) showed that

Tetris was not a sufficient challenge to boost dynamic visual attention in young adults, it may be

that the whole-screen scanning and monitoring and mental rotation was a higher level of

challenge (and therefore had training effects) for older adults, who were at a lower skill level.

Expressed differently, during the Tetris game, participants had to look at pieces (tetraminoes)

falling from the top of the screen while paying attention on the bottom of the screen, where they

needed to place the pieces. While in studies with college students this stimulus was not enough

to provide visual learning, perhaps this was a more optimal level of challenge for novice older

adults. Second, because Tetris is a much easier game to learn and explain (the core game,

rotating tetraminoes in order to make a flat line, did not become more complex over the course of

training), participants may have "wasted" less time learning the game, and spent more of their









nine hours actively playing the game. The challenges of the Tetris game may actually have been

more appropriate for elders' skill level.

What this speculation strongly suggests is that videogame training findings generated with

younger adults may not be automatically generalizable to older adults. Much work must be done

to identify the right game, the right level of challenge, the right sequence of training activities,

the right outcome measure, and the right training dosage to optimize transfer for older adults.

Why was there no training transfer to any driving simulator outcomes?

Previous studies in the literature had shown that performance on the UFOV test is uniquely

correlated with driving performance. Ball et al., 1993 found that visual attention measure was

highly predictive of the self-reported history of older adults' crash problems. Goode et al., 1998

examined a set of neuropsychological measures thought to be related to crash risk in older adults

and found that, of all cognitive tests administered, UFOV was most strongly related to crash

involvement. Myers et al., 2000 found that UFOV was the best single predictor of an on-road

driving test.

Given the fact that video game training improves visual attention (i.e., a UFOV-like task,

according to Green and Bavelier), one might assume that playing a video game might enhance

driving performance. In addition to driving competence, UFOV performance predicts important

indices of mobility, including ambulatory ability, life space (the extent of travel throughout one' s

environment) and falls (Ball et al., 1993; Broman, West, Munoz, Bandeen-Roche, Rubin &

Turano, 2004; Stalvey, Owsley, Sloane & Ball, 1999), suggesting further breadth of transfer

possibilities.

In the current study, such transfer was not observed. However, there were differences

between this study and previous work that help elucidate differences from previous studies.









First, in those previous studies where UFOV was predictive of driving, UFOV composite scores

were used. In this study, training effects were observed at the level of specific subtasks

(Selective Attention, Same-Different), and this may have meant that not a broad enough UFOV

effect was achieved to obtain transfer, or the current participants may not have had much room

for improvement in this test.

Second, our selection of driving simulator outcomes may not have been the right ones.

One possible explanation for the lack of transfer of UFOV significant score to the driving

simulator might be insufficient sensitivity to change in the driving simulator scores (i.e., brake

reaction distance, lane maintenance, dog detection accuracy). Previous studies have found

driving simulator tasks could be good proxies for visual attention (Roenker et al., 2003; Lee et

all, 2003), and that UFOV improvement might also improve driving simulator performance,

although they have used different outcomes as previously described. However, it is also

important to note that the ACTIVE study failed to find evidence of UFOV transfer to any self-

reported driving outcomes (simulator data were not collected; Ball et al., 2002)

Are group differences in Flow changes meaningful?

One area in which interesting training group differences were observed was self-rated Flow

experience. The two game playing groups showed significant gain in Flow from the start to the

end of training, while the traditionally trained UFOV group did not. This may have reflected the

differences in training experience by group. Specifically, the UFOV training is highly repetitive.

While training conditions change incrementally from trial to trial, the root task remains

unchanged over the six sessions. Moreover, the interface is dated (black and white, text and two-

dimensional icons). The interface is not very "game like", and so is not a source of

fun/entertainment, unless participants enjoy the puzzle-like challenge of the task itself. In Tetris









and MOH, the interfaces were clearly games. For MOH, the significant difference between the

first session and later sessions (which had significantly higher flow) may have reflected the

initial confusion of learning the complex game. For Tetris, Flow gains were more gradual and

incremental, and may have reflected participants growing sense of mastery of the game. This

incremental gain in Flow for the Tetris group is consistent with the conceptions of

Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) Flow Theory, which states that Flow is said to occur when people are

able to meet the challenges of their environment with appropriate skills and accordingly feel a

sense of well-being, a sense of mastery, and a heightened sense of self-esteem. Tetris appeared

to be most likely to promote this sense of mastery.

Limitations

The present study used an innovative cognitive training strategy among older adults. The

Endings might contribute to the advances in the field of cognitive training and aging.

Nonetheless, this study has several key limitations, owing largely to the constraint of resources

and time constraints under which data was collected. One key limitation of this study is the

sample. Specifically, participants who took part in this study were healthy, highly educated and

Caucasian, which does not fully represent the broader American older adult population.

A second sample selectivity of the study relates to high participant function at baseline.

According to UFOV normative data (Edwards et al., 2006), the participants from this study were

already below the scores that their older peers normally have (i.e., were performing much better

than the average older adult). Normative data indicated that adults with an average age of 74

years and who are highly educated ( > than 12 years of education) have a mean score of 863.85

(UFOV composite score among the four subtasks). In this study, participants with similar

demographic characteristics had a mean UFOV score of 704.48, which is much better than the

normative data encountered for older adults at this age. This suggests that, on average,










participants did not have much room for improvement. Indeed, several UFOV training studies in

Alabama, which had much larger UFOV training effects, selected participants with low

performance at baseline (Ball et al., 2002; Edwards, et al., 2005). This suggests that the results

of the current study may have shown somewhat weaker training effects than previous research

both due to lower dosages of training (see below) and more advantaged participants. In addition,

many participants reached ceiling performance on subtasks one and two (Speed, Divided

Attention) of the UFOV test.

A third limitation of this study was the number of training sessions in which the

participants were involved. Participant training was divided into 6 training sessions of 90

minutes each. Many times participants needed a break during the training, so that their

cumulative training exposure could well have been less than 9 hours. As discussed earlier, since

some of the training time was also spent learning the game (but not playing the game actively),

the dosage of game play was likely well below optimal, especially for the MOH group.

A fourth limitation of the current study, which is also resource based, concerns the pool of

trainers used in this study. With two exceptions, trainers in this study were volunteer

undergraduate students who had responded to a flyer requesting students to help with this study.

Although these students were committed to the study, they did not have any previous experience

in training older adults. In addition, because of their school schedule, there were occasions in

which a participant was trained by more than one trainer, which could have produced

inconsistency in the training offered. In general, a professional staff of trainers, who consistently

train participants, and who are monitored with regular quality control observations could serve to

improve the effectiveness of training.










Another limitation of the study related to the invariant contrast of the presented dog (i.e.,

Dalmatian) throughout the scenarios. We did not assess contrast sensitivity at baseline, and so

could not determine whether individual differences in this visual-perceptual attribute were

responsible for individual differences in responding. Moreover, we did not vary the dog's

perceptual features throughout trials, and so we could not determine whether more-or-less

perceptible dogs would have affected responding.

In our assessment of flow and opinions about game design, we were unable (due to limited

cell sizes) to contrast males and females. It is reasonable to assume, however, that there may

have been gender differences in game acceptability and enjoyment. (For example, the military

style violence of MOH may have been more unfamiliar to female participants than males;

indeed, our participant comments about violence came from the women). Future research should

more systematically sample males and females in order to examine gender differences in game

response. It may be that different kinds of game design would be needed to optimally engage

men versus women.

Another limitation to be mentioned is that, even though the brake reaction distance was

correlated with the UFOV subtasks in this study (providing an empirical basis for expecting

UJFOV-related training gains to transfer), the selection of simulator outcomes in this study was

idiosyncratic, and based on available data from the simulator program. To facilitate

comparability with other research, it may make sense to develop a standardized set of simulator

scenarios and outcomes that can be employed across training studies, and that are selected (in

part) based on a known theoretical or empirical connection to the ability being trained. The

current simulator outcomes had not been used in any previous training study with older adults.









Future directions

The current study confirmed the value of UFOV training for older adults, at least in terms

of improving UFOV performance. The narrow band of transfer (e.g., no effects observed on a

driving simulator) were disappointing, but consistent with the lack of transfer reported for UFOV

training in much larger trials (see Willis et al., 2006). A promising initial finding was that

participants in the video game groups (especially Tetris) experienced significantly more

Selective Attention gain than no-contact controls, suggesting that there may be some visual

attention benefits of videogaming in older adults. However, many questions were raised by this

pattern of Eindings, and future research must clarify these.

First, future research should attempt to recruit samples of a more diverse population, with a

particular emphasis on attracting participants with lower baseline function. It may also be

sensible, in larger samples, to assess important potential covariates like socioeconomic status,

medication use and health status at baseline.

Secondly, future studies should explore the impacts of larger dosages of training. Recent

studies have suggested the need of at least 30 hours of training sessions to show maj or

improvements in visual attention of undergrad students (Green et al, 2006c). It is reasonable to

think that older adults would benefit from longer dosages of training. Indeed, a linear

interpolation of the pre-post UFOV gain in the Tetris and MOH groups suggests that, with more

exposure, these groups might eventually "catch up" to the UFOV trained group. The reality of

this assumption needs to be tested, and the number of additional sessions needed to achieve

larger UFOV effects must be determined. One reason we sought to explore commercially

available video games was their "scalability"; i.e., these are low cost (under $200) interfaces that

use televisions (already present in most homes). Thus, it would be quite feasible to place these

devices in participants' homes, and to investigate much larger dosages. A secondary advantage









of exploring home-based training is that this better simulates "home based exercise", which has

been shown to be effective (in the physical domain) in boosting the health of older adults. This

is the ultimate goal of this line of research: to incorporate training in the everyday activities of

older adults, and thereby naturally increase the dosage of training incorporated into elders'

everyday lives.

Future research should also explore broader outcome measures. Green and Bavelier, in

their work with younger adults, have been exploring broader outcome measures like enumeration

tasks and multiple obj ect tracking. These measures cannot be automatically used with older

adults (they are quite difficult), and would need to be recalibrated for older users. However, with

more specific tests for critical subcomponents of visual attention, the magnitude and breadth of

videogame training could be better determined. It has been argued (Bavelier, personal

communication, April 2007) that the UAB UFOV test (Ball, et. al., 1988) is a more global test

and might not be able to capture the subtleties of attention changes produced by action

videogame training.

Another area that needs to be investigated in future research concerns driving outcome

measures. There are generally three outcome measures used in driving studies: driving simulator,

behind the wheel assessment and archival crash records. A driving simulator program was

selected for the current study because it constituted a safe way to collect driving data in an

immediate time frame, while controlling visual attention demands in a systematic way. Behind-

the-wheel assessments would have introduced potential safety concerns and difficulty controlling

visual attention demands. Archival crash data would have required a much longer follow up

period than the current study allowed, and who have been plagued by the potential reporting

biases inherent in regulatory driving data. Although simulators seem like an ideal outcome









measure source for visual attention intervention studies, future studies using simulator outcome

measures should explore developing and using standardized simulator scenarios and outcome

measures, with pilot work identifying those simulator outcomes that are most 'saturated' with

visual attention variance.

Another area for future research development is to better characterize progress in the

games themselves. This has two benefits. First, if game playing proficiency can be reliably

assessed, this would provide a better indicator of proximal outcome progress on the most direct

target of training (i.e., game play). Secondarily, it would permit a better empirical estimate of

how gains in game playing performance translate into gains in other outcomes. Third, better

assessment of game playing performance would better permit adaptive customized training. If

the level of game playing difficulty can be continuously calibrated to participants' current skill

level, this would better permit the tailoring of game scenarios to match each participant's exact

level of training need.

As has been stated several times in this document, our participants were positively

advantaged. All were current drivers, and this may have restricted the amount of room for

improvement that our sample had. Future research should also look at more restricted drivers

(e.g., those constrained to only daytime driving, or driving in particular neighborhoods) or even

drivers who have experienced recent license suspension for visual attention reasons. For these

participants, with more potential room for improvement, the effect sizes of training like this may

actually be higher, and the practical consequences of training might be greater: For such

individuals, a question to be addressed with whether visual attention training might actually be

able to help some individuals rehabilitate and recover their driving privileges.









Conclusion

Overall, the results of the current study suggested that UFOV training improved visual

attention significantly more than any other group. However, it was noted that (although not

significantly) the two video game groups experienced more visual attention gains than the no-

contact control group. Actually, when the analysis was divided by UFOV subtasks, UFOV and

Tetris (but not MOH) experienced significantly more gain than the no contact control group.

Several factors might explain the reason why MOH gains were not replicated in this study such

as possible insufficient dosage of training and the selection of outcome measures.

The results of this study also indicated that the visual attention gains, even after traditional

UFOV training (which was highly effective), were not transferred to several simulator-based

driving outcome measures. This might suggest that the simulator outcome measures used in the

study were not sensitive enough to detect training-related changes. Future studies will need to

more strongly develop a rationale for the specific outcome measures selected.

However, in contrast to absence of training transfer to simulator based measures,

significant differences between training groups were observed in the session-to-session changes

participants' Flow experiences. That is, analyses of self-rated Flow suggested that engagement

improved over time for the two video game conditions but not for the UFOV training. This

finding is also related to our results regarding participants' opinions about game design, in which

participants affirmed their willingness to use this technology, and many perceived that the

technology was a viable approach for "mental exercise".

Although this study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the beneficial effects of

video game interventions on older adults' visual attention performance, the preliminary data from

this study "set the stage" for future research by indicating that (a) older adults enjoyed the video

game training, and could be compliant with it, and (b) while video game training effects were not










significant, gain trends in visual attention were in the right direction. Linear interpolation

suggests that with higher dosages, video game training may be more effective in boosting UFOV

performance. This serves the ultimate goal of this line of research: to investigate the

effectiveness of incorporating game-based mental exercise in the everyday activities of older

adults .









APPENDIX A
MOH MANUAL GUIDE


MISSION 1

=Default settings should be:
* easy play level
* vibration function o~ff
* silver bullet on
* unlimited ammo on
* bullet shield on>



=Need to show how to move I ig/ur left>
=Need to show how to hit and release "start" key>
* Go forward out of the bunk room and into the hallway ahead of you, with the flashing
red lights and the sirens going on.
=Hit pause key>


=Need to show how to go right or left>
* Go right down the corridor, watching a fellow soldier get electrocuted by some stray
wires that have been blown into a door j am.
* Don't stand too close to the wires or you will be electrocuted as well.



* From there, look left and proceed forward into the shower room.
=Hit pause key>


* In the shower room, you'll meet up with another soldier who will tell you to follow
him.
* If you do not meet the soldier, look right and pass into the toilet room.



* If you saw the soldier, follow him as he goes into the adj acent room, and swing right
into a hallway where you'll find a barber shop pole next to the door in front of you.
* If you did not find the soldier, look right into a hallway where you'll find a barber
shop pole next to the door in front of you.
=Hit pause key>











* Ignore the room in front of you, look left, and move down through another corridor,
where you'll see a man get blasted in the face with some extremely hot steam, falling
to the ground.



* Go up the stairs beyond him to the upper part of the USS California.




* Go forward, now, down the corridor to a pipe and some wires sticking out of the
floor.
* The game will instruct you to jump over the pipes and wires, which you should do.





* Further up the corridor, you'll be instructed to duck under and walk below some pipes
coming out of the ceiling.




* At the end of this corridor, assist the engineer shut the door ahead of you by pressing
the action button, taking care of an optional obj ective on this mission.



* Then, look left and go up the stairs, getting closer and closer to the topside.



* Once here, go left and move forward down a corridor, where a man will scream and
run leftward down the corridor.



automatically. If it is not found, move forward and backward into the corridor until you find it >
* Follow him as he approaches a fire down the corridor, grabbing the Fire Extinguisher
automatically.













Need to show how to aim and spray fire extinguisher>
Approach the fire in the immediate left and help him extinguish it
Don't get to close. Fire hurts!
Hit pause key>


* Proceed down the corridor to the first fire-engulfed door.
* Look left, use the Fire Extinguisher to take care of that fire.
=Hit pause key>


* Run into the room, taking out another fire as well.



* Turn around, go back, now, to the previous corridor.
=Hit pause key>


* Look left, continue forward and extinguish the fire in the corridor.



* Move forward, look left at second fire engulfed door, and take care of the Gire.
=Hit pause key>


=Need to show how to hand fire extinguisher>
~Move forward entering kitchen. Approach the chef who is trying to put the fire out
and hand him your Fire Extinguisher, which will allow him to put out the flames
=Hit pause key>



* Work your way forward and then right into the adj acent room.
* En route, as you're in the adj acent room, you'll see a save point (blue radiating light)
that you can use to save your progress if you desire.



* Turn around, move forward, look left (after the second pole) and you will see a door.
* Move towards the door and exit the cafeteria room.











* Look left and move down the corridor to the staircase



* Follow another staircase up, finally being topside on the USS California.
=Hit pause key>


* The soldier next to you will throw you a Browning Automatic Rifle LMG. This rifle
can do some serious damage, but don't even bother with it.
=Hit pause key>


=Need to show how to switch to mounted gun as weapon>
Quickly run up the set of stairs to the large mounted machine gun in front of you,
using that as your weapon. Press action button.
=Hit pause key>


=Need to show how to fire and' aim mounted gun>
Using this massive gun (which has unlimited ammo), you'll want to shoot down as
many planes as you can, as well as any torpedoes coming at your ship.
=Hit pause key>


Play this part of the mission until you get really low on health, at which point you'll
be knocked into the ocean water.
=Hit pause key>











MISSION 2


* easy play level
* silver bullet on
* unlimited a~nmnoon
* bullet shield on>



* Keep turning the turret and taking aim at the planes as they begin to swoop down from all
directions.
=Don 't bother aiming at the planes flying way high, as they are basically part of the background
and can 't be shot down>










MISSION 3


Default settings should be:
easy play level
silver bullet on
unlimited a~nmno on
bullet shield on>


* Run leftward to the end of the bridge. Follow your soldier companion, while avoiding
running into fire.
=Hit pause key>


* Meet up your brother at the end of the bridge, who is kneeling behind a barricade.

=Hit pause key>


=.hesw~l how to aim>
* Stay behind the barricade and start shooting as many soldiers as you can.



* Walk around and shoot the soldiers coming at you.
SUse your Thompson gun>



SChange to the Garand gun>
* Direct your attention to the porch-like platform on the left side, where you will find a
crouching Japanese soldier taking shots at you. Shot at him.



<.hesw I how to find surgeon pack, and medical kit>
Focus on finding the various goods in the area.












* Tumn around and find a tank that needs to be Eixed. It is near a staircase.
* Get close to the tank and it will say "Find Tank Coogwheel".
=Hit pause key>


* Move towards the end of the room and, turn right.
* Move forward until you reach the wall, look right again and you will see the
cogwheel on the floor.
=Hit pause key>


* Get close to the cogwheel and press the ACTION button.



* Tumn back, move around the crates. Leave the alcove.
* Tumn right and go back to the tank.



* Get close to the tank (left side) until it says "Press ACTION to Eix Tank" on the top of
the screen.
* Press ACTION button.
SThe truck will clear a way into the Filipino village>
=Hit pause key>


* You should escort the tank by staying on the right side of it initially and follow it into
the street beyond the barricade.
* You will see a Japanese soldier on the right side of a porch. Shoot at him and
continue moving forward.



Go to the back of the tank. You will see a staircase.
Go Pass the staircase and enter the first left entrance.
Hit pause key>










* There will be two more Japanese soldiers in an alcove ahead on the right side. You
should shoot them.



Move forward with the tank as it heads left, down the next street.
If you need health, grab the Field Surgeon Pack on your right as the tank turns left.



Suicide soldiers will run at the tank with explosives, shoot them.
=Hit pause key>


Continue up this street towards a decorative fountain on your right.
Shoot at any Japanese soldier as you go, including the suicide bombers.



Go forward, and let the tank turn right again.
=Hit pause key>


Follow the tank down. There won't be too many enemies as you go.
In case you need health, you should shift right into a building as you're going to grab
a Field Surgeon Pack to heal yourself if need be.
=Hit pause key>


=As the road turns left once more, the tank will stop>
There will be one Japanese soldier on your right. Shoot him from the street.
=Hit pause key>


There will be two Japanese soldiers on your left. Get closer to them and shoot.



Go back to the tank's position on the street as it now heads down yet another road.
=Hit pause key>


Continue following the tank until it stops at a forced-dead end made from rubble.













* Go slightly behind the tank and to the right, you will find a staircase leading up.
* At the top of this staircase, the door is locked, but you will find a Field Surgeon
Pack if you need it.
=Hit pause key>


* Backtrack all the way to the vacant road before this small complex of houses.
* You will find soldiers as you come back, you should shoot them.
=Hit pause key>


* Move toward the tank.
* From the tank, make a left and move forward all the way to the end.
=Hit pause key>


* Turn right and move toward the building in your left with smoke.
* Shoot at the soldiers in front of the building.
=Hit pause key>


* You will find that the building has a door that' s not closed anymore, but now blown
open.
* Run at the door and enter into the building.



* You will see a staircase in the initial room in this building.
* Behind the staircase is a save point. Get close to the blue radiant light and save the
game.



* Go up the staircase.
=Hit pause key>


* Move forward on to the plank into the new room.
* Go through the hole in the wall to an outdoor destroyed half-room of this house.
=Hit pause key>





















* Get close the machine gun and mount it, pressing the ACTION button.
=Hit pause key>


* You will see soldiers coming from your right and left side. Shoot them.



* Dismount the machine gun by pressing the ACTION button.
=Hit pause key>


* Tumn right onto the street.
* Look right and follow the street.
=Hit pause key>


* Tumn left at the bend in the street.
* Proceed forward until you see a huge wooden brown gate on the right hand side.
* Shoot all enemies.



* Look directly at the gate. On the right and left hand sides of the gate on the floor,
there are sewers.
* Approach the right sewer gutter on floor and follow it down.
=Hit pause key>


* Tumn left into the sewer.



Go down using another plank.
You will find yourself outside the building and on the street again.
Hit pause key>


Shoot the Japanese machine gunner.
Hit pause key>


Press crouch button and turn right.
Hit pause key>












* Proceed forward into the sewer.
* After the sewer, press the crouch button again, which will make you stand up again.



* Look right into sewer. Follow the right path when the sewer path splits.



* There is a staircase at the end of the path.
* Proceed up the staircase.



* You will see enemies coming in your direction. Shoot the enemies.
=Hit pause key>


* Look right and proceed forward along the wall to the right. Follow this wall until
some bleachers are reached.



Go up the stadium stairs.



Once on the top of the stairs, look left and you will see a booth with a radio operator.
Enter the booth and shoot the radio operator.



Turn around and exit the radio post.
Look right and proceed forward down the stairs.
Hit pause key>


You will see a brown door at the other side of the stadium.
Once you get close to the door, it will open automatically. If the door does not open,
move around in the open area in front of the door.













* Shoot the soldiers in front of you.



* Move in the direction of the gates that were previously closed.
* Turn right.



* Make a left at the bend of the road and look for a hotel-like building ahead of you.
=Hit pause key>


* You will see a staircase.
* Climb staircase.
=Hit pause key>


* Make a right and follow through doorway.



* Go left and up the stairs.
=Hit pause key>


* Make another left and go to rooftop.



* Once you get to the rooftop, approach the machine gun.
* Press ACTION button to mount the machine gun.



* Destroy the tank and crates in the middle of the town square with the machine gun.


Hit pause key:


Proceed into the building.
Look left and enter into the adjacent room.
Hit pause key>













* Press ACTION button and dismount the machine gun.



* Turn around and enter into the doorway.
* Go down the first set of stairs.



* Go down the next set of stairs which will lead you back to the lobby of the hotel.
=Hit pause key>


* Enter the doorway and look left.



* Proceed forward through the metal gate and into the courtyard in front of you.
=Hit pause key>


* Proceed forward towards the fountain.
=Hit pause key>


* Move towards the truck at the far end of the courtyard in your right.
* Reach the front of the truck.
* A soldier will automatically greet you.
* Locate the lost explosives truck obj ective completed.



* Turn around. Proceed forward a few steps and look left.
* You will see a church.



* Enter the church steeple.
* Proceed forward.



Hit pause key:


















* Tumn around and proceed toward the back of the room.
=Hit pause key>


* Look left and climb the staircase to the top of the steeple.



* At the top of the staircase, follow a path around to the end of the platform.



* Look left at the bells.
* Press ACTION to ring the bells.



* Tumn around and go back down to the bottom of the stairs.
=Hit pause key>


* Look right and proceed forward through the archway and exit the church.



* Look right and proceed toward the truck.
=Hit pause key>


* Make your way towards the back of the truck.
* Face the back of the truck and press ACTION to board the truck.
=Hit pause key>


Look right and find the radiant blue light.
Move toward the light.
Press ACTION button in front of it to save game.
Hit pause key>


The truck will automatically start up.
Tumn around and shoot the soldiers.
Change to Thompson gun










Hit pause key:


* Using your guns and grenades take out attacking enemies.



* Destroy the tank by throwing grenades at it or by throwing them on the ground where
the tank will pass over.
<6 grenades hit will destroy the tank .



Keep firing enemies until the truck comes to a stop.
MISSION COMPLETED!!!











MISSION 5


Default settings should be:
easy play level
silver bullet on
unlimited a~nmno on
bullet shield on>


* Go forward a bit until the path widens and follow the brown path ahead until you
meet up with a trio of Japanese soldiers.
* Shoot the enemies here.
=Hit pause key>


* Go forward from there, and the path will swing rightward.
* Here you will see a light brown tree with root coming up from the ground.
=Hit pause key>


* Move towards the left side of the tree. Look right and pick up two Garand clips
positioned around a campfire on the ground.



0 Go pass the campfire and approach a narrow tree trunk. Look left.
o Shoot at the Japanese soldiers surrounding the ridge in front of you.



* Once the path is clear, you can grab some M1 Garand Clips and a Medical Kit on
the ridge they were guarding.
=Hit pause key>


* Work your way rightward you will hear the pounding of a mounted machine gun
here.
* Follow your compass North and Eind the mounted machine gun shooting at you.
* Shoot at the enemy on the machine gun.
=Hit pause key>


* Mount the cleared off-mounted machine gun and use it to clear the Japanese soldiers
ahead.











dead before continuing>




* Approach the rebels, who are accompanied by an allied officer. He'll talk to you
briefly, and then lead you to a small hideout that the rebels have near there.
* Follow the allied onfcer to the hide out.



* Go straight ahead down the cave-like path, where you'll find a Field Surgeon Pack,
some M1 Garand Clips and Grenades.



your game>
* Get close to the blue radiant light and press action button to save the game.



* Go back down the path and make a left at an opening in the cave like path.
* Head up this linear pathway, coming back up outside.



* Once outside, approach the allied onfcer again, and he'll tell you to look ahead for
the lost Allied patrol that we were looking for.
< They are being heavily guarded by Japanese soldiers, so we 're going to need to approach aI ithr
caution here.



* Get as close as possible to the Japanese soldiers holding up the Allied prisoners as
possible, and begin to fire away.
< Be cautious of a sword wielding officer who can inflict massive damaddd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ge up close. He will come
after you if you get too close to the prisoners.



* Use the cover in the area (preferably staying in the shrubs to keep a low profie) and
pick away at the soldiers as they come.
* Eliminate all enemies in the area.









< When the Japanese soldier is dead, the Allied Patrol is automatically 'rescued">



* You will need to walk behind the three Allied prisoners, now, and untie each of their
hands when the on-screen prompt tells you to.
< Walk behind the poles and press action button>



* Talk to the prisoner in the middle, and he'll tell you that he and his crew were sent to
take care of Pistol Pete, but were captured. They want to j oin your group and help you
do the job, now.



< From there, the rescued prisoners grab their guns off the porch of the house behind them.
* You can grab two boxes of M1 Garand Clips, from that same porch as well.



* Go behind this house and you will see a small ditch underneath.



* If you go in a crouch, you will be able to crawl into this little area and grab the
coveted Machete here.
< Using the Machete, we 'll now be able to takettttt~~~~~~~tttttt shortcuts and the hife fr~om here on out, through
the rest of the missions in the game.



* Turn around, move forward and stand up.
* Look left and go around the house until you see break in the fence on the right.



Approach the break in the fence.
Follow the fence up the grassy hill.
the hill and the close quarters, you should use the M1911 as your weapon.



* Approach the top of the hill on the left side where the fence ends.










* You will see some bushes here that do not let you move forward.
* Use the Machete to clear the path.




* Run down this initial linear path beyond the bushes we just cut, picking up a Medical
Kit and some Garand M1 Clips en route to another bush, which we need to cut out
of the way.




Beyond these second bushes, you'll follow another linear path to the third bush we need
to cut.
Use Machete to cut these bushes as well.





* Run left up the hill there, shooting enemies with your M1911 as you go.



o You'll eventually see a huge gun installation, the Howitzer, on your right
surrounded by Japanese soldiers.
o Shoot at the Japanese soldiers surrounding and on the gun.
o Man the Howitzer.




Shoot at and eliminate all enemies.
<.\hal~l how to use Howitzer>
< The Howitzer packs a powerful punch a ithr the explosions it causes, but it takest~~~~ttttt~~~~tttt a while for it to
reload, so carefully fire it as to not miss and pay the price. Don 't aim directly at enemies, but
rather aim at the ground surrounding a certain amount of enemies to do the ultimate amount of
ddddddddddddddddddamag e you can.

* A tank will come at you, eventually (by your left side), which you'll need to
eliminate. Two or three well-aimed, quick Howitzer shots should do the trick.














* When things calm down around the huge cannon, collect the M1 Garand Clips
around the gun, as well as the numerous items the dead enemies undoubtedly left
behind as well.
=Hit pause key>


Run straight down the hill now (in direct line-of-sight of the Howitzer) and, across
the road at the bottom of the hill, you'll find two M1 Garand Clips.



Run leftward down the path, and go down the linear direction it leads until you come
to a turn in the road that puts you in the direct sight of a Japanese soldier manning a
mounted machine gun.
=Hit pause key>


Run towards his gun and jump over the barricades surrounding the gun to find some
M1 Garand Clips.



Look across the tiny river to kill two more Japanese soldiers standing by a second
machine gun.



Go across the bridge to the other side of the river, and over to the location of the two
Japanese soldiers we just killed, behind the second mounted machine gun's position.
You'll find a Medical Kit here.




=.\hlel how to use machine gun>
Man the second mounted machine gun there and wait for the soldiers to run down the
path to your right.
=Hit pause key>



* Go back on the path in front of the bridge and continue up a short ways until the path
forks.
* Take the right fork, which soon thereafter leads to a dead end.













Garand Clips, and some Grenades.
Save the game
Grab the goods
Head back to the main path, where the fork was. This time go right.



* You'll meet up with two enemies hidden behind a ridge and one who pops up from
the ground.
* Shoot at these enemies.



soldiers, both out in the open initially and hiding in the ground, waiting for you to come towards
them before surprising you>
* Take out all enemies.
* Go up the ridge on the right side of the clearing to find a Medical Kit.



* Proceed forward down the ridge and continue forward to the path in front of you.



* From there, you'll want to continue down the linear path beyond this opening, killing
any more enemies you come across.



< You 'll run into more enemies as you go, but eventually, you 'll come to another small river.
Across the river and to your right, you 'll find Japanese soldiers shooting on some rebel soldiers
and the like fr~om across the river>


* Join in on this battle, eliminating all Japanese soldiers on the left side of the river.



* Lob some Grenades or fire away at the rest of the soldiers in the area across the river
as you go right and run into Martin Clemens, the Allied officer who is with the local
rebel force.
































* Kill these enemies, and then bear right and up a small hill to the position of an enemy
sniper we killed earlier, when we were on the other side of the river.



* Up here, you'll find two boxes of M1 Garand Clips, and a Medical Kit as well.



* Go back down the small hill to a fallen tree trunk.
* Jump over it and continue up the start of a narrow path, killing Japanese soldiers as
you proceed.



When the path forks ahead, go left and down a small, linear, vacant path.
=Hit pause key>


=It will lead you to a cave entrance>
Enter into this cave and follow the linear maze of crates as you go forward.
=Hit pause key>


SYou 'll eventually come to an area where Japanese resistance will start to show up>
Kill one Japanese soldier on the ground.


Hit pause key:


* Talk to him, and he'll tell you to continue your quest, automatically giving you first
the Thompson M1 SMG to equip yourself with if you so desire.
=Hit pause key>


* From where you meet up with him, first go backwards to a small overlook area,
where you'll find a Medical Kit.



Turn around, cross the river and proceed down the path beyond it.
Eliminate all enemies along the way.
Watch out for kamkkkkkkkk~~~~~~~~~ikaz attacks fions the enemies
Hit pause key>










Hit pause key:


* Look up the path going up in that room to fire on two or three more soldiers.



* When all enemies are dead, go up this path and it'll lead to another cave, which
overlooks the area below with a huge Howitzer.
SThere will be four Japanese soldiers around this gun, in addtion to a Japanese off cer>



* Kill off all Hyve enemies with some quick fire from your Thompson, and then collect
the various goods around the gun.



* One of your accompanying soldiers will automatically set up an explosive on the
large gun and allow you to set if off.
=Hit pause key>


* Before you do so, look behind the gun to Eind a little out-of-the-way branch to this
cave, where you'll find a save point as well as a Medical Kit and some M1 Garand
Clips.



Save your game, grab the goods
Use the detonation box attached to destroy the gun.
Turn around>
the detonation box that will be in your left>
Press action to use detonation box>
You 'll have to be behind the crates>
Hit pause key>


From here, go towards the gun and look left for a door out of this room.
Hit pause key>


Go through this door, and down a pathway, killing pistol-wielding Japanese soldiers
as you come to an open room in this cave with a wooden bridge suspended over it
Hit pause key>












* Cross the bridge.
* At the end of this bridge you'll find a Japanese soldier. Japanese soldiers are all over
the bottom of this room as well.
=Hit pause key>


* Kill the soldiers) on the bridge, then simply fall down to the ground below, taking
out any remaining foes.
=Hit pause key>


With all of the Japanese resistance in the room dead, go right and head back outside.



Once out here, go leftward towards the bridge leading over the gigantic chasm ahead
of you.
=Hit pause key>


The enemy resistance here will be almost exclusively on the other side of the bridge,
so run across this bridge, taking out the enemies there.
=Hit pause key>


On the other side of the bridge, to your left, you'll find some Grenades and a
Thompson Magazine, while on the right side of the bridge once you cross it, you'll
find a Medical Kit and some M1 Garand Clips.
=Hit pause key>


From here, climb up the large staircase ahead of you to the ridge above, killing any
remaining enemies as you go.
=Hit pause key>


Once up the stairs, move right and do a full charge towards the room ahead of you
with a mounted machine gun sticking out of it.



Make sure to quickly shoot the enemy at the machine gun before he opens up on you,
as well as the soldier accompanying him.










Hit pause key:


* When you do, the door leading into that room will explode open, granting you access.



* Grab the Ml Garand Clips near the mounted machine gun.
=Hit pause key>


* Bear right into the next room with the Howitzer within.



* Kill the Japanese officer and the two Japanese soldiers before proceeding into that
room.



* As you walk into the room, grab the M1 Garand Clips and the Thompson Ammo as
your partner sets explosives on the Howitzer.



* When your partner runs behind some crates to watch the Howitzer explode, you
should do the same.
* When the gun explodes, look to the door at your left, leading out of the room, where a
Japanese soldier or two will run into the room, gunning at you.
=Hit pause key>


* Kill these enemies and proceed out of this room, to the corridor beyond the door.



* Run down this corridor, guns blazing, as you come across the last resistance of
Japanese soldiers in this cave system.
=Hit pause key>


* When you can either go right, or go forward, go right, kill the enemies in this room,
and quickly run up the stairs to your right, and up to the final Howitzer in the area.
=Hit pause key>











* Your partner will explode the gun, and when that happens, you're able to run out of
the door to the left of the now-destroyed gun, and back outside.



* Once outside, run leftward towards the bridge, killing the Japanese soldiers as you go.



* Cross the bridge to find some of your rebel friends and the rebel Allied officer as
well.
* En route, however, your colleague will trip while he is planting some explosives on
the bridge



* Stop and grab him by facing him and pressing action to complete the second of two
optional objectives on this mission.
* Get over the bridge thereafter.
* After a set amount of time, the bridge will explode.
MISSION COMPLETED!!i









APPENDIX B
UFOV TRAINING

Start Point for Customized Training


Speed










Divided
Attention


Selective
Attention














Sess Task Center Task Duration Ring Bloc Bloc Bloc Bloc Bloc Bloc NOteS
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k6


Easy ---4 Hard IEasy------------- IHard----------- IEasy---------
Hard IIEasy I+Hard
I Speed Div Sel PF/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200Oue
240 280 320 360
400
2 Speed Div Sel PF/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200 IOuter


240 280 320 360
400
3 Speed Div Sel PF/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200 IOuter


240 280 320 360
400
/ Speed Div Sel PF/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200 IOuter
240 280 320 360


Training Track Color_


_Computer System


Number










S peed Div Sel P/A I SD 40 80 120 160 IInner Middle
200 IOuter


240 280 320 360
400
g I Speed Div Sel P/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200 IOuter
240 280 320 360

C1 ISpeed Div Sel P/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200 IOuter
240 280 320 360

10I Speed Div Sel P/A I SD 40 80 120 160 I~nner Middle
200Oue
240 280 320 360
400










LIST OF REFERENCES


Arthanat, S., Nochaj ski, S. M., & Stones, J. (2004). The international classification of
functioning disability and health and its application to cognitive disorders. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 26(4), 235-245.

Austin, R. A., & Faigin, B. M. (2003). Effect of vehicle and crash factors on older occupation
injury. In W. C. Mann (Eds). International Conference on Aging Disability and
Independence Proceedings. University of Florida.

Baltes, P. B., Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Kliegl, R. (1986). Reserve capacity of the elderly in aging-
sensitive test of fluid intelligence: Replication and extension, 1(2), 172-177.

Ball, K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L, & Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual
search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of Optical Society of America, 5(12),
2210-2219.

Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., et al. (2002).
Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults. A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of the American M~edical Association, 288( 18), 227 1-228 1 .

Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (1991). Identifying correlates of accident involvement for the older
driver. Human Factors, 33, 583-595.

Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (2000). Increasing mobility and reducing accident of older drivers, in
Schaie KW, Pietrucha M (eds): Mobility and Transportation in the elderly. New York,
Springer: 213-251.

Ball, K., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1993). Visual attention
problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Investigative Ophthalmology &
Visual Science, 34(11), 3110-3120.

Ball, K., Owsley, C., Stalvey, B., Roenker, D. L., Sloane, M. E., & Graves, M. (1998). Driving
avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
30(3), 313-322.

Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (2000). Increasing mobility and reducing accidents of older drivers. In:
Schaie K, Pietrucha M, eds. Mobility and transportation in the elderly. New York:
Springer, 213-250.

Ball, K., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1990). Developmental changes in attention and visual
search through adulthood. In J. Enns (Ed.), Advances in Psychology, 69, 489-508.

Baltes, P., & Mayer, K. (1999). The Berlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100. New York:
Cambridge University Press.










Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and' Social Psychology, 51(6), 1 173-1 182.

Bergen, J., & Julesz, B. (1983). Parallel versus serial processing in rapid patter discrimination.
Nature, 303, 696-698.

Blieszner, R., Willis, S.L., Baltes, P.B. (1981). Training research in aging on the fluid ability of
inductive reasoning. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 2, 247-265.

Broman, A. T., West, S. K., Munoz, B., Bandeen-Roche, K., Rubin, G.S., & Turano, K.A.
(2004). Divided visual attention as a predictor of bumping while walking: The Salisbury
eye evaluation. Investigative Ophthalmology and' Visual science, 45(9), 2955-2960.

Castel, A. D., Pratt, J., & Drummond, E. (2005). The effects of action video game experience on
the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search, Acta
Psychologica, 119, 217-230.

Charness, N., Schumann, C. E., & Boritz, G. A. (1992). Training older adults in word
processing: Effects of age, training technique and computer anxiety. International Journal
ofAging and' Technology, 5, 79-106.

Christensen, H., MacKinnon, A., Korten, A., Jorm, A. F., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P., et al.
(1999). An analysis of diversity in the cognitive performance of elderly community
dwellers: Individual differences in change scores as a function of age. Psychology and'
Ag~ing. 14, 365-379.

Clark, J. E., Lanphear, A. K., & Riddick, C. C. (1987). The effects of videogame playing on the
response selection processing of elderly adults. Journal ofGerontology, 42(1), 82-85.

Collia, D. V., Sharp, J., & Giesbrecht, L. (2003). The 2001 National Household Travel Survey: a
look to the travel patterns of older Americans. Journal ofSafety Research, 34(4), 461-470.

Colsher, P., & Wallace, R. (1991).Longitudinal application of cognitive function measures in a
defined population of community dwelling elders. Annals ofEpidemiology, 1, 215-230.

Cook, S. E. (2007). Impact of distraction on simulated lane navigation in older adults with and
without cognitive impairment. Doctoral Dissertation, Clinical and Health Psychology,
University of Florida.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of the optimal experience. Harper & Row,
New York.

Dahl, T. H. (2002). International classification of functioning, disability and health: An
introduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research.
Journal ofRehabilitation M~edicine, 34, 201-204.










Donmez, B., Boyle, L., & Lee, J. D. (2007). Safety implications of providing real-time feedback
to distracted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 58 1-590.

Dorval, M., & Pepin, M. (1986). Effect of playing a video game on a measure of spatial
visualization. Perceptuala~nd2otor .\d/1\, 62, 159-162.

Dorn, L., & Barker, D. (2005). The effects of driver training on simulated driving performance.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(1), 63-69.

Drew, B., & Waters, J. (1986). Video games: Utilization of a novel strategy to improve
perceptual motor skills and cognitive functioning in the non-institutionalized elderly.
Cognitive Rehabilitation, 4(2), 26-34.

Edward, R. (2001). Roybal Centers for Research on Applied Gerontology. Issues BriefJ 4,
University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Edwards, J. D., Ross, L. A., Wadley, V. G., Clay, O. J., Crowe, M., Roenker, D. L., et al. (2006).
The useful field of view: Normative data for older adults. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 21, 275-286.

Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Myers, R. S., Roenker, D. L., Cissel, G. M., Ball, K. (2002).
Transfer of a speed of processing intervention to near and far cognitive functions.
Gerontology,48, 329-340.

Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Vance, D. E, Wood, K., Roenker, D. L., & Ball, K. (2005). The
impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday performance. Aging and
M~entalHealth, 9(3), 262-271.

Enochsson, L., Isaksson, B., Tour, R., Kjellin, A., Hedman, L., Wredmark, T., et al. (2004).
Visuospatial skills and computer game experience influence the performance of virtual
endoscopy. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 8(7), 876-882.

Farrow, S., & Reid, D. (2004). Stroke survivors' perception of a leisure-based virtual reality
program. Technology and Disability, 16, 69-8 1.

Fisher, D. L., Laurie, N. E., Glasser, R., Connerney, K. Pollatsek, A. Duffy, S. A., et al (2002)
Use of a fixed-base driving simulator to evaluate the effects of experience and PC-Based
risk awareness training on drivers' decisions. Human Factors, 44(2), 287-302.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975) "Mini-mental state". A practical method
for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinicians. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 12, 189-198.

Fonda, S. J., Wallace, R. B., & Herzog, A. R. (2001). Changes in driving patterns and worsening
depressive symptoms among older adults. Journals of Gerontology. Series B,
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56, 3 43 -3 51.










Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). An actively and socially integrated
lifestyle in late life might protect against dementia. Lancet Neurology, 3, 343-353.

Fried, L. P., Carlson, M. C., Freedman, M., Frick, K. D., Glass, T. A., Hill, J., et al (2004). A
social model for health promotion for an aging population: Initial evidence on the
experience corps model. Journal of Uhban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, 81(1), 64-78.

Gagnon, D. (1985). Video game and spatial skills: an exploratory study. Educational
Conanunication and Technology Journal, 33, 263-275.

Ghisletta, P., Bickel, J., & Loivden, M. (2006). Does activity engagement protect against
cognitive decline in old age? Methodological and analytical considerations. Journal of
Gerontology, 61B(5), 253-261.

Glass, T. A., Freedman, M., Carlson, M. C., Hill, J., Frick, K. D., Ialongo, N., et al (2004).
Experience corps: Design of an intergenerational program to boost social capital and
promote the health of an aging society. Journal of Uhban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of2~edicine, 81(1), 94-105.

Goode, K. T., Ball, K. K., Sloane, M., Roenker, D. L., Roth, D. L., Myers, R. S., et al (1998).
Useful field of view and other neurocognitive indicators of crash risk in older adults.
Journal of Clinical Psychology in M~edical Settings, 5(4), 425-440.

Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to
flight. Human Factors, 36(3), 387-405.

Gourlay, D., Lun, K. C., & Lee, Y. N. (2000). Virtual reality for relearning daily living skills.
International Journal of2\~edicallnfornzatics, 60, 255-261.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention.
Nature, 423(29), 534-537.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of video games. "Digital Media:
Transformations in Human Communication". Messaris & Humphreys (Eds.)

Green, C. S, & Bavelier, D. (2006a). Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: the case of
action video game players. Cognition, 101, 217-245.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006b). Training visual attention with video games: Not all games
are created equal. hz press.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006c). Effect of action video game on the spatial distribution of
visuo spatial attention. Journal ofExperintental Psychology: Human Perception and
Perfornzance, 32(6), 1465-1478.

Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution
of vision. Psychological Science, 18(1), 88-94.










Greenfield, P. M., DeWinstanley, P., & Kilpatrick, H., & Kaye, D. (1994). Action video games
and information education: effects on strategies for dividing visual attention. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 105-123.

Griffith, J. L., Voloschin, P., Gibb, G. D., & Bailey, J, R. (1983). Differences in eye-hand motor
coordination of video-game users and non-users. Perceptuala~nd2otor .\d1/\, 57, 155-
158.

Hoffman, L., McDowd, J., & Atchley, P., & Dubinsky, R. (2005). The role of visual attention in
predicting driving impairment in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 20(4), 610-622.

Hultsch, D., Hertzog, C., Dixon, R., & Small, B. (1998). Memory change in the aged. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, C., Small, B. J, & Dixon, R. A. (1999). Use it or lose it: Engaged
lifestyle as a buffer of cognitive decline in aging? Psychology and Aging. 14(2), 245-263.

Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure
optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17-
35.

Jones, S., Nyberg, L., Sandblom, J., Stigsdotter Neely, A., Ingvar, M., Magnus Petersson, K, et
al. (2006). Cognitive and neural plasticity in aging: General and task-specific limitations.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 864-871.

Kawashima, R., Okita, K., Yamazaki, R., Tajima, N., Yoshida, H., Taira, M., et al. (2005).
Reading aloud and arithmetic calculation improve frontal function of people with
dementia. The Journal of Gerontology, 60A, 380-384.

Kelly, J. R., Steinkamp, M. W., & Kelly, J.R. (1987). Later-life satisfaction: Does leisure
contribute? Leisure Sciences, 9, 189-200.

Koepp, M. J., Gunn, R. N., Lawrence, A. D., Cunningham, V. J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., et al
(1998). Evidence of striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266-268.

Kramer, A. F., Bherer, L., Colcombe, S. J., Dong, W., & Greenough, W. T., (2004).
Environmental influences on cognitive and brain plasticity during aging. Journal of
Gerontology, 59A(9), 940-957.

LabouvieVief, G., & Gonda, J. N. (1976). Cognitive strategy training and intellectual
performance in the elderly. Journal ofGerontology, 31, 327-332.

Lee, J. H., Ku, J., Cho, W., Hahn, W. Y., Kim, I. Y., Lee, S. M., et al. (2003). A virtual reality
system for the assessment and rehabilitation of the activities of daily living. Cyber
Psychology and Behavior, 6(4), 383-388.

Lee, H. C., Cameron, D., & Lee, A. H. (2003). Assessing the driving performance of older adult
drivers: on road versus simulated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 797-803.










Lee, H. C., Lee, A. H., & Cameron, D. (2003). Validation of a driving simulator by measuring
the visual attention skill of older adult drivers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
57, 324-328.

Lee, H. C., & Lee, A. H. (2005). Identifying older drivers at risk of traffic violations by using a
driving simulator: A 3-year longitudinal study. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 59(1), 97-100.

Lennartsson, C & Silverstein, M. (2001). Does engagement with life enhance survival of elderly
people in Sweden? The role of social and leisure activities. Journal of Gerontology, 56 B,
335-342.

Luszcz, M. (1998). A longitudinal study of psychological changes in cognition and self in late
life. The Australianiiiiiii~~~~~~~~ Developmental and Educational Psychologist, 15, 39-61.

Mackinnon, A., Christensen, H., Hofer, S. M, Korten, A. E., & Jorm, A. F. (2003). Use it and
still lose it? The association between activity and cognitive performance established using
latent growth techniques in a community sample. A gin~. Neuropsychology and Cognition,
10, 215-229.

Mahncke, H. W, Connor, B. B, Appleman, J., Ahsanuddin, O. N., Hardy, J. L., Wood, R. A., et
al. (2006). Memory enhancement in health older adults using a brain plasticity-based
training program: A randomized, controlled study. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science of the United States of America, 103(33), 12523-12528.

Marotolli, R. A., Mendes de Leon, C. F., Glass, T.A., Williams, C. S., Cooney Jr, L. M.,
Berkman, L. F, et al. (1997). Driving cessation and increased depressive symptoms,
prospective evidence from the New Haven EPESE. Journal of the American Geriatric
Society, 45(2), 202-206.

Marsiske, M., & Margrett, J. A. (2006). Everyday problem solving and decision making. In J.E.
Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds). Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (6"' ed), 3 15-342.
Burlington, M.A: Elsevier Academic Press.

Massimini, F., Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Massimo, C. (1987). The monitoring of optimal
experience. A tool for psychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 175(9), 545 549.

Milgram, N. W., Siwak-Trapp, C., Araujo, J., & Head, E. (2006). Neuroprotective effects of
cognitive enrichment. Aging Research Reviews, 5, 354-369.

Mourant, R., & Thattacheny, T. (2000). Simulator sickness in a virtual environment driving
simulator. Proceedings of the IEA 2000 HFES 2000 Congress, San Diego, C.A, 1, 534-
537.

Moritz, D. J., Kasl, S.V., & Berkman, L. F. (1995). Cognitive functioning and the incidence of
limitations in activities of daily living in and elderly community sample. American Journal
ofEpidentiology, 141(1), 41-49.










Myers, R. S., Ball, K. K., Kalina, T. D., Roth, D. L., & Goode, K. T. (2000). Relation of useful
field of view and other screening tests to on-road driving performance. Perceptual and
Motor .\kills\, 91, 279-290.

National Highway and Traff ic Administration (NHTSA). (2002). Traffic Safety Facts: 2002:
Older population. (no DOT HS 809 611). Washington D.C.: National Highway and Safety
Admini strati on.

Newman, C. W., Weinstein, B. E., Jacobson, G. P., & Hug, G. A.(1991). Test-retest reliability of
the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear and Hearing. 12, 355-357.

Newson, R. S, & Kemps, E. B. (2005). General Lifestyle activities as a predictor of current
cognition and cognitive change in older adults: A cross-sectional and longitudinal
examination. Journal of Gerontology, 60B(3), P ll 3 -120.

Orosy-Fildes, C., & Allan, R. W. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XII. Video game play:
Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Perceptuala~nd2~otor .\kills\, 69, 243-247.

Owsley, C., Ball, K., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1991). Visual/cognitive
correlates of vehicles accidents in older drivers. Psychology and Aging, 6(3), 403-415.

Owsley, C., Sloane, M., McGwin, G., & Ball, K. (2002). Timed instrumental activities of daily
living tasks: Relationship to cognitive function and everyday performance assessments in
older adults. Gerontology, 48, 254-265.

Pham, T. M., Winblad, B., Granholm, A., Mohammed, A. H. (2002). Environmental influences
in brain neurotrophins in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavioral, 73, 167-175.

Plemons, J. K., Willis, S. L., & Baltes, P. B. (1978). Modifiability of fluid intelligence in aging:
A short-term longitudinal training approach. Journal ofGerontology, 33(2), 224-231.

Richards, M., Hardy, R., & Wadsowrth, E. J. (2003). Does active leisure protect cognition?
Evidence from a National birth cohort. Social Science and2~edicine, 56, 785-792.

Richardson, E. D., & Marottoli, R. A. (2003). Visual attention and driving behavior among
community-living older persons. Journal of Gerontology, 58(9), 832-836.

Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., Ball, K. K., Wadley, V.G., & Edwards, J, D. (2003). Speed-of-
processing and driving simulator training result in improved driving performance. Human
factors, 45(2), 218-233.

Rosenberg, B. H., Landsittel, D., & Averch, T. D. (2005). Can video games be used to predict or
improve laparoscopic skills? Journal ofEndourology, 19(3), 372-376.

Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging. New York, NY: Dell Publishing.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rock roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a
neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychology, 24, 113-142.










Scarmeas, N., Levy, G., & Tang, M. (2001). Influence of leisure activity on the incidence of
Alzheimer' s disease. Neurology, 57, 2236-2242.

Scarmeas, N., & Stern, Y. (2003). Cognitive reserve and lifestyle. Journal of Clinical and'
Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(5), 625-633.

Schaie, W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood. The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Scogin, F., & Bienias, J. L. (1988). A three-year follow-up of older adult participants in a
memory-skills training program. Psychology and Aging. 3, 334-337.

Sekuler, A. B., Bennett, P. J., & Mamelak, M. (2000). Effects of aging on the useful field of
view. ExperimentalAging Research, 26, 103-120.

Shapiro, A. M., Benedict, R. H., Schretlen, D & Brandt, J. (1999). Construct and concurrent
validity of the Hopkin Verbal Learning Test-Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
13(3), 348-358.

Shechtman, O., Classen, S., Stephens, B., Bendixen, R., Belchior, P., Sandhu, M., et al. (2007).
The impact of intersection design on simulated driving performance of young and senior
adults. Traffic Injury and Prevention, 8, 78-86.

Singer, T., Verhaeghen, P., Ghisletta, P., Lindenburger, U., Baltes, P. (2003). The fate of
cognition in very old age: Six-year longitudinal findings in the Berlin aging study,
Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 318-331.

Singh-Manoux, A., Richards, M., & Marmot, M. (2005). Leisure activities and cognitive
function in middle age: Evidence from the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology
Community Health, 57, 907-913.

Small, B., Dixon, R., Hultsch, D., & Hertzog, C. (1999). Longitudinal changes in quantitative
and qualitative indicators of word and story recall in young old and old old adults. The
Journal of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and' Social Sciences, 54, 1 07-
115.

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of
competence in the everyday world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stalvey, B. T., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., & Ball, K. (1999). The life space questionnaire: A
measure of the extent of mobility of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18(4),
460-478.

Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer, J., Dunne, J., Black, F., Sierra, R., Touchard, C., Rice, D., Markert,
R., Kastl, P., & Wang, F. (2006). Psychomotor testing predicts rate of skill acquisition for
proficiency-based laparoscopic skills training. Journal ofSurgicalResearch, 130(2), 186-
187.










Stucki, G., Ewert, T., & Cieza, A. (2002). Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation
medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(17), 932-938.

Suto, M. (1998). Leisure in occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy,
65(5), 271-278.

UJFOV" User's Guide Version 6.0.6. Southbridge Center 2100 Southbridge Parkway. Suite
650. Birmingham, AL 35209.

U.S. Census Bureau (1995, May) Economics and statistics administration, US Department of
commerce

Uistun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenback, J., Kostanj sek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The
international classification of functioning, disability and health: A new tool for
understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11-12), 565-571.

Velozo, C., Magalhaes, L., Pan, A., Leiter, P. (1995). Functional scale discrimination at
admission and discharge: Rash analysis of the level of rehabilitation scale-III. Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 705-712.

Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., et al. (2003).
Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of
Medicine, 348(25), 2508-2516.

Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1992). Improving memory performance in the
aged through mnemonic training: a meta-analytic study. Psychology andA ging. 7, 242-
251.

Whalley, L. J., Deary, I. J., Appleton, C. L., & Starr, J. M. (2004). Cognitive reserve and the
neurobiology of cognitive aging. Aging Research Reviews, 3, 3 69-3 82.

Wang, Y., Mathews, V. P., Kalnin, A. J, Mosier, K., Dunn, D., & Kronenberger, W. (2006).
Short term effects of violent video game playing: an fMLRI study. Paper presented at
RSNA, November 28.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of Positive and Negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weiss, P. L., Naveh, Y., & Katz, N. (2003). Design and testing of a virtual environment to train
stroke patients with unilateral spatial neglect to cross a street safely. Occupational Therapy
International, 10(1, 39-55.

Willis, S. L., Blieszner, R., & Baltes, P. B. (1981). Intellectual training research in aging:
Modification of performance on the fluid ability of figural relations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73(1), 41-50.










Willis, S. L.(1996). Everyday cognitive competence in the elderly persons: Conceptual issues
and empirical findings. The Gerontologist, 36(5), 595-601.

Willis, S.L., & Nesselroade, C. S. (1990). Long-term effects of fluid ability training in old-old
age. Developmental Psychology, 26, 905-910.

Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., et al. (2006).
Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults.
Journal of the American M\~edical Association, 296(23), 1-10.

Wilson, R. S., Mendes de Leon, C. F., Barnes, L. L, Schneider, J. A., Bienias, J. L., Evans, D. A.,
et al. (2002). Participation in cognitively stimulating activities and risk of incident
Alzheimer disease. Journal of the American M\~edical Association, 287(6), 742-748.

Winocur, G. (1988). Environmental influences on cognitive declines on aged rats. Neurobiology
ofA ging. 19, 589-597.

Wittmann, M., Kiss, M., Gugg, P., Steffen, A., Fink, M., Poippel, E., et al (2006). Effects of
display position of a visual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. ApplieadErgonomics, 37,
187-199.

Wolinsky, F. D., Unverzagt, F. W., & Smith, D. M. (2006). The effect of the ACTIVE cognitive
training trial on clinically relevant declines in health-related quality of life. Journal of
Gerontology, 61B(5), 28 1-287.

World Health Organization (2001). International Classification ofFunctioning, Disability and'
Health, ICF. Geneva. World Health Organization.

Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M. B., et al. (1983).
Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1 7, 37-49.

Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information processing skills. Perceptuala~nd2otor
.\d./l, 83, 643-647.

Zelinski, E. M., & Burnight, K. P. (1997). Sixteen-year longitudinal and time lag change in
memory and cognition in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 12, 503-13.

Zelinski, E. M., & Stewart, S. T. (1998). Individual differences in 16-year memory changes.
Psychology and Aging. 14, 18-33.

Zimmer, Z., & Chappell, N. L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(5/6), 222-230.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Patricia da Cunha Belchior is a doctoral candidate in the Rehabilitation Science Doctoral

Program at the University of Florida. .She earned her bachelor's degree in law in 1998 and her

bachelor's degree in occupational therapy in 1999 in Brazil. During her doctoral studies she

worked as a research assistant for the Rehabilitation and Engineering Research Center for

successful aging and for the National Older Drivers Research and Training Center. She has

shared publications on several journal articles and she has presented national and international

conferences about aging and technology. Her current research focuses on cognitive training

using video game to improve driving skills and driving safety among older adults.





PAGE 1

1 COGNITIVE TRAINING WITH VIDEO GAME S TO IMPROVE DRIVING SKILLS AND DRIVING SAFETY AMONG OLDER ADULTS By PATRCIA DA CUNHA BELCHIOR A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Patrcia da Cunha Belchior

PAGE 3

3 To my grandparents, for their unconditional love

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I want to show my gr atitude to my beloved grandpare nts. Without their support and unconditional love through my life, I wouldnt be able to make this far. Any further attempt to use words to thank them would be futile. They are and will forever be the inspiration for my work. I also would like to thank my parents and step-parents for their patience, love and support. I would like to apologize to my family for every time I left them waiting for me to come back home but now I can proudly say I made it. I want to especially apologize to my brother and my sisters for not being able to share their life with me. I also want to convey my gr atitude to my committee memb ers. First and foremost, my mentor and my advisor, William Mann, whom I first met during my first year of college in Brazil more than 10 years ago, and whose work inspir ed me to come to the United States for my graduate studies. Thanks for trusting me in th is endeavor. Thanks for your patience in showing me how to get to this point. And thanks for bei ng there every step of the way. I also would like to say a special thanks my co-chair Michael Marsiske who I had the pleasure to meet in the last two years of my studies and from whom I learne d so much. The dedication he has to his students will never be forgotten. I would not get this disse rtation done without his help. I also would like to thank Lorie Richards, Heather Gibson and A nn Horgas for being part of my committee. Special thanks to Debora Anderson, the director of the International Center who gave me tremendous help during my first year s at the University of Florida. I also would like to thank all the staff from the occupational therapy department and thanks to my friends that went through this journey with me, Rick, Michael, Roxanna Bhagwant, Dennis, Megan, Jessica, Arlene, Leigh, Eric,Inga, Jia hwa and specially thanks Cris tina, my first friend in this program and with whom I could share my Latin American background.

PAGE 5

5 I can not forget to mention all the students that helped me with my data collection: Shannon, Jason, Eric, Brian, Matt, Sean, Emily, a nd Claudia. I hope they all had some fun teaching older adults to play video games: I also would like to thank all my Brazilian fr iends whom I had the opportunity to share my experience living in a foreign country and that made this journey a little bit more like home. Last but definitely not least, I want to show my appreciation to a pers on that I met almost toward the end of this journey but who was able to make it more colorful and who held my hands and that patiently always cheered me up in moments of despair. Dont worry paixo, everything will work out, I think you were right Billy Shields.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........9 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......11 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................15 Driving........................................................................................................................ ............15 The International Classification of F unction Disability and Health (ICF).............................19 ICF Classification............................................................................................................20 Application of Leisure / R ecreation Based Approaches to Maintaining / Enhancing Cognition and Complex Activity Performance Application at Each Level in the ICF............................................................................................................................ ...22 Participation in Leisure Activities Im pacts all Components of ICF Model....................25 Study Purpose.................................................................................................................. .......26 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................28 Cognitive Training With Older Adults...................................................................................28 Useful Field of View (UFOV) Test.................................................................................32 Driving Performance Tests..............................................................................................34 Studies Using Driving Simulator Outcomes...................................................................36 UFOV Training With Older Adults........................................................................................37 Video Game Training of Cognition........................................................................................39 Video Game Studies Conducted by Green and Bavelier........................................................42 Engagement..................................................................................................................... .......44 Current Thinking About Training With Olde r Adults/Real World/Cognitive Reserve.........46 Importance of the Study........................................................................................................ ..48 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................52 Overall Procedure.............................................................................................................. .....52 Study Design................................................................................................................... ........52 Study Specific Aims and Hypothesis.....................................................................................53 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........55 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.....................................................................................55 Recruitment.................................................................................................................... .55 Sample Characteristics....................................................................................................56 Testing Design and Procedure................................................................................................56

PAGE 7

7 Baseline Assessment.......................................................................................................57 Random Assignment.......................................................................................................57 Rationale for the Inclusion of a No-Contact Control Group...........................................58 Posttest....................................................................................................................... ......59 Measure During Intervention..........................................................................................59 Training....................................................................................................................... ............59 Overview of Training......................................................................................................59 Medal of Honor Training.........................................................................................60 Useful Field of View Training.................................................................................63 Tetris Training..........................................................................................................68 Measures....................................................................................................................... ..........69 Baseline Measures for Part icipant Characterization........................................................70 Proximal Outcome Variable............................................................................................71 Primary Outcome Measures............................................................................................72 Correlation Between UFOV and Simulator Subtests......................................................79 Secondary Outcome.........................................................................................................80 Sample Size.................................................................................................................... ........81 4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......98 Overview....................................................................................................................... ..........98 Preliminary Analysis........................................................................................................... ...99 Assessment of Baseline Differences Between Treatment Groups..................................99 Attrition...................................................................................................................... .....99 Aim 1: Effects of Videogame Trai ning on Visual Attention (UFOV).................................100 Analyses on the UFOV Composite...............................................................................101 Re-Examining Training Effect s on UFOV by Each Subtask........................................102 Speed of Processing Subtask.........................................................................................104 Divided Attention Subtask............................................................................................104 Selective Attention Subtask...........................................................................................105 Same-Different Subtask.................................................................................................105 Change score analyses of Selective A ttention and Same-Different subtasks................106 Aim 2: Effects of Videogame Traini ng on Driving Simulator Performance........................107 Driving Simulator Subtask 1: Break Reaction Distance..............................................107 Driving Simulator Subtask 2: Lane Maintenance........................................................110 Driving Simulator Subtask 3: Dog Detection Accuracy..............................................112 Aim 3: Changes in Engagement/F low over the Course of Training...................................113 Aim 4: Qualitative Participant Inte rviews Regarding Game Design....................................114 Summary........................................................................................................................ .......117 5 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ..153 Overview....................................................................................................................... ........153 Summary of Major Findings.................................................................................................153 Aim 1: Training Effects on Useful Field of View........................................................153 Aim 2: Driving Simulator Outcomes............................................................................154 Aim 3: Changes in Flow Experien ce Through the Course of Training........................155

PAGE 8

8 Aim 4: Participants' Opinions About Game Design.....................................................155 Theoretical Considerations and Study Implications.............................................................156 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........162 Future directions.............................................................................................................. .....165 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .......168 APPENDIX A MOH MANUAL GUIDE.....................................................................................................170 B UFOV TRAINING...............................................................................................................196 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................199 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................209

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Measures used in the study................................................................................................83 3-2 Sequence of the position of each dog on the scenario.......................................................84 3-3 Correlation between UFOV and simu lator subtasks during pretest...................................85 3-4 Correlation between UFOV and simu lator subtasks during posttest.................................85 4-1 Sample characteristics both for the total group and by inte rvention subgroup................119 4-2 Sample characteristics for completers and non-completers of the study protocol...........120 4-3 UFOV composite scores before and after testing by group (mean SD)........................121 4-4 Post hoc analysis of UF OV composite scores by groups................................................121 4-5 Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviations on four UFOV subtasks by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................................................122 4-6 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for processing speed subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................................................122 4-7 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for divided attention subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................................................123 4-8 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for selectiv e attention subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................................................123 4-9 Mean standardized scores and standard de viations for the same different trial subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest......................................................................123 4-10 Post hoc analysis for selec tive attention subtask by group..............................................124 4-11 Post hoc analysis for same different trial scores by group...............................................124 4-12 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the overall driving simulator score by intervention groups for pre and posttest............................................................125 4-13 Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviations on four Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................................................125 4-14 Mean values and standard deviation fo r lane maintenance by intervention groups for pre and posttest............................................................................................................... .125

PAGE 10

10 4-15 Mean standardized scores and standard deviations on lane maintenance on four Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest...........................................126 4-16 Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviation on accuracy by intervention group for pre and posttest...........................................................................................................126 4-17 Mean standardized scores and standard de viations of Flow scores for the 6 training sessions, by intervention group........................................................................................127 4-18 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Medal of Honor...........................................128 4-19 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for UFOV..........................................................129 4-20 Post hoc analysis for flow engagement for Tetris............................................................130 4-21 Video game ownership and usage....................................................................................131 4-22 Video game features....................................................................................................... .132

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Conceptual Framework for the Worl d Health Organizati ons International Classification of Functioning, Di sability and Health (ICF)...............................................27 2-1 Processing speed subtask...................................................................................................50 2-2 Divided attention subtask.................................................................................................. .50 2-3 Selective attention subtask................................................................................................ .51 2-4 Same and different subtask................................................................................................51 3-1 Diagram of study design presenting: Me dal of Honor (MOH) group, Useful Field of View (UFOV) group, Tetris group a nd the no contact control group...............................86 3-2 Hypothesis 1............................................................................................................... ........87 3-3 Hypothesis 2............................................................................................................... ........87 3-4 Example of the controller used by participants to play the game......................................88 3-5 Example of a PowerPoint slide with stepby-step instructions gi ven to participants........88 3-6 PowerPoint slide with instructions on how to use the jump button...............................89 3-7 Screen shot of TETRIS game............................................................................................89 3-8 Example of a driving simu lator used in the study..............................................................90 3-9 Screen shot of the acclimation scenario.............................................................................91 3-10 Example of the rural scenario............................................................................................91 3-11 Example of a small town scenario.....................................................................................92 3-12 Example of a beach town scenario.....................................................................................92 3-13 Example of a metropolis scenario......................................................................................93 3-14 Example of a dog from block 1 it is positioned in the center of the road.......................93 3-15 Example of a dog from block 2 it is positioned in a low eccentricity and without clutter........................................................................................................................ .........94 3-16 Example of a dog from block 3 it is placed on high eccentricity with some clutter.......94

PAGE 12

12 3-17 Example of a dog from block 4 it is placed on a medium eccentricity but with much clutter and distraction...............................................................................................95 3-18 Example of a rural road scenar io used as a filler scenario.................................................95 3-19 Example of a city scen ario used as a filler.........................................................................96 3-20 Diagram with illustration on how simulator generated data was collected.......................97

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy COGNITIVE TRAINING WITH VIDEO GA MES TO IMPROVE DRIVING SKILLS AND DRIVING SAFETY AMONG OLDER ADULTS By PATRCIA DA CUNHA BELCHIOR August 2007 Chair: William Mann Cochair: Michael Marsiske Major: Rehabilitation Science Visual attention is one of the most importa nt cognitive skills required for driving an automobile. Although this skill de clines with aging, training in older ages has been shown to boost visual attention. Today the most approach fo r training older adults vi sual attention is the UFOV. A practical drawback of using this traini ng, however, is that equipment demands require that the training be done in a laboratory or clini cal setting, which can be expensive and inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention for driving performance and given the lack of widely available approaches to train this skill, there is a need to explore more inexpensive alternatives for training visual attenti on. One possible option for training visual attention in ol der individuals involves video ga mes. Previous research with younger adults has shown positive effects of video game in training on the visual attention of college students, including in us eful field of view tasks. The current study investigated the impact of video game training on older adults visual attention performance; in additi on, it was investigated if such improvements would transfer to improved performance in a driving simulator task. Fifty-eight par ticipants. Forty-five participants were assigned to one of the three intervention groups (action video game (Medal of

PAGE 14

14 Honor), Useful Field of View (UFOV), placebo control video game (T etris)) and thirteen participants were assigned to a no contact control group. Before training and immediately after training participants from the intervention groups were evaluated in a UFOV test and in a driving simulator test. The intervention was composed of 6 training sessions, each of 1.5 hour duration. Overall, the results suggest that the UFOV tr aining improved visual at tention significantly more than any other group. It was noted, however, that the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor and Tetris) experienced (non -significantly) more visual atte ntion gain than the no contact control group; indeed, on one subtask (Selec tive attention), the Tetris group experienced significantly more gain than th e no-contact control group, even t hough Tetris had been construed as a no-contact control. Despite general practice-related gain in driving simulator performance for all study groups, the results of the study further indicated that th e visual attention gains were not transferred to a simulator driving performance. In contrast, differential effect s of the three training condition s were observed in participant Flow, an indicator of particip ant enjoyment and engagement. Participants self-rated flow experience suggested that enjoyment improved over time for the two video game conditions (Medal of Honor, Tetris), but decreased for th e more traditional computer-based UFOV training group. In a final study aim, consumer-oriented anal yses of participants' opinions about the games they played were conducted. Results of these analyses suggested that video game were acceptable to this older adult population, and that many saw the games as a valid tool for mental exercise. Thus, although more work is needed to establish appropria te dosages, outcome measures, and to identify which games best improve visual attention, the positive evaluations of the games and positive Flow results lend prelimin ary support that video games can be acceptable and promising intervention tool.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Driving Driving is a very important activ ity for older adults in the United States. It is a means for achieving independence and social connectedness in American society, especially for those living in rural areas. In additi on, it is linked to other activitie s of daily living. Isolation and depression are commonly associated with drivin g cessation or reduction (Marotolli, Mendes de Leon, Glass, Williams, Cooney Jr, Berkman, et al., 1997; Fonda, Wallace, & Herzog, 2001). It is estimated that 89% of American senior s conduct their travel in personal vehicles (Collia, Sharp, & Giesbrecht, 2003) The total trip miles traveled by people aged 65 and older increased by 21 percent compared to total trip miles traveled by people aged 25-64 between the years 1995 and 2001. The average trip miles per pe rson also increased 13 percent for those 65 and older, but stayed almost the same fo r the younger group (Austin & Faigin, 2003). With the increase in life expectancy, the number of older adults drivi ng automobiles is also increasing. It is estimated that by the year 2050 the elderly population wi ll increase to 79 million persons, more than double its present size (US Cens us). Older drivers represent 10 percent of the total driving population in Ameri ca and, the number of licensed and frail elderly is projected to increase. In 2002, the elderly popu lation accounted for 150,000 injuries associated with vehicle crashes or 5% of all people injured in crashes (NHTSA, 2002). This sugges ts that older drivers safety should be considered a public health issue. Driving is a very complex task that involves several factors, such as mobility, sensory function, cognition, and the environment per se (e .g., road and vehicle design). Driving can be a challenge for older individuals due to normally declining factors associ ated with aging. While many older adults can modify their driving habits (e.g., drive less, drive only during restricted

PAGE 16

16 hours) due to sensorimotor or cognitive impairme nts, many continue to drive as long as possible and do not change their preferred mode of trav el (Ball, Owsley, Stalvey, Roenker, Sloane & Graves, 1998). This behavior puts older drivers at increased risk fo r crashes. Older drivers are at a greater risk for crashes and traffic convict ions, per capita, than a ny other adult age group (Owsley, Ball, Sloane, Roenker & Bruni, 1991; Edward Roybal Center for Research, 2001). Older drivers with visual and c ognitive declines are at a greater risk for crash involvement than those who do not have similar deficits (Owsley et al., 1991). Among all the possible cognitive skills related to driving, visual attention has consistently been found to be one of the most associated factor s. It plays a major role in driving performance (Owsley, et al., 1991; Ball, Owsle y, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993; Richardson & Marottoli, 2003). Visual attention is commonly defined as the focal area from which information can be acquired within one eye fixation or glance (Ball, Beard, Roe nker, Miller & Griggs, 1988). Richardson et al., (2003) found that visual attention is the cogn itive skill related to driving behaviors that is most problematic for older individuals. In their st udy, driving behavior was assessed through a road test that included 36 items (e.g., acceleration, braking, lane change, speed regulation, response to traffic signals). Visual attention was th e cognitive skill most associated with driving behaviors. Out of 36 ma neuvers, 25 required the us e of visual attention skills (e.g., yielding right of way, re sponding to other vehicles or pe destrians, making turns at an intersection). In a similar study, Ball and Owsley (1991) investigated the types of crashes in which older adults are most lik ely to be involved. They found that major crashes among older individuals are more likely to occur at intersections, where th e visual attention requirements (detection, localization and iden tification of targets) are more likely to be higher.

PAGE 17

17 Several cognitive tests have been used to investigate the relationship between cognitive skills and car crashes. Scores on the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test, which is a measure of speed of processing and visual at tention, show the highest relations hip to crash involvement in a number of studies (Goode, Ball, Sloane, Roenke r, Roth, Myers, et al., 1998). Thus, several studies on visual attention have used the UFOV to operationalize this construct. UFOV is said to decrease with aging (Sekuler, Bennett & Mamela k, 2000). Thus, the deficit in UFOV associated with aging is a putative cause of increased late-life risk for crashe s and driving errors. This agerelated loss of UFOV skill may not be irreversib le. A growing body of evidence suggests that training of this skill may be effective well into late life. UFOV performance can be improved with traini ng. The ACTIVE clinical trial, a multi-site NIA-funded study of cognitive interventions with older adults, employed a ten-session training program for older adults. Participants received customized training (at their level of ability) and strategy instruction, with extensive pract ice of sample exercises usi ng a touch screen computer. Initial findings from the ACTI VE study found an increase in the size of the UFOV immediately following the training (Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe Leveck, Marsiske, et al., 2002), and that these gains were maintained for at least two years. Moreover, a longer-term follow-up with ACTIVE participants further revealed that persons who received UF OV training continued to show performance advantages on UFOV tests, relative to untrained c ontrols, up to five years after training (Willis, Tennstedt, Marsiske, Ba ll, Elias, Koepke, et al., 2006). In accordance with the positive results seen in the ACTIVE trial, today the most common tool to train older adults vi sual attention is the UFOV tr aining program, developed by investigators at Western Kentucky University and the University of Alabama-Birmingham. UFOV training, as in ACTIVE, is practiced in a touch screen environm ent using specialized

PAGE 18

18 equipment and software. A drawback of using th is training is that eq uipment demands require that the training be done in a laboratory or clini cal setting, which can be expensive and inaccessible for the general population. Given the importance of visual attention to driving performance and given the lack of widely available instruments to train this skill, there is a need to explore more inexpensive alterna tives for training visual attention. A possible option for training visual attention in older individuals is the use of video games. Previous research with younger adults ha s shown positive effects of video games playing in the training of visual atte ntion in college students (Green & Bavelier, 2003). Although there is evidence that video game playing enhances moto r, perceptual, and cognitive abilities among the elderly (Drew & Waters, 1986; Clark, Lanphear & Riddick, 1987), the use of video game playing to train visual attention among the older population has not been investigated. Above-and-beyond the practical value of explor ing video games as a tool for training visual attention (i.e., video games use widely available a nd a more affordable technology), a secondary reason that video games might be worthwhile exploring concerns enjoyability of or engagement in the training experience. Video ga mes have been designed, after all, to be fun. Thus, video games may provide a motivating and engaging tool to increase visual attention in elders; such motivatio nal benefits may enhance compliance with and effort in training. Thus, an important piece of information which needs to be collected in video game training studies with older adults concerns th eir engagement and motivation to use this technology. Engagement in activities often uses Flow theory, as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1975), and forms a core concept in the current study. This is descri bed in further detail in the next chapter. The use of training strategies to improve cogniti ve skills in old age and therefore, improve performance of instrumental activ ities of daily living (e.g., driving) can be put into perspective

PAGE 19

19 by using a conceptual model recognized in rehabilitation science. The World Health Organization (WHO), International Classification of Function, Disa bility and Health (ICF), will be used as the framework for this study (F igure 1-1). The ICF provides a good understanding of the use of cognitive training in rehabilitation setti ngs. It also provides the basis for understanding the interrelationship between the person, the environment, health and function. The International Classification of F unction Disability and Health (ICF) The ICF (International Classificat ion of Functioning, Disability and Health) is a member of the World Health Organization Family of Internat ional Classifications. It defines a new model of health. ICF is the result of a revision in the previous model ICIDH (Inte rnational Classification of Impairment Disability and Handicap), created in 1980 to fulfill the need for a model that could capture the multidimensional aspect of disabi lity. Prior health assessment had focused on mortality and cause of death. Within this new pe rspective, the individual level of functioning was also considered as a component of health. Th e ICIDH had many limitations, one of them being that the linear progression of th e model (from impairments to disa bility and handicaps) could not really capture the multidimensional aspect of disa bility. Thirteen years after its approval, ICIDH went through an in depth review process that last ed 10 years. ICF emerged from this process. It uses a neutral terminology that can be applied to ev ery person regardless of their health status. In addition it uses a standardized language whic h facilitates the communication of health professionals around the globe. The ICF model bri ngs together the medical model (which views disability as a problem exclusivel y of the person) and the social m odel (which views disability as a problem exclusively of the environment) to create a biopsychosocial model of health, which takes into account the body, the in dividual and society. In contrast to its earlier version (ICIDH), health is seen in a dynamic process; the enviro nmental component was added to this model, and it is a very important factor in the understand ing of multidimensional as pects of health (stun,

PAGE 20

20 Chatterji, Bickenback, Kostanjsek & Schneider, 2 003). ICF has multiple app lications in the area of rehabilitation. ICF Classification The goal of the ICF is to classify all aspects of health and health related states (World Health Organization [WHO], 2001). ICF information is organized in two parts : Functioning and disability and contextu al factors. These parts are furthe r categorized into components. The components of functioning and disability include body functions and stru ctures, activities and participation. Body function encompasses the ph ysiological function of the body system whereas body structure encompasses the anatomical part of the body. Activity is defined as the execution of a task whereas participation is defined as an involvement in a life situation. Activities and participation also involve two other constructs: ca pacity and performance. Capacity is the ability to execute a task in a standardiz ed environment and performance is the ability to execute a task in the real environment. The components of c ontextual factors include: environmental factors and personal factors. Environmental factors are related to the physical, social and attitudinal environment. Personal factors pertain to the individual background (e.g., lifestyle, age, culture, race). ICF provides its classification through a c oding system for recording functioning and disability status under each component of the mode l. The classification can use from two to four levels of coding. Codes are represented by an alphanumeric system. The letter b denotes components of body functioning; s denotes components of body structure; d denotes components of activities and partic ipation and e denotes environm ental factors. The first level coding involves the letters followed by a numeric c ode that involves the number of a chapter. For example: d9 denotes communit y, social and civic life. The ne xt level coding has two digits, and will further classify the previous level, for example d920 denoted the recreation and

PAGE 21

21 leisure. To indicate the level of health or sever ity of the problem in each domain, qualifiers are placed after a decimal point follo wing the category code. A body function qualifier indicates the presence of impairment (on a five point scale e.g., no impairment, moderate impairment). Body structure qualifiers indicate th e extent of impairment (e.g., no impairment, mild impairment), nature of body structure (e.g., no change in structure, partial absence, additional part) and localization (e.g., right, left, both sides). A capac ity qualifier describes th e ability to execute a task in a standardized environm ent (no support is provided by the environment, e.g., execution of a task without assistive device). A participation qua lifier describes the ability to execute a task in the current environment (with support form the e nvironment, e.g., use of assistive device). An environmental factor qualifier describes the extent to which the environment has enabled (facilitator) or limited (ba rrier) performance. Both of them use a generic qualifier (0-4 scale), but facilitators are specified by replacing the decima l point with +. Persona l factors are not coded in the ICF. A problem in the body function and structures will cause impairment, while a problem in executing activities or engaging into life situ ations will cause an activity limitation or participation restriction respect ively. Disability then is a broad term that encompasses the negative aspects of health (impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction). It is viewed by WHO as an outcome of interactions between health conditions and contextual factors. On the other hand, the successful completion of ev eryday activities across a wide range of life areas is termed functioning. Functioning and disability in the ICF are seen as an interactive and evolutionary processes. Each entity of the model in teracts in a dynamic and non linea r relation. For instance; an individual may have performance problems wit hout impairment or capacity limitation (e.g., an

PAGE 22

22 ex-prisoner facing discrimination a nd not able to engage in any so cial relationship). Furthermore, intervention in one domain has th e potential to modify one or more domains. For example, the use of an assistive device can faci litate execution of a task and in tu rn facilitate social interaction. An individual with low vision ha s a telephone with large keys, bei ng able to perform the task of dialing activity and making phone call to friends engaging in so cial interactions participation. ICF classification is used to obtain inform ation of a person functioning instead of a classification of people with disability. From th is perspective, ICF can be used for everybody, independent of ones level of health. ICF does not describe disability as a consequence of health condition; it also involves le gislation, attitudes, physic al, social environments. The environmental factor in this model is a key aspect for understanding functioning and disability because disability must be seen in the societal context (Dahl, 2002). ICF has an important role in re habilitation. In contrast to me dical interventions that focus on the disease process, rehabilitation has a broa der understanding of the individual, which view function and health as also associated with pers onal and environmental factors (Stucki, Ewert & Cieza, 2002). In this study, the use of cognitive stra tegies to promote cognitive skills is related to personal factors, and is associated with each level of the ICF model, as will be described below. Application of Leisure / Recreation Base d Approaches to Maintaining / Enhancing Cognition and Complex Activity Performanc e Application at Each Level in the ICF A set of studies on participation in leisur e activities in later life found a relationship between leisure activities and cognition in later life. A stim ulating environment provided by participation in leisure activities has the pot ential to improve cognitive capacity and would reflect in each level in the ICF. From this pers pective, participation in leisure activities will be classified as a lifestyle. Life style seems to represent a numbe r of different constructs, among

PAGE 23

23 them is participation in leisure activitie s (Scarmeas & Stern, 2003) Richards, Hardy and Wadsworth (2003), studied the effect of particip ation in leisure activity in a sample of 5362 individuals over a 43-year period, and found a pos itive association betwee n participation in leisure activities thr ough the lifespan and cognitive func tioning. An active lifestyle might enhance functioning in later life and be an important approach for successful aging. Rowe & Kahn (1997), conceptualize successful agi ng as a hierarchy that consists of three tasks: 1. Decreasing the risk of disease and disease-related disabi lity, 2. Increasing or maintaining physical and mental functioning and 3. Being actively engaged with life. Participation in mental activities in later life ha s a positive impact on ones life and can influence each task in the model proposed by Rowe and Kahn. Several studies found a positive relationship betw een participation in leisure activity and cognitive functioning in later life These studies give us a broad perspective on the importance of participation in leisur e activity for enhancing or maintain ing cognition in later life. Cognitive ability is not fixed, but environmental factors pl ay a role in augmenting cognitive functions in later life. Participation in activities that are cognitivel y demanding is related to cognitive reserve in later life. One of the studies related to this topic was conduc ted by Wilson, Barnes and Bennett (2003). In this study, older individua ls were asked to rate their frequency of participation in common cognitive activities (e.g., read ing, playing games like checkers, visiting a library) at five points in time (age 6, 12, 18, 40 a nd currently). Results show that lifetime cognitive activity was related to semantic memory, perceptual speed and viso-spa tial abilities. Scarmeas, Levy, Tang, Manly and Stern. (2001), proposed that leisure activities also contribute to the cognitive reserve by preserving a set of skills or repe rtoires necessary for

PAGE 24

24 cognitive function. Participants of this st udy were 1,772 non-demented individuals who were examined annually, up to 7 years. There is also a relationship between levels of cognitive demands in the activities and levels of cognitive function. Singh-Manoux, Richards and Marmot (2005) conducted a study to examine the relationship of leis ure activities and cogn itive functions. In this study, participants rated their frequency in participati on in cognitive activities. Activiti es were classified as either having high or low cognitive effort. High demandi ng cognitive activities were associated with higher cognitive abilities. In a ddition activities that required so cial interactions had a higher cognitive demand than activities that di d not required social engagement. Research has also supported the notion that the increase in brai n cognitive reserve by participation in leisure activities lowers the risk of dementia, both Alzheimers disease and vascular dementia. Participation in an activity for one day per week, can reduce the risk of dementia by 7 percent. Although participation in cognitively stimulating activities is associated with reduced risk of dementia, participation in physical activity is not (Verghese, Lipton, Katz, Hall, Derby, Kuslansky, Ambrose, Sliwinski & Buschke (2003). According to these studies, lifestyle is related to cognitive functions in later life. In the ICF model, lifestyle is classified under personal fa ctors. In this case, lifestyle would augment cognitive function in later li fe. Although ICF does not use faci litators and barriers as qualifiers for personal factors, it seems that participation in le isure activities functions as a facilitator to the maintenance or enhancement of cognitive functions in later life. Future studies should be done to examine the applicability of these two qua lifiers under personal factors. Furthermore, a relationship is found in the model between personal factors (i n this case lifestyle) and environmental factors. Lifest yle can influence or be influen ced by environmental factors. For

PAGE 25

25 instance, if a person lives in a resource-rich e nvironment, this person will be more willing to have a lifestyle that accounts for improvement in cognitive functioning. The availability of programs that would promote participation in leis ure activities program fo r older adults in the community would act as an environmenta l facilitator for le isure participation. Participation in Leisure Activities Im pacts all Components of ICF Model Body Structure As the results of previous studies indicate, participation in leisure activities contribute s to cognitive reserve. C ognitive reserve is a term commonly used to explain the great variability in the severity of cognitive aging in the face of neurodegenerative changes that are similar in nature and extent. Studies suggest that cognitive reserve probably involves processes that support neuroplastici ty, which is defined as the sel f-organization of the brain to meet environmental demands (Whalley, Deary, A ppleton & Starr, 2004). Scarmeas and Stern, (2003), suggests different ways in which leisure activities may enhance cognitive reserve: First, an engaged lifestyle may increase synaptic de nsity in neocortical association cortex, second, better circuits of synaptic activity may exist in subjects who participate in leisure activities (even though the number of neurons or synapses might be the same) and third, more efficient use of brain networks. ICF gives clas sifications of structure of the brain under body structure component, under code s110. Body Functioning Studies discussed in this section indicated that participation in cognitive stimulating activities, specifically leisure activities, reduce the declin e of memory (Verghese et. al., 2003; Wilson et. al., 2003; Singh-Manoux et. al., 2005) inductive reasoning, verbal meaning, verbal fluency (Singh-Manoux et al., 2005), perceptual speed, visuo-spatial ability (Wilson et. al., 2003). The classificati on of cognitive functioning in found in the ICF under body functioning. Cognitive functioning can be classified under global functioning and specific mental functions.

PAGE 26

26 Activities and participation The performance of activitie s of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as driving, involves the use of fundamental cognitive skills. Studies show that poor cognitive function leads to increased risk of limitation in ADL performance (Moritz, Kasl, & Berkman, 1995). In this case, lifestyle would not specifically affect participation in leisure activities, but lifestyle would increase cognitive function needed to perform all the array of everyday ac tivities. All activities classified in the ICF could be affected by enhancing cognitive capacity. The potential of using ICF to classify c ognitive disorders has already being stated (Arthanat, Nochajski & Stone, 2004), however, in the present di scussion, the personal level, defined as positive lifestyle by participation in leisure activities, was added. Thus, the use of cognitive training to promote c ognitive function can be seen as part of the personal component, and has the potential to influence each level of the model by improving visual attention (body function and structures level), having an impact on driving perf ormance (activities level) and promoting independence in other activi ties by driving (participation level). Study Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of using an action video game (Medal of Honor; MOH) to improve the visual attention (UFOV) perfor mance of older adults. The study also investigated the effects of M OH training on a real-world outcome of older adults simulated driving performance. Anothe r purpose of this study was to investigate participants engagement with/enjoyment of videogameor UFOV-training, and to query participants' opinions about exiting interface design.

PAGE 27

27 Figure 1-1. Conceptual Framework for the Wo rld Health Organiza tions International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Health condition (Disorder or disease) Disorders that can impact cognitive Functioning Body function and structures Visual attention disorders Activities Driving Participation Independence; Engagement in other activities Environmental factors Traffic environment; Car design Personal factors Active lifestyle that promotes cog. functioning

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Cognitive Training With Older Adults There has been a growing body of literature over the last three decades suggesting that agerelated decline in cognition can be reduced or even reversed through cognitive training. The cognitive abilities trained in the majority of the studies have been the ones that typically show early cognitive declines e.g., speed of processing, memory and reasoning. Decline in speed of processing is normativel y experienced in middle age and decline in memory and reasoning generally begins by the 6th decade of life (Schaie, 1996; Baltes, & Mayer, 1999; Christensen, MacKinnon, Korten, Jorm, Henderson, Jacomb, et al., 1999; Colsher, & Wallace, 1991). Age related declines in these cognitive abilities are on the order of one-quarter of a standard deviation over a fourto seven-ye ar interval in late adulthood (Schaie, 1996; Zelinski, & Burnight, 1997; Hultsch, Hertzog, Dixon, & Small, 1998; Zelinski, & Stewart, 1998; Luszcz, 1998; Sliwinski, & Buschke, 1999). The magnitude of decline for reasoning reporte d in the literature has ranged from .22 SD over 7 years to .42 SD over 14 years (Schaie, 1996) Memory changes have been described with estimates including (a) .25 SD over 7 years for se mantic lists (Schaie, 1996), (b) half of a standard deviation over 16 years for immediate wo rd recall and 1.00 SD for immediate text recall (Zelinski, & Burnight, 1997), (c) one quarter of a standard devi ation over 6 years for immediate word recall (Small, Dixon, Hultsch & Hertz og, 1999) and (d) .33 SD over 4 years for word recall (Singer, Verhaeghen, Ghisletta, Lindenbur ger, & Baltes, 2003). Reported speed changes have ranged from .16 SD over 2 years (Ball, & Owsley, 2000) to .25 SD over 4 years (Singer et al, 2002).

PAGE 29

29 Despite the cognitive declines experienced in la ter life, the research literature suggests that cognitive training may have the potential to revers e such declines. However, it is important to note that cognitive training effects have not been broad and general, but really targeted and narrow. Generally, cognitive gains reported in the lit erature have been signif icant and specific to the ability trained (Plemons, Willis, & Baltes, 1978; Willis, Blieszner, & Baltes, 1981; Blieszner, Willis, & Baltes, 1981; Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Kliegl, 1986). ACTIVE is currently the largest clinical trial of cognitive interventions for older adults. It is a six-site trial funded, since 1996, by the National Institute on Aging and the Na tional Institute of Nursing Research. The design of ACTIVE was to use inte rventions that had proven effectiv e in previous research, that focused on enhancing basic cognitive skills in older adults, and that might improve everyday function in older adults who had not yet experienced functional decline but were at risk for such decline. ACTIVE improved on preceding training research by (a) using a larger (i.e., well powered with 2,802 participants) and more he terogeneous sample, including 27% African American elders, and (b) implementing the training protocol simultaneously at multiple site, to guard against laboratory-specific findings. (Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, et al., 2002; Willis, Tennstedt, Marsiske, Ball, Elias, Koepke, et al., 2006). In the ACTIVE study, participants were rando mized to one of four conditions: Reasoning training, Memory training, Useful Field of View (Speed) training, and no-contact control. In all three training groups, participants initially receiv ed ten 60-90 minute trai ning sessions, typically administered over five weeks. Initial study resu lts suggested that part icipants in all three intervention aims experienced immediate signifi cant gains on their targ ets of training (for reasoning gains averaged .48 SD, for memory they were .26 SD and for Useful Field of View they averaged 1.45 SD), and training group adva ntages were still observed two years post-

PAGE 30

30 training. (Ball et al., 2002). In a subsequent l ong-term follow-up, conducted five years after the initial training, there were still persist advantages for trained participan ts on their targets of training, relative to untrained controls. The five year net effect of reasoning trai ning was found to be .26 SD; for memory it was .23 SD, and for Useful Field of View (named Sp eed of Processing in st udy papers), it was .76 SD (Willis, et al., 2006). In addition, in the five y ear follow-up, participants in all three training groups reported less perceived di fficulty with IADLs relative to no-contact controls, a difference which reached significance for the Reasoning group. In addition, in a subgroup of participants who received extra booster training (i.e., yi elding a total of eighteen 60-90 minute sessions from Year 1 to Year 3 of the study), the ex tra training (compared to the basic ten-session program) yielded significant improvements on severa l observed tasks of daily living, as rated by blind raters. Specifically, pe rsons who received booster Reasoning training experienced significantly more gain on measur es of Everyday Problem Solving (i.e., the ability to read and understand medication labels, recipes, financia l documents, etc.), and persons who received booster Useful Field of View tr aining experienced significantl y more gain on measures of Everyday Speed (e.g., ability to quickly and accura tely read medication labels, find items in a pantry, look up a phone nu mber in the phone book). Despite these initially promising results from the ACTIVE trial, built on three decades of successful training research with older adults (LabouvieVief, & Gonda, 1976; Blieszner, Willis & Balter, 1981; Scogin, & Bienias, 1988; W illis & Nesselroade, 1990; Verhaeghen, Marcoen & Goossens, 1992), the more general fi nding in the literature, across the life span, is that transfer of training to real-world skills is difficult to achieve (Sternberg & Wagner, 1986; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Even in ACTIVE, transfer eff ects where small and fairly ephemeral. A broad

PAGE 31

31 conclusion is that studies on the effects of transfer of skills from laboratory to real life situations is scarce. For older adults, the relative ab sence of training transfer may be due to the fact that many studies generally exclude persons thought to have incipient deme ntia, so study participants are not cognitively impaired in the domains of traini ng. In addition it has b een reported that IADL performance does not start to d ecline until the 70s or 80s (Willis, 1996). Taken together, this implies that many older adults may be at ceiling in their everyday performance, so measures of everyday functioning may not have enough room for improvement to show training effects. More generally, there is an absence of careful taxonomic re search linking cognitive domains to everyday functions (Marsiske & Margrett, 2006), and the psychometrics of everyday function measurement often do not produce scores with substantial variance (Velozo, Magalhaes, Pan & Leiter, 1995). Few studies exist in the research literature that investigated the effect of the transfer of cognitive training to everyday performance. The ACTIVE interventions seem to be a fairly noteworthy late life exception (both within and outside of the ACTIVE study), with a particularly positive pattern noted for Useful Field of View training. UFOV training was found to improve performance of IADL. After participat ing in 10 1-hour training sessions, participants performed more quickly and accurately on the Ti med Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (TIADL) tasks than the control group. The TIADL test emulates everyday tasks such as: looking up phone numbers, counting change and, reading me dication bottles (Edwards, Wadley, Myers, Roenker, Cissel & Ball, 2002; Edwards, Wadl ey, Vance, Wood, Roenker & Ball, 2005). In addition to improvement in TIADL scores, speed of processing training has also been found to transfer to the Road sign test (Roenker, Cissell, Ball, Wadley & Edwards, 2003) and driving

PAGE 32

32 performance (Ball, & Owsley, 2000). These studie s support the hypothesis that transfer was only found for the specific cognitive measure being trained. Owsley, Sloane, McGwin and Ball (2002) also investigated which cognitive abilities were independently associated with the time required by older adults to complete IADLs. Results showed that only processing speed was independently associated with TIADL scores: t hose individuals with slower processing speeds were more likely to require longer tim es to complete everyday tasks. These studies support the contention that, among all the cognitive skills usually studied in gerontology research (reasoning, memory and, useful field of view), UFOV training has shown to be the most successful in showing training eff ects that transfer to everyday activities. The Useful Field of View concept and test are described in grea ter detail in the next section. Useful Field of View (UFOV) Test The UFOV is a measure of speed of processing and visual attention. Visual attention is defined as the area in which information can be acquired within one ey e fixation (Ball, Beard, Roenker, Miller, & Griggs, 1988). It is also used as a functional measure of visual processing in older driver performance (Ball, Owsley, Sloane Roenker, & Bruni, 1993). Deterioration of the UFOV begins at age 20 or younger. This deterioration is charact erized by a decrease in the efficiency with which individuals can extract info rmation from a cluttered scene, rather than by a shrinking of the field of view pe r se. Furthermore, the decrease in efficiency is increased when conditions require the division of attention between central and peripheral tasks (Sekuler, Bennett, & Mamelak, 2000). The UFOV test was developed by investigat ors from Alabama and Western Kentucky (UFOV users guide). The UFOV test is divided into four subtests that assess speed of visual processing under increasingly complex task demands. Using both eyes, the examinee must detect, identify and localize briefly presented targets.

PAGE 33

33 The first subtest ("Speed") consists of identif ication of a target pr esented in a centrally located box (figure 2-1). In the beginning of the test, a white box containing an icon of a car is presented on a stationary displa y. After the participant receives the instruction to examine the target, he or she touches the cont inue button and a second screen a ppears. The participant is then asked to select the target that had been presented on the previous screen (in this case, a car). The next screen introduces the truck ic on. As in the previous instructi ons, the participant is asked to select the target presented in the previous scr een (in this case the truck). After these introduction screens, the participant has four trials to practice. The partic ipant can guess, without penalty. There is no feedback with responses throughout th e test. Practice continue s until the participant scores 3 out of 4 correct on a si ngle practice trial. The length of the stimulus presentation in milliseconds is automatically adjusted for each participant. After two correct responses, presentation time is shortened. However, if the response is incorrect, presentation time will increase. The process of tracking the perceptual th resholds is continued until a stable estimate of the presentation time needed for the respondent to achieve 75% of trials correct is calculated. The minimum (best score) for each test is 16ms; the maximum score is 500ms. The second subtest is labeled Divi ded Attention (Figure 2-2). In this case, the participant is asked to identify the centrally presented obj ect and locate a simultaneously presented car displayed in the periphery. A cen tral box, along with a series of 8 boxes attached with radial spokes is numbered from 1 to 8 in a clockwise direction. Presentation time varies according to the accura cy of the participant, and the subtest continues until a stable measure of the threshold is determined. Again, the 75% correct threshold for correct performance is calculated.

PAGE 34

34 The third subtest is Selective Attention (Figure 2-3). This subtest is identical to subtest 2 except that the target displayed in the periphery (w hich is always a car) is embedded in a field of 47 triangles or distracters. The fourth subtest is a modified selective a ttention subtest, named Same-Different, with two icons in the center of the sc reen (inside the white box) (Figur e 2-4). In this subtest, the examinee is presented with two objects inside the white box in the center of the screen. The examinees have to distinguish if the two objects are the same (two cars or two trucks) or different (a car and a truck). Th ere is also a target in the pe riphery in a clustered scene. The UFOV measure has been widely used in clinical and rehabili tation settings and normative UFOV data to adjust performance comp arisons across demogra phically-similar elders has been developed (Edwards et al, 2006) The UF OV has also been widely used in research designed to examine driving performance with olde r adults and it is the primary outcome of the present study but other outcomes have been investigated and will be described bellow. Driving Performance Tests Three other outcome measures are commonly used in studies on driving performance: accident frequency, driving simulator, and road test. The use of each of these variables has advantages and disadvantages. Accident frequency This outcome can be measured either by self-report or state report. State report of accident frequency has an advant age over self-report because all licensed drivers have accident records in a standa rdized format. In addition, state reports include more detailed information about the accident (e.g., road type, time of a day, location) (Owsley et al., 1991). The disadvantages of these state reports are: underreporting of accidents are common and can occur either because of the person or because of the state police. Vehicle accidents can also be caused by factors that are not intrinsic to the driv er (e.g., poor mechanical conditions of the car,

PAGE 35

35 weather) (Ball et al., 1991). In addition, accid ents are rare events. Owsley et al. (1991), compared self-report police accident s (accidents where the police were at the scene, as indicated by the Driving Habit Questionnaire) with state reco rd accidents (number of accidents on the state record), and found that the number of state reco rd accidents and self-report police accidents did not match. Both types of reports were expected to be related because in Alabama (where the study was conducted), police are required to subm it written accident reports to the state every time they go the scene of an accident. Raedt and Ponjaert-Kristoffersen (2000) used two outcome measures to identify cognitive factors and driving problems in older adults: a ccident frequency and road performance. While cognitive tests accounted for 64 percent of the va riance of the scores on the road performance, cognitive tests accounted for only 19 percent of th e variance of the scores on accident frequency. On-road driving performance On-road driving performance, when used as an outcome measure for driving research, has the great advantage of measuri ng ones ability in a real-life situation. Although on-road performance seems to be one of the best outcome measures to measure driving performance, it has some draw backs. First, there is no control over the environment and the stimulus presented to the part icipants, which makes it difficult to generalize conclusions. Second, when two or more evaluators take part in the study, inter-rater reliability should be set (Roneker et al, 2003), otherwise da ta might be compromised. Third, participants can make mistakes because of the pressure of being tested, and they might also not be familiar with the car. On-road tests are usually very expensive. Driving simulator An alternative to on-road measures is the driving simulator. In a simulator, the environment can be totally contro lled, the same scenarios can be used for every participant and the availa bility of low cost simulators is al so increasing. However, the use of a

PAGE 36

36 simulator has some disadvantages including hi gh cost and possible simulator sickness among participants (Mourant & Thattach eny, 2000). Participants do not have the same experience as a real life situation. However, si mulation has a great advantage it provides a more controlled testing situation. For this reason, and because a simulator was availa ble for use in this study, this was the outcome measure used. Simulator driving performance in this study will be measured by brake reaction distance, lane maintenance and accuracy. Studies Using Driving Simulator Outcomes The use of a driving simulator either to e ducate (Fisher, Laurie, Glasser, Connerney, Pollatsek, Duffy et al., 2002) or train (Dorn & Barker, 2005) the general population is found in the literature. Driving simulators have also been useful to investigate the safety of display positions while driving (Wittmann, Kiss, Gugg, Steffen, Fink, Pppel et al., 2006) with study participants providing feedback (Donmez, Boyle & Lee, 2007). Another area in which driving simulators have been gaining attention is to meas ure driving performance of older adults. In this situation, driving performance is generally measured by assessing ones reaction time using different tasks in the simulator. Ronker et. al ( 2003) measured reaction time in a simulator using a light display located on the top panel of the drivers unit. Participants were instructed to brake as quickly as possible when the two red lights were illuminated. In another experiment, the participants at a distance of 5.8 meters viewed a narrated film, th e stimuli were road signs, with and without a red slash through them. Participants were instructed to reac t only to signs without a red slash. In another study, Lee, Lee and Came ron (2003), used a driving simulator to assess visual attention skills by pa rticipants reaction time. Reaction time was measured by displaying two red diamond-shaped images at the top corner s of the monitor screen, which changed to red triangles after every 700 yards of simulated driv ing. Participants were supposed to engage the turn signal whenever the triangles image appear ed on the screen. The validation of a laboratory-

PAGE 37

37 based driving simulator in measuring on-road driving performance has been supported by the literature (Lee, Cameron & Lee, 2003). Lee and Lee (2005) used a driving simulator to determine which simulated driving tasks can be used to identify older driver s at risk of traffic violations. The simulator was used to assess 10 driving tasks specifically for testing older adults. The driv ing tasks consisted of: rule compliance, traffic sign compliance, driving sp eed, use of indicator, decision and judgment, speed compliance, visual atten tion task, working memory, multi-t asks, and road use obligation. The simulator computer automatically measured the first five tasks whereas a laboratory technician collected the remaining data. Recentl y, researchers from the University of Florida used a driving simulator to re plicate actual road locations. In this study participants drove through the same scenario on the ro ad and in the replicated scenar io in the simulator (Shechtman, Classen, Stephens, Bendixen, Belchior, Sandhu, et al., 2007). In this st udy the simulators controls were integrated with an actual ve hicle which improved the driving experience. As has been discussed, the driving simulator has been extensively used in research for different tasks, however, standardized tests to measure the same constructs are still missing from the literature. The goal of the present study is to measure visual attention in a simulator. Visual attention will be measured by brake reaction distance but will use tasks not mentioned in previous literature. The next ch apter has more details about this measure. The next section will discuss specific interventions th at might have the chance to imp roved scores on either useful field of view and driving simulator. UFOV Training With Older Adults UFOV was one of three abilities trained in the NIA-funded ACTIVE trial (see above). In ACTIVE, with a total sample of 2,802 at six site s throughout the US, 25% of participants were randomized to receive UFOV training (other gro ups received training in reasoning, memory, or

PAGE 38

38 no contact). The content of training was identical to that used in th is study. Participants in this condition received 10 sessions (6090 minutes each). Posttest assessments were conducted immediately, and 1, 2, 3 and 5 years post-training Immediately after training, on the UFOV test, the pre-post improvement of UFOV-trained part icipants was 1.45 SD higher than that of untraining controls (Ball et al). Moreover, five years later, the UFOV performance advantage of UFOV-trained participants was still .75 SD greater than untrai ned controls (Willis et al). Speed of processing training not only appears to improve processing speed, but also transferred to certain everyday functions, as indicated by improved performance on Timed IADL (Edwards et al, 2005). In ACTIVE, there was less evidence of tran sfer to real-world functions from the basic 10-session training program. However, a subset of 50% of UFOV-trained participants received up to eigh t additional booster training sessions (four 12-months after initial training, and four 36-months after initial training). For boosted pa rticipants, Willis et al (2006) found that, five years post-training, performa nce on observed tasks of everyday speed (e.g., speed and accuracy of reading medication labe ls, finding items in a pa ntry, looking up numbers in a phone book) was significantly higher than that of participants who received only the basic ten sessions. This seems to strongly argue fo r extended training and greater training dosages. Roenker et al (2003) evaluated the effect of UFOV training and simulator training on UFOV test performance and simulator driving perf ormance. Participants were randomized into a speed of processing training group, traditional driver training pr ogram performed in a driving simulator, and a low risk control group. The UFOV te st consisted of the sa me test described in previous section and for simulator measure, pa rticipants reaction time was assessed. It was found that speed of processing trai ning, but not simulator training improved UFOV scores and had fewer dangerous maneuvers dur ing driving evaluation.

PAGE 39

39 In addition to the cognitive benefits of sp eed of processing trai ning, a recent study found that speed of processing training protects against extensive clinical ly relevant decline in healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL). HRQoL was measured using the eight item Short-Form 36 scale (Wolinsky, Unverzagt, & Smith, 2006). Video Game Training of Cognition Video games have become a large form of entertainment in the American society and the average age of video game players also has been increasing. Therefore, researchers are spending more time investigating the effects of video ga me play on behavior and the brain. Research on video game play goes back to the early 1980s. Th e earliest studies on the effect of video games investigated the effect of video game on vis uo-motor coordination (Griffith, Voloschin, Gibb, & Bailey, 1983), reaction time (Orosy-Fildes, & Alla n, 1989; Yuji, 1996) and spat ial skills (Dorval, & Pepin, 1986; Gagnon, 1985). Studies not only a ddressed theoretical findings but also the practical implications of playing video game. Res earchers were interested in investigating if the decline in cognitive skills in late life could be improved or even reversed by using video game training. One study found that playing a game called Crystal Castle for tw o months (1 hour of training per week) improved both eye-hand coor dination and verbal knowledge in a group of older adults. In addition, partic ipants of this study reporte d being more careful in the performance of activities of daily living (Drew, & Waters, 1986). Another study investigated the effects of playing Pac Man and Donkey Kong. This study explored the performance of older adults on speed ed tasks. Participants played these games for seven weeks (for at least two hours a week). It was found that the experimental group average time dropped 25 milliseconds (Clark, Lanphear, & Riddick, 1987). Drews and Waters (1986) examined the abilities of video game playing to improve perceptual-motor skills and cognitive

PAGE 40

40 functioning. Clark et al., (1987) examined the possibility that the slowdown in performance among the elderly could be reversed through the use of video games. Recently researchers have been investigating th e use of video game playing in the training of laparoscopic surgeons. It has been suggested that video game play may improve laparoscopic skills (Enochsson, Isaksson, Tour, Kjellin, He dman, Wredmark, et al., 2004; Rosenberg, Landsittel, & Averch, 2005; Stefanidis, Korndo rffer, Dunne, Black, Sie rra, Touchard, et al., 2006). Because laparoscopic surgery uses very sm all incisions, adequate eye-hand coordination is required and, studies suggest th at video game players increase the efficiency of screening and decrease the duration of examination. Video game playing has also practical implications in the military. Cadets trained on video games had a higher flight performance than their untrained peers (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994) The effects of video game playing on visual at tention has been the fo cus of more recent studies. Although these studies we re not conducted with older a dults, they have promising findings that might be further replicated in the older population. Studies found that video game playing increases efficiency in dividing atte ntion (Greenfield, DeWins tanley, Kilpatrick, & Kaye, 1994). A similar measure to The Useful Field of View (UFOV) test was used to assess the efficiency in which participants distributed their attention. Rela tive to non video game players (NVGPs), video game players (VGPs) relied on similar types of vi sual processing strategies but possessed faster stimulus-response mappings in visual attention tasks (Castel, Pratt, & Drummond, 2005). Researchers have b een also interested in the ne urochemical consequences of video game playing. Using a form of brain im aging (Positron Emission Tomography or PET) researchers observed a large increase in the am ount of dopamine released in the brain, in particular areas thought to cont rol reward and learning. Dopami ne may be important in the

PAGE 41

41 modification of the brain followi ng perceptual training, leading to faster and more widespread learning (Koepp, Gunn, Lawrence, Cunningham, Da gher, Jones, et al., 1998). Another study investigated whether 30 minutes of playing a vi deo game would result in differences in brain functioning. It was found that video game playi ng provided more emotional arousal activation (Wang, Mathews, Kalnin, Mosier, Dunn, & Kronenberger, 2006 ). The idea that playing a computer-based game can improve or even reverse the effects of aging related decline has caught the attention of the popular ne ws media. Video games that claim to improve or even reverse the effects of agi ng can be found in the market. Even though these products may be effective, there is little scien tific evidence behind it. On e of these video games is Brain Age, developed by Ninte ndo. It claims to be a way to exercise your brain giving the workout it needs such as arithmetic, memory a nd reading aloud. It was developed by a Japanese neuroscientist (Kawashima, Okita, Yamazaki, Tajim a, Yoshida, Taira, et al., 2005) based, in part, on previous studies in whic h the cognitive functioning of pa tients with Alzheimers disease improved after 6 months of (paper and pencil, tutor-guided) training on arithmetic and reading skills. However, there is no rese arch developed on the effect of this particular game. Another example is a product named Positscience. It consists of a series of comput er-based exercises that have the goal of boosting a variety of brain functi ons. The Positscience program it consists of 40 one-hour sessions. Some positive sc ientific evidence for enhancemen t in cognitive skill has been reported (Mahncke, Connor, Appleman, Ahsa nuddin, Hardy, Wood, et al., 2006), although longterm follow-up and training transfer have not yet been reported in sizable, diverse controlled trials. Although there might be products on the ma rket that can promote cognitive skills in older adults, more research needs to investigate its e ffect. This current study ex amines the effect of

PAGE 42

42 video games, which are widely available, and mi ght have benefits in terms improving cognitive skills in older adults. Video Game Studies Conducted by Green and Bavelier Green and Bavelier (2003) showed that play ing a first person action video game improved a range of visual skills in unde rgraduate students. In their asse ssment battery was a measure that was designed to capture aspects of Useful Field of View; this task differed from the Alabama version, and focused mostly on peri pheral target detection (without the central foveal task). A first substudy compared students with extens ive experience playing action video games to novices, and found that experienced games outperf ormed participants without experience on multiple visual attention tasks. In a second training study, novices were randomized to two conditions (ten hours of Medal of Honor (MOH), an action video game, or ten hours of Tetris, conceptualized as a placebo c ontrol). This substudy found th at non-experienced players who MOH-trained in the study for 10 1-hour sessions showed significantly greater improvement in visual attention skills, including a UFOV-type task, than Tetris controls. The current study was a replication and extension of Green et al.s, visual attention study, extending the prior study by using an older sample, a widely used measure of Useful Field of View as the proximal outcome, and by examining transfer to driving-simulato r based measures of driving performance. Playing a first person action video game impr oves a range of visual skills (Green & Bavelier, 2006a) such as: the ov erall capacity of the attentiona l system (the number of items that can be attended), the ability to effectiv ely deploy attention over space and the temporal resolution of attention (the efficiency with which attention acts over time). Participants in this study underwent training for an hour per day fo r 10 days. The experimental group played the game Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. This game simulates Second World War combat situations, has a relatively simple interface, uses first-person point of vi ew and requires effective

PAGE 43

43 monitoring of the whole visual field. The cont rol group played Tetris, chosen to control for visuo-motor coordination. In additio n to the effects on the spatial a nd temporal aspects of visual attention, playing action video games also e nhances the number of objects that can be apprehended and it is suggested that this enhan cement is mediated by ch anges in visual shortterm memory skills (Green & Bavelier, 2006a). Green and Bavelier (2006b) also investigat ed the characteristics of the games that contributed to enhancement of visual attention. Participants with little or no experience with video games were recruited to participate in the study and they were selected to participate in different games. Participants received training for twelve hours and their performance on two visual attention measures were assessed: 1) the attentional bli nk measure, designed to measure the temporal resolution of visual attention and, 2) the multiple object tracking task, designed to measure the number of moving objects that can be attended simultaneously over a period of several seconds. Several games were used in the study. The experimental group played Unreal Tournment. This is a first person shooter game and requires effective monitoring of the entire visual field. The second group play ed the Americas Army, a free access game created by the US Army. This game is also a first person shooter, but it differs from the experimental game because the participants go through a lot of training exer cises which reduces the time spent in a battle. The game also emphasizes strategy and team work. The third group played Harry Potter: Quidditch World Cup. This game also has the visu al attention component but it also requires the completion of training exercises wh ich took time away from actual playing of the main gain. The fourth group played Tetris, and this game was selected to control for the effect of improved visio-motor coordination. The fifth group underwen t rhythmicity training designed by Interactive Metronome Inc. and this training relies on accurate timing. Results showed that the experimental

PAGE 44

44 group (Unreal Tournament) was the only one with significant changes in sc ores in the outcome measures of attentional blink and multiple object tracking. The authors proposed game characteristics that might improve visual atte ntion, including: the n eed to be fast and unpredictable stimuli. The games must, have unexp ected events that require a fast and accurate response from the player and games that do not encourage the use of passive strategies which might reduce attentional load. In a more recent study, Green and Bavelier (2007) investigated mechanisms underlying improvement in visual attention. They found th at video game playing can alter fundamental characteristics of the visual system such as th e spatial resolution of vi sual processing across the visual field. The spatial resoluti on of visual attention was measur ed by the smallest distance a distracter could be from a targ et without compromising target id entification. Results showed that, compared with a non-video game player, an ac tion video game player could tolerate smaller target-distracter distances. Similar effects we re also observed in non video game players who underwent training in action video games. The authors concluded that there is a causal relationship between video game playi ng and augmented sp atial resolution. Although there are several studies that show improvement in vi sual attention, these studies were conducted with young particip ants. There is no investigation of the effect of video game training to improve visual attenti on in older adults. Given the impor tance of visual attention skill for driving, and given the importance of driving for older adults and the lack of visual attention training, it is important to invest igate possible interventions. It is also necessary to investigate the acceptance of these games by the older populatio n and their engagement in the games. Engagement Engagement in the activity will greatly influe nce the video game experience. In addition, engagement in meaningful activities can increas e quality of life for many individuals (Suto,

PAGE 45

45 1998), contribute to life satisfac tion in later life (Kelly, St einkamp, & Kelly, 1987), and reduce mortality rates (Lennartsson, & Silverstein, 2001). Engagement in leisure activitie s can be conceptualized via Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Flow can be said to occur when people are able to meet th e challenges of their environment with appropriate skills and accord ingly feel a sense of well-being, a sense of mastery, and a heightened sense of self-est eem (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow is also characterized by a deep sense of enjoyment. The enjoyment is not simply the result of satisfying a need, but occurs when a person achieves so mething unexpected which has a sense of novelty (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Csikszentmihalyi descri bes flow as happening most easily in sports, games, and hobbies because these activities ar e created in a way to facilitate flow. According to Flow theory research, when a person perceives a ch allenge (an intrinsic demand experienced when engaged in an activity) as being greater than his or her perceived skills (the individuals perception of his or her capacity to meet the demands of the activity), the person experiences worry and anxiety. On the other hand, if the person perceives his or her skills as being greater than the challenge at hand, he or she will experience boredom and apathy (Massimini, Csikzentmihalyi & Massimo, 1987). Th e goal is to find a match between challenges and skills in order to have an optimal experience. Farrow and Reid (2004) found that older adults experienced flow when participating in a virtual reality rehabilitation progr am. Participants who participated in this program described a sense of involvement, enjoyment, and control ov er the environment, which contributed to the flow experience. Because video games are thought to represent an innovative approach for training visual attention in older adults, it is also important to investigate participants engagement with this

PAGE 46

46 technology. Such engagement may serve as an indicator of potential compliance with video game training, and speaks more generally to the acceptability and motivati on potential that such training offers. Current Thinking About Training With Old er Adults/Real World/Cognitive Reserve This study also falls within the growing body of literature that suggests that there may be an association between participation in cogni tively stimulating everyday activities and ones cognitive status. Studies suggest that participation in common cognitive activities such as: playing games such as cards, crossword puzzles, checkers and other puzzles is associated with reduced risk for Alzheimers disease (Wilson, Mendes de Leon, Barnes, Schneider, Bienias, Evans, & Bennett, 2002). In additi on, it seems to be have a protective effect against dementia in people who maintain intellectual and social engagement through part icipation in everyday activities (Scarmeas, Levy, & Tang, 2001). Other studies have examined the effect of engagement in mental, physical and social act ivities on non-demented individuals. Researchers often assess activity level using se lf-report measures of the amount of time spent in a range of specific activities (Mackinnon, Christensen, Ho fer, Korten, & Jorm, 2003; Kramer, Bherer, Colcombe, Dong, & Greenough, 2004; Milgram, Si wak-Trapp, Araujo, & Head, 2006). After controlling for sensory functions Newson (2005) found that activity was a significant predictor of current level of speed, picture naming, incide nt recall, and verbal fluency and of cognitive changes in speed, picture naming and inci dent recall (Newson, & Kemps, 2005 ). Ghisletta (2006) found that increased medi a (e.g., listening to the radio, watching television) and leisure activity engagement (e .g., playing games, doing crossword puzzles) may lessen decline in perceptual speed but not in verb al fluency or performan ce (Ghisletta, Bickel, & Lvdn, 2006). Wilson (2003) constructed a measur e of lifelong particip ation in cognitive activities (Fratiglioni, Paillard-Borg, & Winblad, 2004). Partic ipants were rated according to

PAGE 47

47 how often they participated in common cognitive activities at th e age of 6, 12, 18, 40 and current age. This study found that more frequent cogni tive activity was related to better perceptual speed, visuo-spatial ability and semantic memo ry but not to episodic memory or working memory. Scarmeas (2003) discussed the importan ce of a lifestyle change that would supply a reserve that would allow individu als to cope longer before AD is manifested (Scarmeas, & Stern, 2003). Fratiglioni (2004) argues that the three lifestyle component s described above (mental, physical and social), have a common pathwa y .Research from both animal (Winocur, 1988; Pham, Winblad, Granholm, & M ohammed, 2002) and human studies suggest that there is a developmental neuron plasticity with regard to cognition and that cogni tive stimulation in the environment is an important predictor of enhancement and maintenance of cognitive functioning. One such environmental factor that has received a lot of attention by rese archers is an engaged lifestyle. It has been proposed that older adults who are engaged in a more active lifestyle can promote their cognitive functioning. Hence, frequent use of challenging mental tasks would be associated with a relatively hi gher level of cognitive reserve (Hultsch, Hertzog, Small, & Dixon, 1999). Although there is cognitive an d neural plasticity across the adul t life span, there is still the potential for improvement (Jones, Nyberg, Sa ndblom, Stigsdotter N eely, Ingvar, Magnus Petersson, & Backman, 2006). Although most of these studies are correlational in nature, experimental research, as described in the previous secti ons support such findings and gives more evidence for a causal relationship between cognitive training a nd improvement in cognitive skills. Although the body of research on the effects of participatin g in cognitively stimulating activities and the improvement in cognition is broad and leads to op timistic conclusions, to date

PAGE 48

48 there are not many programs designed to provide opportunities for mental stimulation in later life. Therefore, identifying techniqu es to enhance cognitive function in older adults are of utmost importance. Few examples of cognitive training pr ograms are reported in the literature. One such program is the Experience Corps, which is a soci al model for health promotion in older adults (Fried, Carlson, Freedman, Frick, Glass, Hill, et al., 2004; Glass, Freedman, Carlson, Hill, Frick, Ialongo, et al., 2004). This program found some shor t-term improvement in cognitive, social and physical factors. In this program, older volunteer s were place in elementary schools in roles designed to meet school needs. Participan ts spent 15 hours a week in the school for approximately 9 months. Further studies are necessary to investigate more specific cognitive measures. Virtual reality has also been used as a tool for cognitive training (more precisely, cognitive rehabilitation) research. Weiss (2003 ) investigated the effects of vi rtual reality in training stroke patients with unilateral neglect in relearning how to cross a street independently (Weiss, Naveh, & Katz, 2003). Gourlay (2000), used virtual rea lity technology to help cognitively impaired individuals to relearn importa nt daily living skills (Gourla y, Lun, & Lee, 2000). Lee (2003) developed a virtual supermarket to assess and tr ain cognitive abilities in ADL (Lee, Ku, Cho, Hahn, Kim, Lee, Kang, Kim, Yu, Wied erhold, Wiederhold, & Kim, 2003). Importance of the Study Driving is one of the most important activities in late life because it facilitates engagement in several other activities. Driving is a very co mplex task and can represent a challenge to older adults due to the normal declines associated with aging. Visual attention is one of the main cognitive functions related to driving, and rese arch has shown that this cognitive skill can be improved with training. However, there are not many options for visu al attention training

PAGE 49

49 available. This study explored a potentially new fo rm of training of visual attention, which is the video game. The magnitude of video game playing traini ng effects might not co rrespond that of the UFOV training, but video game playing has the adva ntage of being more available and perhaps more enjoyable. In addition, video game training can be done at home, whic h in turn might lead to an increase in training time. The increase in training time might enhance training effect and, video game training can be compared to UFOV training.

PAGE 50

50 Figure 2-1. Processing speed subtask Figure 2-2. Divided attention subtask

PAGE 51

51 Figure 2-3. Selective attention subtask Figure 2-4. Same different subtask

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Overall Procedure Participants were recruited by phone calls, by mail and through fl yers that were distributed in the community. Potential participants were prescreened by telephone and to eligibility criteria should be met in order for them to be scheduled for a baseline assessment (65 or older, current driving, willing to participate in 6 training se ssions and no previous experience with video games). The baseline assessment took about 1 hour and a half to be completed. Participants were then randomized to one of thr ee intervention groups (MOH-UFOV-T etris). Training consisted of 6 training sessions of 90 minutes each. After each training session, participants completed a flow questionnaire to measure their engagement w ith the training. One week after intervention, participants returned for postte st. A no-contact control group were added to the study after the intervention study was completed, this group were not randomized but were recruited from the same recruitment pool. Participants from the nocontact control group comp leted pre and posttest within three weeks interval. Study Design The current study employed a pretest-posttes t control group design. Analytically, the study included one within-person condition (i.e ., pretest-posttest) and one betweenperson condition factor (i.e., four intervention groups). The withinperson condition assessed change in performance on several cognitive and non-cognitive measures over time; for three of four groups, this was change preand post-interv ention. The between-persons condition assessed differences between persons assigned to each of the four treatment c onditions. The critical analytic effect of interest in this study, the occasion X gr oup interaction, assessed whether change differed by intervention group, such that members of some groups experienced more

PAGE 53

53 improvement than others. For individuals rando mly assigned to the three intervention groups, between the pretest and posttest they participat ed in 6 training sessi ons of approximately 90 minutes duration. Participants from the no-contac t control group received a pretest, followed by a posttest three weeks later. The four interventions used in the current study were: 1) Medal of Honor (MOH), which is a first person shooter video game; 2) Useful Field of View (UFOV), which is an adaptive, customized visual attention tr aining program using iterative tr aining rules and a touch screen computer and 3) Tetris which is an arcade video game, and which was here construed as a placebo control condition, and 4) a no-contact co ntrol group. This fourth group did not receive any intervention. Detailed information for each training intervention is provided below. A schematic diagram of the study design is shown in figure 3-1. Study Specific Aims and Hypothesis The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of using an action video game (Medal of Honor; MOH) to improve the visual attention (UFOV) perfor mance of older adults. The study will also investigate th e effects of MOH training on a real-world outcome of older adults simulated driving performance. The specific aims of this study are: Aim 1 To investigate whether UFOV perfor mance can be improved by training via a first-person action video game (MOH) and to co mpare such training to: (a) goldstandard touch screen based UFOV training, b) an alternativ e video game (Tetris) construed as a placebo control and c) no-contact pre post only control group Hypothesis: The UFOV training pr otocol has been found to be effective in training the visual attention of older indivi duals. We expect participants receiving the classic UFOV training to experience greater performance improvements th an all other participants; we expect those

PAGE 54

54 receiving MOH training to experience more vi sual attention improvements than either the placebo control (Tetris) or no-cont act control conditions. This hypothesis can be illustrated with the following diagram (Figure 3-2): Aim 2 To investigate if video game training be nefits also transfer to simulated driving performance The ultimate goal of this study is to investigate if visual at tention training can be transferred to a real life situation, which will be measured by driving performance in a simulator. Simulator driving performance will be measured by three dependent variables: (a) Brake reaction distance after part icipants perceive an ob ject (a dog) in or near the roadway; (b) Lane maintenance as participants approach and pass the dogs; and (c) Accuracy of detection of dogs in/near the roadway (i.e., do participants brake for the dog, or do they pass it by without braking). Hypothesis: The UFOV training group will obtai n better scores than the MOH video game groups, MOH group will obtain higher scores than the two control groups (T etris, no-contact). This hypothesis can be illustrated with the following diagram (Figure 3-3): Aim 3 To investigate participants engagement or perceived Flow, through the course of video game or UFOV training Degree of engagement in the tr aining experience may serve as an indicator of potential compliance with and effort /motivation in training. Flow was assessed at the end of each training session in which participants engaged. Thus, it was assessed only for participants in the three traini ng conditions, and it was not assesse d in the pretest-posttest design, but in each of the six training sessions. Hypothesis: Participants who received vi deo game training (MOH or Tetris) will experience a greater increase in Flow scores as compared to participants who received UFOV training. For the video game players, we expect ed that the improvement in Flow would occur

PAGE 55

55 due to increasing match between the challenges of the game (MOH, Tetris) and participants skill level. In addition, the game itself is ente rtaining and enjoyable. On the other hand, UFOV is less entertaining and enjoyable, and it also provides participan ts with less explicit feedback about their performance improvements. Thus, we did not expect Flow improvements in UFOV training. Aim 4 To explore participants opinion about game design This is a consumer-oriented aim and this data was intended to provide informa tion that may assist in future improvements of game design, so that games are more responsive to the needs of older adults. Participants Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion criteria for this study included: a) 65 years or older, b) no previous experience with video games, because previous experience w ith video games can mask the real effects of training, c) be a current driver as driving performance will be tested on a simulator, the participant must be a current driv er d) MMSE of 24 or higher, e) be willing to participate in 6 training sessions, f) visual acu ity of 20/70, visual acuity tests were used because eye sensory function plays an important role in UFOV test pe rformance. In addition, training effects could be compromised by a lack of visual acuity. Participan ts with scores of 200 or lower in the UFOV (accumulated scores) were excluded from the st udy because they would not have room for improvement. Recruitment Participants were recruited by phone calls, by mail and through fl yers that were distributed in the community. Participants from 3 recru itment pools were contacted. Individuals from the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (R ERC) and the National Older Driver Research and Training Center (NODRTC) were contacted by telephone, and individuals from the Institute

PAGE 56

56 on Aging (IOA) registry first received a letter by mail with study information and were asked to contact study staff if they were interested in more information about the study. Out of 58 participants who completed the study, 7 participants were recruited from the RERC recruitment pool, 36 were recruited by mail from the IoA re gistry, 10 responded to a press release in the Senior Times Magazine, 2 were referred by frie nds and 2 were recruited at a townhouse meeting at a senior residential community in Gainesville. Participan ts received $10.00 for each visit. A participant who attended baseline testing, six training sessions, and the post-training testing received $80.00. Participants from the no-cont act control group received a maximum of $20.00 (pre and posttest). Sample Characteristics A total of 70 participants co mpleted the pretest battery for this study. All pa rticipants who completed the pretest battery were then eligib le to be randomized to a treatment condition. A total of 12 (17%) participants withdrew from the study; 9 of these particip ants withdrew prior to randomization because the training schedule co uld not accommodate their personal schedule. Three participants (one of each training group) withdrew post-r andomization, during the training intervention. Two of those partic ipants were employed and their sc hedules were in conflict with the training schedule and one of them withdrew due to perceived boredom of the training task. All participants from the no-contact control gr oup appeared at both th e preand post-test assessments. A total of 58 participants comple ted the study. In general, participants were youngold, college educated, they were equally distri buted across gender and a ll participants were Caucasian, except one Asian participant who withdraw before random assignment. Testing Design and Procedure Prior to in-person cont act with the study, potentia l participants were fi rst pre-scre ened via telephone. In the phone interview, f our inclusion criteria were asse ssed: a) 65 years or older, b)

PAGE 57

57 current driver, c) no previous experience with vi deo games and d) be willing to participate in 6 training sessions. If these requirements were me t, participants were scheduled for a baseline assessment. Baseline Assessment During the intake session, participants were informed about the research purposes and procedures, and (if willing) completed an informed consent form. After consenting, the participants took two more tests to determine their eligibility: 1) Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), in which participants were required to score 24 or higher; and 2) a visu al acuity test, in which participants were required to have a score of 20/70 or better. After administration of these tests, eligible participants were administered the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test. If a participant had a score of 200 or hi gher in this test, participants completed the remaining baseline measures. These included a driving simulator test a memory test and questionnaires regarding (a) demographics, (b) depressi on; and (c) hearing impairment The duration of the baseline session was approximately 1.5 hours, and participants could take as many breaks as they needed. After the baseline assessment was completed, par ticipants were randomized, and scheduled for their 6 training sessions. Particip ants from the no-contact cont rol group returned three weeks after baseline assessment for a posttest. Random Assignment After baseline assessment participants who were determined to have met the inclusion criteria for the study, were randomized into one of three groups (Medal of Honor, UFOV, or Tetris). Randomization occurred in triplets (i.e., after a group of thr ee participants had met eligibility, one participant was assigned to each of the three groups). Afte r the conclusion of the interventions for the three groups and after interim data analys es had been conducted, a fourth non-equivalent control group was recr uited. This separate group of participants was recruited for

PAGE 58

58 the sole purpose of pretesting a nd posttesting (without interventi on) and was not randomized to this condition. More detail on the rationale for this group is provided below. Although the nocontact control group was recruited later in th e study and was not randomi zed, participants came from the same recruitment sources as the experimental participants. Rationale for the Inclusion of a No-Contact Control Group Interim data analyses from the three inte rvention groups revealed that there were improvements in the primary outcome measure (UFOV) for all three treatment groups (MOH, UFOV, Tetris). The improvements for the Tetris group (in particul ar) were not expected (on the basis of the earlier Green and Bavelier group, wh o conceptualized Tetris as a kind of placebo control condition). Thus, it was difficult (concep tually) to determine whether the improvements in the two video game groups (MOH and tetris) we re due to playing these games, or whether they reflected simple practice effects due to pretesting and posttesting. A prior intervention study (ACTIVE, Ball et a., 2002) had shown that no-contact control participants experienced about as much pre-post gain as shown by the videogame groups in this study, which suggested that the observed improvement might be due to testing alone. The decision was made, within the context of the current population, to verify that simple pretest-posttest improvements in pa rticipants who received no inte rvention would, in fact, be as large as those recruited for the two videogame gr oups. While the late in clusion of such a group would raise concerns of non-equi valence, careful comparisons of the no-contact group to the randomized groups would permit a quantitative charac terization of the magnitude of bias, if any. (As the foregoing participants section revealed, the no-contac t control group did not differ on any assessed variables from the other groups, at baseline). To summarize: A no-contact c ontrol group was added to the st udy after the data from the intervention groups was collected. This no-cont act group was not randomized but was recruited

PAGE 59

59 from the same recruitment pool from the previous participants. This was necessary to assess the simple effect of taking the pretest-posttest battery twice. Participants took the preand posttest about three weeks apar t, with no treatment/stimulation/ contact between testings. Group comparison analyses for Aims 1 and 2 (see ne xt chapter) include this no-contact group. Posttest Within one week of completing the training, pa rticipants were asked to come back for a post-testing session. The content of this session was almost identical to that of the initial assessment. Participants were asked to answer some extra opinion questions regarding the design of the games and controllers they used during the training. The posttesti ng required about one hour and 15 minutes to be completed. Measure During Intervention A perceived engagement, or "F low", questionnaire was administered to the intervention groups after each training session. The measure required about 5 minutes for completion. All measures are described in greater de tail in the measures section below. Training Overview of Training In this study, for all training interventions, the intervention was provided in small groups, in six 90 minutes sessions. Participants received two or three training sessions each week. The first group played a first action video game (Medal of Honor). This game was specifically chosen because it was found to be the best game to train visual attention (in coll ege students; Green et al., 2003) in one study. The second group received in struction in Useful Field of View (UFOV). UFOV was chosen because this is the gold standard training and we wanted to compare training effect. The third group, Tetris served as a control group, and followed the same training

PAGE 60

60 procedures of the first group, excep t they played a placebo game (i.e., reported by Green et al. NOT to improve visual atte ntion in college students) Trainers were undergraduate st udent assistants who had extensive self-reported experience with action video games. All tr ainers received inst ruction in the implementation of the studys interventions, which were manualized. All undergra d students who worked in this project were trained by the doctoral student. Prior to start of intervention with participants, they spent time playing the game using the manuals that were de veloped. Then, they practiced training with one another and whenever possible with somebody not familiar with video games. It was important to make sure that the training was standardized and all students used the same procedures with all participants. Medal of Honor Training The two video game training conditions (MOH and Tetris) differed from UFOV in not using a computer, but in using a commercially-a vailable video game system instead. The study employed a Sony PlayStation 2, console model 97060 and dual shock 2 analog controller, model 97026. The game was presented on a 19 TV monitor. In this training, participants were asked to play the "first pers on shooter" video game Medal of Honor Rising Sun, firs t with a tutor and then more i ndependently. The game is made up of multiple missions. In each session, particip ants were first asked to navigate through a particular on-screen mission (for example, after on es ship is hit by enemy torpedoes while one is two levels below, one must struggle to reach th e ships deck, extinguishi ng fires and assisting crew members along the way; once atop, one must use an artillery gun to discourage combatants airplanes, which are dropping bom bs on the ship). The missions were broken into step-by-step maneuvers (Appendix A), and the tutor provided pa rticipants with complete assistance to navigate the scene. When participants successf ully made it through the mission, they were asked

PAGE 61

61 to repeat the mission on their ow n, drawing on their tutors help if needed. Once they had mastered a mission on their own, they moved on to the next mission. This was the main intervention under study; Green & Bavelier (2003), have repor ted that playing this game boosts visual attention, as assessed with their measures, in young adults. The remainder of this section describes the traini ng procedure in greater detail. In session 1, the participants had about 15 minutes of tutoring on the video game, as none of them had previous experience with video games before. The tutor explained to the participants that Medal of Honor is a game based on the S econd World War. The tuto rs explained that MOH is an action game; thus, there would be considerab le shooting and some scenes of violence. If at any time participants did not feel comfortable w ith the game, they were allowed to stop playing. No participant withdrew for this reason. Participants were also asked to take a 5-minute break after 45 minutes of playing. The participants also learned that the game wa s divided into missions. It was expected that each participant would be able to complete about 4 missions during the 6 training sessions. In order to finish each mission, several mission objec tives (that were explained in details during each game) would be completed. A guide with st ep-by-step instructions for each mission was developed and the participants were expected to follow instructions provided by the manual. Each mission would be completed twice. The first time, a tutor would give step-by-step instructions. Once the participant completed the mi ssion once, they were expected to repeat the mission without much help from the tutor. We e xpected that by playing each mission twice, the participant would be able to sp end more time concentrating on the parts of the game supposed to promote visual learning rather th en trying to learn the game.

PAGE 62

62 If participants did not have any further que stions about the trai ning, after the tutors instructions the tutor modeled by playing the game for about 10 minutes and the participants watched them playing. Next, the tu tors explained how the controller works and what each button does. This was a brief explanation because a deta iled explanation was provided during the first mission, which served as a tutorial. In the first mission, the participants had a chance to practice each button. Figure 3-4 presents the controller used by participants and the description of some of the buttons used to play this game. Once each button was introduced to the partic ipants during the first mission, they were expected to practice using it unt il they felt comfortable doing so. The tutor moved forward with the instructions only once the participants succes sfully completed the task controlled by that button, e.g., use the button to jump over the wires on the floor. St ep-by-step instructions were presented through PowerPoint slides on a computer that was placed next to the participants. The trainers would control the speed of the presentation of each PowerPoint slide. The instructions were divided step-by-step (an example is pr esented on figure 3-5) and at the end of each instruction (or slide), the participants were aske d to pause the game before moving forward in the game. This was done, during the learning phase, to reduce all time pressure that might have impaired learning. During the first time the partic ipants played the mission, the tutors were very involved in helping them to fi nish the missions, but the seco nd time the participants went through the missions, the tutors only helped if required. Also, each time a new button was introduced to the participants, the instruction was presented in the slides (Figure 3-6). The partic ipants would keep prac ticing the use of each button until they could perform the task successfully.

PAGE 63

63 The difficulty level increased at each ne w mission. Mission 1 Day of Infamy is designed to learn the basic maneuvers used th rough the game, such as turn right/left, look up/down, jump, crouch. The game starts in a bunke r room. The goal is to leave the room, walk upstairs, and put out a fire. After extinguishing the fire you have to keep moving forward and go up another set of stairs. You w ill be given a gun and you have to shoot at some enemy planes. This completes the mission. Mission 2 Pearl Harbor is a very short mission. It starts on a boat and the only job is to shoot down planes fl ying through the area. Mi ssion 3 Fall of the Philippines starts on a bridge with fi res around you. You need to walk out of the bridge, meet some friends and fire on some enemies. Through the mission there are several mission objectives that need to be completed in order to keep moving, such as find the cogwheel of a tank and repair it. Once the tank is fixed you s hould follow it through a village, enemies will be shooting at you and your goal is to search for the enemies in different scenarios, sometimes they are easy to see, sometimes they are hidden. The next mission in the game is the midnight raid on Guadalcanal, but because this scenario happens at night, and the scenes were very dark and hard to see it was skipped. For this study purpose, missi on 4 was the Pistol Pete Shutdown in this mission you have a lot of mission objectives to complete, such as re leasing some of your teammates being held captive. Th rough all the missions, participan ts must continuously visually scan the scenarios because ther e are enemies who try to shoot at you. The game was set up in a way that the participants would have unlimited a mmunition and a have a bulletproof vest. By using these options, the game wa s less challenging and the particip ants could play for a longer time. Useful Field of View Training The Useful Field of View training was ad ministered via a computer. A CPU was connected to a 21" ELO touch screen. The traini ng consisted of six 90-minute sessions. This

PAGE 64

64 was a deviation from a published version, which included ten 60-90 minutes sessions (Ball et al., 2000) but which was instituted due to resource cons traints (the available time for the researcher and volunteer trainers to complete the study) and participant schedules. The complexity of the UFOV subtests is modified by holding the dura tion of the display cons tant and by gradually increasing the complexity of the central task, the peripheral task or both. These modifications allow individuals to practice the task at customi zed levels of difficulty until mastery is achieved. Training sessions for UFOV have been described in previous research (Edwards, Wadley, Myers, Roenker, Cissell, & Ball, 2002). This training was adapted from the UFOV tr aining guide from prev ious studies (Appendix B). In the initial assessment, participants receive d a preliminary score on the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test (see below for how these scores influenced training de cisions). In general, training was started at participants current skill level, and after th ey had mastered that level, the challenge increased, either by reducing the amount of time available to perform the task, or by increasing the visual complexity of the display to be studied. Based on prior literature, this training represented the gold standard for impr oving the visual attention of older adults. It was selected to be used as the reference condition against which the efficacy of video game training could be compared. The remainder of this section describes the training procedure in greater detail. In Session 1, training was customized to pa rticipants' baseline UFOV performance. As noted below, the UFOV consisted of four subt asks. Due to lower bound timing limits and upper bound time-out programming, possible scores ranged from 16 ms to 500 ms for each subtask.

PAGE 65

65 Subtask 1, Speed: Measures the average presenta tion time needed for participants to detect whether a centrally presented two-dimensional wh ite object (against a black background) is a car or a truck with 75% accuracy. Subtask 2, Divided Attention: Measures the average presentation time needed for participants to detect whether a centrally presented two-dimensi onal white object (against a black background) is a car or a truck while simultaneously noting the sc reen location of a peripherally presented car, with 75% accuracy. Subtask 3, Selective Attention: Measures the average presentation time needed for participants to detect whether a centrally presented two-dimensi onal white object (against a black background) is a car or a truck while simultaneously noting the sc reen location of a peripherally located car that is presented in screen clutter, with 75% accuracy. Subtask 4, Same Different: Measures the average presentation time needed for participants to detect whether two centrally presented two-dimensional white objects (ver tically arrayed, against a black background) are (a) two cars--same; (b) two truc ks--same; or (c) a car and a truck--different, while simultaneously noti ng the screen location of a peripherally located car that is presented in screen cl utter, with 75% accuracy. Customization rules were as follows: 1. If the participant scored greater than 30 ms on the Speed task, they were first trained on Speed. In this case, participants were presen ted with the Speed task again, and allowed to practice. They continued to practice until their score moved below 30 ms. If participants remained stuck at a "plateau", a simpler center task (not identifying whether the center object was a car or truck, but simply identifying whet her an object was present) was selected, until participants achieved a score of 30 ms or faster on this simpler (" presence-absence") center task.

PAGE 66

66 Once participants reached 30 ms or faster, they re turned to the "identify (car or truck)" center task until they achieved a score of 30 ms or faster. Finally, before progressing to the next training level, participants moved to the most di fficult center task ("same-different", see above), until they achieved a score of 30 ms or faster. At this point, they progressed to the next Divided Attention training track. 2. If the participant was belo w criterion (30 ms) on the Speed Subtask 1, but above 40 ms on the Divided Attention Subtask 2, training began at this level. (Participants who "graduated" from the Speed training above also progressed next to this training level) Participants moving here from Speed training always started at 200 ms presentation time. Participants moving directly to this level of training had their initial presentation time set to th eir score in the baseline screening UFOV score, within 40 ms in multiples of 40 ms (i.e., if their baseline screening score on Divided Attention Subtask 2 was 162 ms, the part icipant would start at 200 ms; if the baseline Divided Attention score was 251, par ticipants would start at 280 ms). In this training, and in all other training tracks, participants would receive a block of 16 trials at the selected speed, with the peripheral object presented at close eccentricity (i.e., close to the center of the screen). Once the participant achieved two consecutive blocks w ith at least 12-out-of-16 correct responses, the task would be made more difficult by keeping the participant at the same presentation speed, but moving the peripheral object to a moderate level of eccentricity. Once the participant achieved two consecutive blocks with at l east 12-out-of-16 correct responses at this moderate eccentricity, the task would be made more difficult by keeping the participant at the same presentation speed, but moving the peripheral object to a distant/outer level of eccentricity. Once the participant achieved two consecutive blocks with at least 12-out-of-16 correct resp onses at this outer eccentricity, the task would be made more diffi cult by increasing the presentation speed (i.e.,

PAGE 67

67 making it 40 ms faster; e.g., going from 240 ms to 200 ms or going from 1 60 ms to 120 ms), and returning the peripheral object to the inner eccentr icity. Again, the particip ant progressed at this speed from inner to outer eccentricity before the ta sk was made 40 ms faster. Training at this level terminated when the participant achieved a score of 12-out-of-16 or better on at least two blocks presented at 40 ms and outer eccentricity. 3. If the participant scored below criteri on (40 ms) on the Divided Attention Subtask 2, but above 80 ms on the Selective Attention Subtask 3, training began at this level. (Participants who "graduated" from the Divided Attention traini ng above also progressed next to this training level). Participants moving here from Divide d Attention training alwa ys started at 200 ms presentation time. As with Divided Attention, participants moving direc tly to this level of training had their initial presentation time set to their score in the baseline screening UFOV score, within 40 ms in multiples of 40 ms. Th e block-by-block training procedure described above (i.e., moving to the next level when ther e were two consecutive trials of 12-out-of-16 correct, and progressing at each speed level from inner-to-outer distracter eccentricity before moving to the next speed, which was 40 ms fast er) was employed until participants achieved criterion accuracy at an 80 ms presen tation speed at the outer eccentricity. 4. If the participant was be low criterion (80 ms) on the Selective Attention Subtask 3, participants automatically progressed to the ha rdest training level, Same Different Subtask 4. (Participants who "graduated" from the Selective Attention training also progressed here, starting at a 200 ms presentation time). As with the other training tracks, the initia l level of training set presentation time set to within 40 ms of baselin e UFOV score on this task, in multiples of 40 ms. Again, the adaptive training method described for Tr acks 2 and 3 (after two consecutive trials of 12-out-of-16 correct, participants progressed from inner-to-outer distracter eccentricity before

PAGE 68

68 moving to the next speed, which was 40 ms fast er) was employed until the end of training. No participants in this study reached "ceiling" on this task before concluding training. Tetris Training In this placebo training condition, participants were asked to play the video game Tetris, with a tutor. In the game, which is a cla ssic 1980s arcade game, seven randomly rendered tetrominoes or tetrads shapes composed of four blocks each fall down the playing field (Figure 3-7). The object of the game is to manipul ate these tetrominoes with the aim of creating a horizontal line of blocks without gaps. When such a line is created, it disa ppears, and the blocks above (if any) fall. As the game progresses, the tetrominoes fall faster, and the game ends when the stack of Tetrominoes reaches the top of the playing field. Participants tutors provided them with game instructions, and demonstrated/mode l effective play. Then, the tutor acted as a coach, as participants played the game themselv es. The goal of this training was to increase participants independence, and to increase the nu mber of rows they could clear before ending the game. This game was selected because, based on the work of Gr een and Bavelier, playing of this game for up to ten hours had little or no effect on visual at tention performance in college students. Thus, this condition was co nstrued as a placebo control for the Medal of Honor group. It was thought to control fo r contact hours with study staff, out-of-house time for older adults, and any stimulating effects of interacting with video games. The remainder of this section describes th e training procedure in greater detail. In the first session, the tutors explained to th e participants how video games are used and played. However, before the participants actually started the game, they were given some paper cuts in the same shapes as the tetraminoes that they would see on the scre en (shapes composed of four blocks each). They were asked to play with them and try to fit them together (create a horizontal line without gap). Once they successfully completed the task, the tutor introduced the

PAGE 69

69 game in the screen. The trainers played the ga me for about 10 minutes for the participants to watch, in order to model game play and the requ isite skills. Next, the tutor demonstrated the controller to the par ticipants. It was the same controller us ed to play Medal of Honor. However, in this game, fewer buttons were necessary. The buttons were introduced one at a time and in the beginning the participants were to ld not to worry about creating a horizontal line, but rather that they should attempt to get comfortable with each button. In this condition, there were no step bystep instructions on a computer screen, because there is no story line in this game. Unlike MOH, the game scenario did not change over the course of the following sessions. The participants had to repeat the same task over and over again. As game play improved, the speed of tetrami no dropping changed. In the earlier stages of game play, the pieces would drop very slowly. Once the participants mastered that level of game play, which was assessed by the game, the game would automatically move them to the next level. The task in each level was exactly the same, except that the pieces would fall faster and the participants had less time to decide where th ey would place each piece. Unlike the Medal of Honor game, less active visu al scanning required in this game. (It should be noted, however, that participants needed to note th e shape of each new tetramino at the top of the screen, while simultaneously noting the optimal position for droppi ng the blocks at the bottom of the screen. Thus, even in Tetris some continuous visual s canning was required, although Tetris objects were usually presented more in the central and less peripheral fixation region). Measures Table 3-1, presents information on each measure us ed in this test. A detailed description of each of these measures follows below.

PAGE 70

70 Baseline Measures for Partic ipant Characterization MMSE MMSE is scored by calculating the tota l scores of the 7 items. The minimum possible score is 0 and the maximum possible scor e is 30. The usual cut-off point for cognitive impairment is 23/24, with lower scores indicat ing cognitive impairment (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975). Those with an MMSE score of 24 or higher were included. All participants that came for baseline assessment met this inclusion criteria. The MMSE score were required because participants might be randomized to a video game training, which i nvolved a learning process; it was thought that persons with dementia might not permit training gains, so low MMSE scores could not profit from the interventions in this study. Visual Acuity A visual acuity eye test was perf ormed using a GoodLite backlit Snellen distance-vision chart, presented at a 10-foot view ing distance. The 10-foot presentation distance was practical to accommodate in the testing office. Participants were positioned 10 feet from the chart and asked to start read ing the letters on the 20/50 line and proceed downward. If the participant got more than three correct scores th ey would move to a more difficult level but if they got fewer than three correct they were move d to an easier level. Participants had to score higher than 20/70 to remain in the tudy. All part icipants that came from baseline met this inclusion criteria. Hearing impairment The Hearing Handicap Inventor y for Adults (HHIES) (Newman, Weinstein, Jacobson & Hug, 1991) was used to ev aluate hearing performance. The HHIES is composed of 10 items, with a mixed pattern of "y es" and "no" indicating less hearing handicap. Inclusion/exclusion of participan ts was not based on this score, but it was collected as a possible covariate and to characterize the sample. In the final tabulated score, th e higher the score, the greater the severity of hearing loss.

PAGE 71

71 Geriatric Depression Scale The Geriatric Depression S cale (GDS) (Yesavage, Brink, Rose, Lum, Huang, Adey, et al., 1983) is a 30-i tem self-report assessment designed to identify depression in the elderly. Each item is constructe d to be answered yes or no, to reduce cognitive complexity of the items. The measure was designed to minimize the influence of somatic symptoms, which may not be accurate reflections of depression in older adults. One commonly used cutoff point for mild depression is 10. HVLT The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) (Shapiro, Benedict, Schretlen, & Brandt, 1999) was us ed to test individual memory and verbal learning performance. In this test individuals repeated a list of 12 words read by the in structor. The test consisted of three learning trials, a delayed/ recall trial (20-25 minutes delay) and yes/no delayed recognition trial. This later trial consiste d of a randomized list that included the 12 target words and 12 non target words, six of which are drawn from the sa me semantic category as the targets. Raw scores were derived for total recall, delayed recall, retention (% retained), and a Recognition discrimination index. No inclusion/exclusion was based on this score, but it was collected as a possible covariate and to characterize the sample. Proximal Outcome Variable A proximal outcome refers to the direct outcome being measured, and is sometimes construed as the "mechanism" by which training e ffects are carried to real world outcomes. In other words, in order for the traini ng effect be transferred to the re al world, the training must first be proven effective on the basic skill or ability that is trained. The proximal outcome in this study is visual attention, as assessed with the Useful Fi eld of View test (UFOV; Owsley, Ball, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1991; Ball, Owsley, Sl oane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993; Myers, Ball, Kalina, Roth, & Goode, 2000; Raed t., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, 2000; Edwards, Wadley, Myers,

PAGE 72

72 Roenker, Cissell, & Ball, 2002; Ball, Berch, He lmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, et al., 2002; Roenker, Cissell, Ball, Wadley, & Edward, 2003). Useful Field Of View (UFOV) test The UFOV (UFOV Users Guide) is a computeradministered test. It measures the speed at wh ich individuals can proce ss information within a 30 radius visual field under a variety of c ognitively demanding conditions. The test can be administered in about 15 minutes. The test is assessed binocularly and it involves the detection, localization, or iden tification of targets against more comp lex backgrounds. It consists of four subtests that assess the speed of processing under increasingly complex task demands (e.g., divided attention, selective attention). These we re described in detail in the UFOV training section above. Participants end up with four s ubtask scores, which can also be summed into a composite. Each subtask score ranges from 16 ms (fastest) to 500 ms (slowest), and represents the average presentation time needed for the partic ipant to perform that task with 75% accuracy. As described elsewhere in deta il, the four subtasks are: (1) Subtask 1, Speed, identif y a centrally presented object as car or truck (2) Subtask 2, Divided attention, identify a centrally presented object as car or truck, while noting the location of a pe ripherally presented object (3) Subtask 3, Selective atten tion, identify a central ly presented object as car or truck, while noting the location of a peripheral object that is presented in clutter (4) Subtask 4, Same-different, note whether two centrally presented objects are the same or different (two cars, two trucks, or a car and a truck), while simultaneously noting the location of a peripheral object that is presented in clutter Primary Outcome Measures The primary, or 'real world', outcome for this study was simulated driving performance. This primary outcome was selected because it speaks to the practical value, if any, of the visual

PAGE 73

73 attention training, and exte nds the video game training results to a real world outcome that has not yet been adequately studie d, vis--vis video games, in ol der adults. Moreover, driving performance is greatly influen ced by visual attention (Ball, Owsley, Sloane, Roenker, & Bruni, 1993). In this study, a driving simulator progra m was used to assess the primary outcome measure. It is difficult to measure visual attentio n in situ, on the road, because one cannot control the environment. A high-fidelity driving simula tor was available to the researchers, which permits controlled visual environments, millisecond timing at a high sampling rate (50 Hz), and ensures the safety of participants Of course, as a simulator, ec ological validity concerns are also present. In this task, participants used a st eering wheel and gas-brakepedal controller, which was thought to enhance the realism of the simulation. Type of simulator The simulator used in this st udy was the STISM Driving simulator developed by Systems Technology Incorporated Scenarios were presented using a Dell Optiplex GX270 CPU, 19 inch flat screen mon itor, and Logitech MOMO Force Feedback steering wheel (Figure 3-8). A range of scenes was generated by the simulator. The simulator included driving controls such as accelerator, break pedal and steering wheel. Participants sat about 18 from the monitor. Participants brake reaction distance was assessed in the driving simulator. Simulator task warm up First, the participants received instructions on how to operate the simulator. In this task, participants had to use the steering wheels, brakes and accelerator, as in a real car. They had about 5 minutes to prac tice driving the simulator before the test begun. Simulator task: Roadway obstacle det ection (dog) and responsive braking During the test, the participants were asked to behave as they would behave in a real environment e.g.,

PAGE 74

74 stopping for pedestrians, obeying the speed limit. Participants were informed that as they drove, they would encounter dogs that ha d been placed in different part s of the scenario (i.e, in the center of the roadway or at the side of the road, ei ther close to or far from the road). They were instructed that the main task while driving the s imulator was to visually scan the entire screen and try to detect the location of the target stimulus (i.e., dog). Each time a participant thought they saw the dog, the instant they saw it, they were instructed to perform a "brake reaction" task. Participants were instructed to "jam on the brak e" (i.e., not gentle braking) when they saw a dog, even if the dog was not in or near the roadwa y. This represented one major difference between the simulator and real be hind-the-wheel performance. In the s imulator, participants needed to react as fast as possible by depressing the brak e pedal when they observed the target stimulus that was embedded into the scenarios. Some of the stimuli (e.g., dogs) would be in the middle of the road, some were in the periphery. Ther e were a total of 18 dogs through the scenarios. Participants had to depress th e brake each time a dog was seen. No cars were placed behind the cars the participants were drivi ng so there was no risk of a cr ash by suddenly pressing the brakes. The scenarios would gradually increase in complexity and ar e described further below. Rationale for using the dog Studies using the simulator to measure reaction time mainly use two approaches: Using a light display located on the top panel of the drivers unit in which participants were instructed to brake as quick ly as possible when the lights were illuminated (Roenker, et. al, 2003), and by displaying figure shaped images (e.g., diamond) at the monitor screen, in which participants are supposed to engage the turn signal whenever the shapes appeared on the screen (Lee et al., 2003). Althou gh these approaches would be easier to use, it would not allow placing the stimulus in different parts of the s cenario. Moreover, in this study we tried to replicate the UFOV s ubtasks in a driving simulator.

PAGE 75

75 Different scenarios The participants started driving in an acclimation scenario (Figure 3-9). This scenario was simply a roadway without distractions (e.g., road side objects) and it was created to get participants fam iliar with the simulation projection, the steering wheels, brakes and accelerator. During this scenario, the participants were asked to depress the brakes until they were comfortable doing so. Throughout the scen arios there were speed limit signs that the participants had to obey. Part icipants were asked to contro l their speed by looking at the speedometer located in the bottom of the scree n, and depressing the accel erometer as required. Following the acclimation scenario, the participan ts drove through a rura l scenario. In this village, there was some oncoming traffic and some houses but there was not much clutter (Figure 3-10). The entire scenario had straight roads; the pa rticipants did not have to turn right or left. The task continued with partic ipants driving through a small to wn. In this town there was more clutter and distraction as can be seen in figure 3-11. Then the participants drove through a beach town (Figure 3-12) and then a metropolis, depicted in the subsequent figure (Figure 3-13). Position of the dogs through the scenes There were a total of 18 dogs located throughout the scenarios. The placement of dogs throughout the scenarios wa s constructed to approximate the 4 different UFOV subtasks (processing speed, divided atte ntion, selective attention and selective attention with a same -different judgment). In this simulator task, the dogs were positioned from 0 to 110 degree eccentricities either on the right or left side of the road. Some dogs were very easy to find because they were placed either on the center of the road or at a low eccentricity and there was not much clutter next to them. Other dogs were placed in locations that were more difficult to find because there was more clutter and distractions on the road, such as a bicyclist driving in front of the participants car.

PAGE 76

76 For didactic purposes and to better unde rstand the position of the dogs through the scenario, the different position of the dogs will be referred to by using the term blocks. Thus, the position of dogs was divided in to four blocks that represen ted the easiest (Block 1) to hardest (Block 4) locations (e.g., in the center of the screen versus far from the road). However, block numbers do not reflect the sequence at whic h dog positions of varying difficulty appeared throughout the scenario, which were more or less randomly arrayed, but merely the difficulty of the different positions of the dogs through the scenario. Block one represented the dogs that ar e located in the center of the road and are the easiest to seen (between 0 a nd 10 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog from Block 1 is presented in figure 3-14, this dog is positioned right in the center of the road and it is very easy to be seen. There were a to tal of 3 dogs in Block1. Block two represented the dogs located at a low to medium eccentricity but there was no clutter or distraction next to them (between 20 and 65 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog from the second Block is presented in figure 3-15, this dog is located in the periphery, but is close to the road and there is no t clutter next to it. There were a total of 6 dogs in this Block. Block three represented the dogs located at a higher eccentricity and with more clutter around them (between 80-110 degrees eccentricity). An example of a dog from the third Block is presented in figure 3-16, this dog is also located in the periphery, but it is not very close to the road and there is clutter around it. There were a total of 4 dogs in this Block. Block four represented dogs located at a low to high eccentricity but they are surrounded by clutter and distractions (between 25-90 degrees eccentricity). An example of the fourth Block of dog is presented in figure 3-17. This dog is at a medium eccentricity, however there is

PAGE 77

77 substantial clutter surrou nding it and distractions such as othe r cars driving next to it. There were a total of 5 dogs in this Block. Although the pictures can give a good idea of the position of the dogs on the screen, it does not give a good representation of the dynamics of the simulation run, sh owing the clutter and distractions. The position of each dog (with distance from th e center of the road) and the sequence that they appear on the screen is shown in table 3-2. Filler scenarios The entire simulation run took a bout 20 minutes to complete. Between the onset of each dog there were some f iller scenarios in which participants had to keep driving (see figures 3-18 and 3-19 for example of the filler scenarios). How data were collected In this study, data were collected in two ways: 1) by simulatorgenerated data and, 2) behavioral data. In the case of the simulator-gen erated data, although the participants would drive for a pproximately 20 minutes, the simula tor was programmed to collect data only where the dogs were located. Data starte d to be recorded at 400 feet before the dog could be seen and stop being collected as s oon as the participant pa ssed the dog. Between the onset of each dog, the participant dr ove into a filler scenario (a s described above). As soon as the participant depressed the brake pedal, this wa s recorded by the simulator as a marking point. If participant did not see the dog and continued driving, there woul d be no marking point in that block, and the block would be recorded as an inaccu rate/error trial. The si mulator generated three types of data: brake reaction distance, lane maintenance, and accuracy. (1) Brake reaction distance was measured as the distance from when the dog first appeared on the screen (whether the participant could see it or not ) to the first instant when the participant first depressed the brake. The potential scores for brake reaction distance ranged from

PAGE 78

78 1 to 400 meters, where 400 meters represented th e case where the particip ant did not see the dog. The participant would score 1 if he or she pre ssed the brakes on the fi rst moment the dog could be seen in the simulator and they would score 400 if they missed the dog. Because participants might drive at different speeds, there was inter-pa rticipant variability in the amount of time they would have between when the dog was first per ceptible on-screen and when they would be laterally positioned with the dog. Thus, using brake reaction time as a dependent variable would introduce inter-individual differen ces in response time that had not hing do with ac tual reaction time, but with the driving speed. On the ot her hand, regardless of speed, the dog always appeared at 400 feet before the person was laterally adjacent to it; thus, brake reaction distance was selected as a dependent measure because inter-p articipant differences would be solely due to the amount of distance traversed before the dog wa s noticed (i.e., how far the participant had to drive before he/she noticed the dog). We a ssumed that driving distance would be more equivalent and standard between participants, and less contaminat ed by individual differences in driving speed. (2) Lane maintenance score The roadway in which the participant drove always had a width of 12 meters; the car was six meters wide, so a perfectly centered ca r would have a lateral lane position of 6 meters (from the left side of the road). Since the sampling rate of the simulator was 50 Hz, fifty times a second, the lateral positi on of the car-in-lane was assessed. Based on other recent research with the simulator (Cook, 2007), it was determined that the standard deviation of this lateral position was a good indica tor of lane maintenance. The smaller the SD, the less "weaving" the participan t did while driving. This in dicator was assessed under the assumption that driving that was under less attentional control (e.g, because the participant was distracted by effortfully looking for the dog) woul d be characterized by more "weaving". If the

PAGE 79

79 participant became more confid ent and effective in dog dete ction due to training, it was hypothesized that there would be less "weaving" and the standard deviation should be decreased post-training. Thus, the expect ation was that lane maintenan ce might improve with visual attention improvements. (3) Accuracy score The accuracy data was related to the fact that participants depressed the brakes at that time or not. The accuracy data ranged from 0 to 18. A participant would score 0 if they could not see any dog in that trial and they would score 18 if they saw all the dogs in the trial. A composite score was calculated by comp uting a mean score of the 18 trials from each participant either for brake reaction distance or for accuracy. To give a better representation of how the simulator generated data was collecte d, figure 3-20 presents a diagram with detail description of data collection. The behavioral data was collected by the instru ctor. The instructor w ould make notes about the participants driving behavior throughout the run. There were situ ations in which bicyclists or pedestrians were close to the ro ad and the participants would br ake for the bikes or pedestrian instead of the dogs. To account for the possibility of errors (e.g., braking for pedestrians instead of dogs during the trial), the instructor collected the behavioral data. Following each run, the behavioral data was compared to the simulato r-generated data for each block of dogs for each participant. For example: if in a certain block the simulator re corded an accurate trial (meaning that they depressed the brake), but according to the behavioral notes the participants stopped for a bicycle instead of the dog in that particular trial, the data was corre cted in the system. Correlation Between UFOV and Simulator Subtests A correlation analysis was performed to expl ore: 1) the correlation among different group of dogs (center, low to medium eccentricity little clutter, high eccen tricity much clutter, and low to high eccentricity wi th much clutter and distraction) ; 2) the correlation among the UFOV

PAGE 80

80 scores (speed of processing, divi ded attention, selective attention and same different); and 3) the correlation among the four Blocks of dogs with the UFOV scores either at pre and posttest. Table 3-3 presents the correlations at pretest and Table 3-4 shows the correlations at posttest. At both occasions, there was positive manifold among all UFOV measures a nd all brake reaction distance Blocks, suggesting that in general performance was consistent across the subtasks within a measure. These correlations had a qua si-simplex pattern, meaning that adjacent subtasks/Blocks thought to be cl oser in difficulty/complexity were also more associated correlationally. At pretest, Simulator Blocks 2, 3 and 4 (all ha d dogs at the side of the roadway, and were characterized by increasing eccentricity and clutter in the higher blocks) were all associated with UFOV subtasks 3 and 4 (Selective Attention a nd Selective Attention w ith a Same-Different judgment). Thus, the more difficult (and theref ore more variable) task s from UFOV and the Simulator were associated. The results lend so me support to the idea th at simulator and UFOV measures reflect, at least somewhat, overlapping c onstructs. However, given the fairly modest associations between them, and dr awing on the logic of "indirect effects" in regression (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the correlations also imply that very large UFOV effect sizes would be needed before transfer to the simulato r outcome could be expected. At posttest, there was a narrower band of transfer, with only the Block 3 simula tor brake reaction distance related to UFOV tasks 2-4. This may be due partly to the fact that tr aining may have reduced variability in the UFOV and/or simulator outcomes (due to more partic ipants moved to ceiling-level performance), which could have attenuated correlations as well. Secondary Outcome This study has two secondary outcomes measur es: Flow and a game design questionnaire. As discussed in the introduction, a secondary outcome measure, "Flow", explored individuals

PAGE 81

81 personal experience with video game playing. This could only be ad ministered to participants in the video game groups, and was co llected during their six training sessions. This variable was included to determine ones personal experien ce with video game playing and how it would influence individuals compliance with future pr ograms using video games. This variable was operationalized by a Flow questionnaire. The Flow experience was measured using th e Flow State Scale (FSS). This scale was developed by Jackson & Marsh (1996) using the Csikszentmihalyi, (1990) concept of flow. The FSS conceptualizes Flow in nine dimensions : Challenge-skill bala nce, action-awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous fee dback, concentration on task at hand, sense of control, loss of self-consciousness, transforma tion of time and autotelic experi ence. These dimensions were described previously by Csikszentmihalyi (Csiks zentmihalyi, 1990) and they are also related to use of games and flow. Participants in th e two video game groups answered the Flow questionnaire at the end of each of the six traini ng sessions, after they had played games with a coach for about 90 minutes. Thus, each participant ha d a total of six flow scores. Scores (for each trial) could range from 30-180, higher scores means more flow experience. Game design questionnaire The model of the game de sign questionnaire was adapted from a previous study designed to investigate older adults opinion about technologies. Sample Size Power analysis was conducted with data from the ACTIVE clinical trial. A repeated measure design with 3 experimental groups (act ion video game, UFOV, and placebo control group) and, 2 occasions (pre-test and post-test) wa s used. Using the ACTIVE data, we estimated residual covariance between occas ions provided by SPSS. This an alysis suggested the effect size, Cohens f of occasion (pre/posttest) by group interaction was 0.48, which corresponds to a medium effect size. Using NCSS/PASS program to estimate required sample size using their

PAGE 82

82 effect size, it was found that gr oups of 16 or more participants should have adequate power to detect the critical interaction.

PAGE 83

83 Table 3-1. Measures used in the study. Measure Pretest During Posttest Baseline measures Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) X Snellen vision chart X Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIES) X Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) X Hopkin Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) X Proximal outcome Useful Field of View Test (UFOV) X X Primary outcomes Driving simulator (Brake reaction distance, lane maintenance, and obstacle detection accuracy) X X Secondary outcomes Flow X Game design X Note: MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; HHIES = Hearing Hand icap Inventory for Adults; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test; UFOV = Useful Field of View.

PAGE 84

84 Table 3-2. Sequence of the position of each dog on the scenario Distance Condition Left side Center Right side 0 Center of road X 65 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 65 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 95 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter X 110 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter X 80 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter X 10 Center of road X 50 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 100 High eccentricity, a lot of clutter X 0 Center of road X 20 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 40 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 40 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of clutter and distraction X 90 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of clutter and distraction X 50 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of clutter and distraction X 30 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of clutter and distraction X 20 Low to medium eccentricity, little clutter X 25 Low to high eccentricity, a lot of clutter and distraction X

PAGE 85

85 Table 3-3. Correlation between UFOV and simulator subtasks during pretest. Block_1 Block_2 Block_3 Block_4 UFOV_1UFOV_2UFOV_3 UFOV_4 Block_1 1 Block_2 0.41** 1 Blcok_3 0.27* 0.54** 1 Block_4 0.30* 0.61** 0.56**1 UFOV_1 -0.10 0.26 0.240.211 UFOV_2 -0.08 0.13 0.170.220.48**1 UFOV_3 0.21 0.33* 0.32*0.42**0.42**0.70**1 UFOV_4 0.03 0.27* 0.30*0.26*0.150.32*0.43** 1 Note: ** = p < .001; = p < .05; UFOV_1 = pr ocessing speed subtask; UFOV_2 = divided attention subtask; UFOV_3 = sele ctive attention subtask; UFOV_4 = selective attention with two central icons; Block_1 = block of dogs that are centered to the ro ad; Block_2 = block of dogs on close distance to road without much clutter; Bl ock_3 = block of dogs on far distance to road with a lot of clutter; Block_4 = block of dogs loca ted at low to high eccentricity but they are surrounded by clutter and distractions. Table 3-4. Correlation between UFOV a nd simulator subtasks during posttest. Block_1 Block_2 Block_3 Block_4 UFOV_1UFOV_2UFOV_3 UFOV_4 Block_1 1 Block_2 0.39** 1 Block_3 0.22 0.41** 1 Block_4 0.42** 0.48** 0.28*1 UFOV_1 0.13 0.25 0.220.161 UFOV_2 0.05 0.24 0.31*0.220.221 UFOV_3 -0.01 0.18 0.34*0.210.190.69**1 UFOV_4 0.24 0.17 0.38**0.160.180.41**0.51** 1 Note: ** = p < .001; = p < .05; UFOV_1 = pr ocessing speed subtask; UFOV_2 = divided attention subtask; UFOV_3 = sele ctive attention subtask; UFOV_4 = selective attention with two central icons; Block_1 = block of dogs that are centered to the ro ad; Block_2 = block of dogs on close distance to road without much clutter; Bloc k_3 = block of dogs on far distance to road with a lot of clutter; Block_4 = block of dogs loca ted at low to high eccentricity but they are surrounded by clutter and distractions.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 3-1. Diagram of study desi gn presenting: Medal of Honor (MOH) group, Useful Field of View (UFOV) group, Tetris group a nd the no contact control group. Baseline Baseline Randomization No randomization MOH group UFOV group Tetris group No contact group 6 training sessions No intervention Posttest Posttest

PAGE 87

87 Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Figure 3-2. Hypothesis 1: Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Figure 3-3. Hypothesis 2:

PAGE 88

88 Figure 3-4. Example of the controller us ed by participants to play the game Figure 3-5. Example of a PowerPoint slide with step -by-step instructions gi ven to participants.

PAGE 89

89 Figure 3-6. PowerPoint slide wi th instructions on how to use the jump button. Figure 3-7. Screen s hot of TETRIS game

PAGE 90

90 Figure 3-8. Example of a driving simulator used in the study

PAGE 91

91 Figure 3-9. Screen shot of the acclimation scenario. Figure 3-10. Example of the rural scenario.

PAGE 92

92 Figure 3-11. Example of a small town scenario Figure 3-12. Example of a beach town scenario.

PAGE 93

93 Figure 3-13. Example of a metropolis scenario Figure 3-14. Example of a dog from block 1 it is positioned in the center of the road.

PAGE 94

94 Figure 3-15. Example of a dog from block 2 it is positioned in a low eccentricity and without clutter. Figure 3-16. Example of a dog from block 3 it is placed on high eccentricity with some clutter.

PAGE 95

95 Figure 3-17. Example of a dog from block 4 it is placed on a medium eccentricity but with much clutter and distraction. Figure 3-18 Example of a rural road s cenario used as a filler scenario

PAGE 96

96 Figure 3-19. Example of a city scenario used as a filler.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 3-20. Diagram with illustration on how simulator generated data was collected. DOG DOG Brake Brake FILLER DRIVING Measurement begins here Measurement begins here End of assessment for inaccurate participant trial End of assessment for inaccurate participant trial End of trial for assessment for accurate participant trial End of trial for assessment for accurate participant trial 400fee t 400fee t

PAGE 98

98 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Overview This chapter includes five broad sections. Th e first section corres ponds to a preliminary analysis and the following sections correspond to the primary aims of this study. A preliminary analysis was conducted in order to determine whether there were differences between the training and control group at th e baseline assessments, thereby addressing the effectiveness of the study's randomization. The preliminary analysis also investigated the difference between participants who completed the training and participants who dropped out of the study. This attrition analysis addressed wh ether dropout was selective (there by potentially biasing the study findings). The second section examined whethe r older participants who received videogame training experienced gains in visu al attention performance. More sp ecifically, analyses compared four groups (Medal of Honor [MOH], Useful Fiel d of View [UFOV], Tetr is, no-contact Control) in their pretest-posttest changes in a measure of visual attention, to see whether participants in the MOH group, in particular, experienced gains comparable to traditional UFOV training, and greater than the other two groups. The third se t of analyses examined whether videogame playing might also improve performance on seve ral measures from a driving simulator (e.g., brake reaction distance, accuracy of detecting a peripheral object and lane maintenance). The fourth set of analyses examined whether ch anges in perceived enjoyment and engagement (Flow) in participants in th e three intervention groups (MOH, UFOV, and Tetris), and whether the pattern of changes varied by group. The last set of analyses used descriptive statistics and anecdotal data to explore particip ants opinion about videogame design.

PAGE 99

99 Preliminary Analysis Assessment of Baseline Differences Between Treatment Groups An analysis of variance was conducted to determine whether there were differences between the four intervention gr oups in demographic status, age, years of education, gender, race, two cognitive measures (MMSE and HVLT), depression, and two sensory measures (visual acuity and hearing). The omnibus te st revealed that there were no significant differences between the four groups, suggesting that randomizati on had distributed partic ipant characteristics similarly across the groups. Table 4-1 shows the characteristics of the sample on the variables assessed, both for the total group and by intervention subgroup. P -values shown reflect the absence of a significant overall difference between groups. Attrition Given the duration and time commitment requi red for the current study, and the fact that twelve participants withdrew, it was important to determine wh ether dropout was selective. (Selectivity of dropout would sugge st that the remaining sample on which the results were based was positively biased). To examine this, returnin g and non-returning participants were compared in baseline characteristics; spec ifically, analysis of variance was conducted to examine whether participants who dropped out of the study prior to its completion differed at pretest from the participants that completed the study (e.g., comp leted training intervention and posttest) on demographic and cognitive variables. As shown in Table 4-2, no significa nt differences emerged between completers and non-comp leters of the study protocol, suggesting that dropout did not bias the generalizability of th e study findings. Also, only three pa rticipants who dropped out (one from each intervention group MOH, UFOV, Tetris) knew to which training they were randomized because they dropped out during the tr aining. The remaining of the participants who

PAGE 100

100 dropped out (n = 9) did not know to which trai ning they were randomized because they dropped out before the first training session, when the intervention assignment were revealed. Aim 1: Effects of Videogame Traini ng on Visual Attention (UFOV) The first set of analyses examined the core four-group design that was the basis for this study. The underlying hypothesis, dr awn from Green and Bavelier ( 2003), was that exposure to a first-person shooter action video game (MOH) woul d cause improvements in a measure of visual attention (the UFOV test). We sought to expand prior work in this area, which had been done with undergraduates, by consideri ng an older adult sample. We also wanted to compare the magnitude of expected UFOV gains due to MOH by comparing the MOH intervention to the gold standard for this visual attention out come, the University of Alabama-Birminghams computer-based UFOV training program (Ball et al., 1988). Green and Ba velier had included a Tetris intervention group in their study as a plac ebo control, and we added that to this study as well. Finally, as described in the Methods chapte r, because interim analyses suggested it might be difficult to disentangle simple pretest-to-posttest pr actice effects from the actual effects of videogame playing, we added a fourth non-equiva lent no-contact Control group, which permitted us to compare the size of the MOH training effect s, if any, to the simple effects of taking the UFOV test twice. Prior to conducting these plan ned analyses, we first sought to investigate whether randomization had worked to, in fact, e quate groups at baseline. We assessed whether the four treatment groups were significantly different at pret est on either the UFOV composite score and or any of its four cons tituent subtask scores. For none of the measures were the groups significantly different ( p > .05). Throughout this text 2 is shown to indicate a partial etasquared, which is an indicator of effect size. Values closer to 1.0 indicate a stronger effect size.

PAGE 101

101 Analyses on the UFOV Composite Our initial analysis was conducted, followi ng published work (e.g., Ball et al., 2002; Willis et al., 2006) on the UFOV composite score. Thus, the dependent variable is the UFOV composite score (Speed + Divided attention + Se lective attention score + Same-Different). The design was a mixed between-within design. The within-persons indepe ndent variable was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between -persons independent variable was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The cr itical effect of inte rest was the Occasion by Group interaction, which would inform us about whether there were group differences in the pattern of pre-post change. A significant main eff ect was revealed for Occasion (pre post), F (1, 54) = 34.07, p < .001, 2 = .38, suggesting that, across all gro ups, participants tended to improve their performance. No significant main effect was found for Group, F (3, 54) = 1.4, p > .005, 2 = .07, which suggests that there were no overall group differences, averaging across preand posttest. In general, this reassu res that randomization equated groups With regard to the critical Occasion by Group interaction, there wa s a significant interaction effect F (3, 54) = 5.8, p =.002, 2 = .24. Thus, there was a significant differences in change by intervention group. The mean values and standard deviation for the depende nt measure by group are presented in table 4-3. Pre-post change in UFOV composite performanc e, and group differences in change, are illustrated in Figure 4-1. To further understand this in teraction effect (i.e., whic h groups were changing at a different rate from others), we computed UFOV ch ange scores (post pre) for each participant. These were computed by subtracting the compos ite pretest scores from the composite posttest scores. A univariate ANOVA using change in the UFOV composite score as the dependent variable (composite posttest score composite pretest score) was conducted. Treatment group membership was the independent variable (MOH UFOV, Tetris, No-contact control). Results

PAGE 102

102 revealed a significant main effect of group membership on UFOV change, F (3, 54) = 5.8, p = .002, 2 = .24. Follow-up Bonferroni post-hoc t-tests were conducted to determine which groups differed from one another signif icantly in their UFOV change from pretest to posttest. The UFOV group improved significantly mo re than the Tetris group ( p = .05) and the no-contact Control group ( p < .01), but the difference in change between MOH and UFOV training groups did not reach significance ( p = .08). Mean differences in cha nge score, by group, are shown in Table 4-4. While the mean trends in the data su ggest that participants in either videogame group improved more than the control gr oup (see Figure 4-2), this differe nce did not reach significance. We also examined this analysis on residual change scores (pretest is entered as a covariate, and posttest score is th e dependent variable; because of the tendency to have high testretest correlations between pretest and posttest this will tend to substantially increase the statistical power of analyses on change scores), but the pattern of results was similar, and is therefore not expanded upon here in order to reduce redundancies. Re-Examining Training Effects on UFOV by Each Subtask The analyses on the composite score failed to find that the MOH intervention improved UFOV scores significantly more than Tetris or the no-contact Control condition. We thus decided, as a follow up analysis, to re-examine this main analysis using each of the four UFOV subtasks as distinct dependent va riables. Previous research has suggested that many older adults are at ceiling on the UFOV Subtask 1 (Speed), and at floor on the UFOV Subtask 4 (Samedifferent), suggesting these subtas ks may not be very se nsitive to change. (Edwards et. a., 2006) Thus, we were particularly focused on UFOV Subtask 2 (Divided Attention) and Subtask 3 (Selective Attention). A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducte d with two within-persons variables and one between-person s variable. The first within-persons variable was UFOV Task (4: Speed, Divided Attention, Selective Attenti on, Same-Different). The second within-persons

PAGE 103

103 variable was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). Th e between-persons variable was again Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The m ean values and standard deviation for each UFOV subtest are shown by group and by occasion in Table 4-5. A significant main effect was revealed for Occasion (pre post), F (1, 54) = 34.0, p < .001, 2= .38 and UFOV subtask F (3, 162) = 484.9, p < .001, 2= .90 but no significant main effect was found for Group F (3, 54) = 1.4, p = .232, 2 = .07. For the two way interactions, a significant interaction effect wa s revealed for Occasion x Group, F (3, 54) = 5.8, p = .002, 2= .24 and Occasion x UFOV subtasks, F (3, 162) = 5.3, p < .002 2= .09 but no significant interaction effects were revealed for UFOV subtask x Group F (9, 162) = 1.2, p = .248, 2= .06. A significant three-way interaction was found fo r the Occasion x UFOV subtask x Group effect, F (9, 162) = 4.5, p < .001, 2= .20. The main effect of Occasion reflected a gene ral decrease in the UFOV scores over time and the main effect of UFOV subtask reflected th e finding that in the subt asks 3 and 4 there was more room for improvement. The Occasion x Group inte raction reflected the fact that, in general, the UFOV group had greater improvement at posttest. The Occasion by UFOV subtask interaction reflected the fact th at the amounts of improvement in scores at posttest was seen on particular subtasks; i.e., subtasks 3 and 4 which had more room for improvement. The significance in the three way inte raction (Group x Occasi on x UFOV subtask) revealed that the pattern of group differences in rates of pre-post change varied by UFOV subtask, again reflecting that group difference findings were most concentrated on UFOV subtasks 3 and 4. To decompose the three-way interaction, a follow-up univariate two-way mixed betweenwithin ANOVA was conducted on each of the four UFOV Subtasks (Speed, Divided Attention, Selective Attention, Same-Different). For each of these analyses, Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest)

PAGE 104

104 was the within-persons indepe ndent variable, and Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control) was the between-persons independent variable. The dependent measure for each of the four UFOV subtasks was the average time, in milliseconds (range = 16-500 ms) for participants to complete the subtask with 75% accuracy. Speed of Processing Subtask For the Speed UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which participants could judge whether they had seen a car or a truck, a significant main eff ect of Occasion was not found F (1, 54) = .27, p = .104, 2= .04, also there was no significa nt main effect of Group F (3, 54) = .75, p = .526, 2= .04. The Occasion by Group interacti on was also not significant, F (3, 54) = 1.4, p = .238, 2 = .07. There was no improvement on this task because participants were already at ceiling. The mean values and standard devi ation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-6. Figure 4-3 illustrates the change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the Speed of processing UFOV subtask. Divided Attention Subtask For the Divided Attention UFOV Subtas k, which assessed the speed with which participants could judge whether they had seen a car or a truck while also looking for the peripheral location of a second car, ther e was a significant effect of Occasion F (1, 54) = 5.9, p = .018, 2= .09 but there was no significant main effect of Group F (3, 54) = 1.7, p = .163, 2= .09. The Occasion by Group interaction was also not significant, F (3, 54) = 1.0, p = .379, 2 = .05. Thus, although there was a significant Occasion main effect (i.e., on average, all participants got better from the first to the second test), the absenc e of an interaction indi cates that there were no group differences in change on this measure. In th is test, participants were, on average, already close to ceiling. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are

PAGE 105

105 presented in table 4-7. Figure 4-4 illustrates the change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the Divided Attention UFOV subtask. Selective Attention Subtask For the Selective Attention UFOV Subtas k, which assessed the speed with which participants could judge whether they had seen a car or a truck while also looking for the peripheral location of a second car in clutter the main effect of Occasion was significant F (1, 54) = 26.49, p = <. 001, 2 = .32 but the main effect of Group was not significant F (3, 54) = .93, p = .430, 2 = .04. The Occasion by Group interaction was significant, F (3, 54) = 4.4, p = .007, 2 = .20. This interaction suggests that there were group differences in pre-post change on this measure. This effect is further explored with a change score analysis afte r the next section on the Same-Different task. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-8. Fi gure 4-5 illustrates the change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the Selective Attention UFOV subtask. Same-Different Subtask For the Same-different UFOV Subtask, which assessed the speed with which participants could decide whether two centrally presented objects were the same or different, while also looking for the peripheral location of a second car in clu tter, there was a significant main effect of Occasion F (3, 54) = 9.8, p = .003, 2 .15 but there was no significant main effect of Group F (3, 54) = 1.9, p = .132, 2 .09. The Occasion by Group interaction was again significant, F (3, 54) = 7.2, p < .001, 2 = .28. Thus, the significant interaction says that there were again group differences in pre-post change on this measure, an effect which is further explored with the change score analysis that follows. The mean va lues and standard deviation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-9. Figure 4-6 illustrates the ch ange from pretest to posttest, by group, for the Same-Different UFOV subtask.

PAGE 106

106 Change score analyses of Selective A ttention and Same-Different subtasks To further explore the significant Occasi on by Group interaction for the Selective Attention subtask and the Same -Different subtask, a follow-up analysis was conducted using change scores. Specifically, for both subtasks, ch ange scores were computed by subtracting the pretest score from the posttest scores for each subtask. Negative changes would represent improvement in performance (faster times). Additionally, Bonferroni corrected follow up t-tests were used to examine whether th ere were significant group differen ces in pre-post change scores over the two occasions. As noted above for the com posite score, we also examined this analysis on residual change scores (where pretest scor es on the dependent measure served as the covariate, and posttest was the dependent variable ) and this did not alter the pattern of findings; details are omitted here in the service of conciseness. Selective attention subtask using change scores For the selective attention subtask, a significant main effect of Group was found, F (3, 54) = 4.4, p = .007, 2 = .20. A post hoc t-test analysis using Bonferroni correction (Table 4-10) revealed that the UFOV-trained group improved significantly more (p < .05) than the control group. In addition, the Tetris group improved significantly more (p < .05) than the control group as well. The UFOV group did not improve significantly more than either the Te tris or MOH groups, and the two video game groups did not differ significantly from one another. Figure 4-7 displays the trends in the data. Same-different change scores For the Same Different s ubtask, a significant main effect of Group was also found, F (3, 54) = 7.2 p < .001, 2 = .28. A post hoc analysis using Bonferroni correction revealed that the UFOV group improved signi ficantly more (p < .05) than all other groups, and that this was the only signif icant set of comparisons in these data. Unlike the Selective Attention task, there was no evid ence that either of the video game groups

PAGE 107

107 improved more than the no-contac t control group, and they did not differ from one another. Mean trends are shown in table 4.11, and illustrated in Figure 4-8. Aim 2: Effects of Videogame Training on Driving Simulator Performance Results in this section focu sed on our three simulator-based dependent measures: (1) Brake reaction distance, (2) lane maintenance, an d (3) object detection accu racy (i.e., number of trials in which a dog was correctly detected and re sponded to). The intent of the analyses in this section was to examine whether videogame trai ning might transfer to aspects of simulated driving performance. This conformed with the ultimate goal of this study, which was to investigate whether visual attentio n training might be transferred to a real life situation. Despite the preceding analyses, which f ound little support for our experiment al hypotheses (i.e., that the Medal of Honor group would experience more visual attention gain than Tetris or no-contact Controls; instead, the only evid ence that video games affected visual attention was for the placebo control condition, Tetris, which improved more than no-contact controls on the Selective Attention subtask of th e UFOV), this planned analysis wa s nevertheless examined. The goal of this set of analyses was to i nvestigate whether there were any preliminary indications of realworld transfer, even for the traditiona l (and highly effective) UFOV training. Driving Simulator Subtask 1: Break Reaction Distance Analysis on the composite Brake Reaction Distance A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted on Brake Reaction Distance. As a reminder, a dog appeared on screen eighteen (18) times throughout the course of the driving task. The dog always appeared on screen about 400 feet before the car was laterally adjacent to it. The 400 feet before the car was laterally adjacent to the dog is referred to as a trial. The position of the dog varied from center-of-road to varying degrees of eccentricity, with right-or-left positioning counterbalanced.

PAGE 108

108 Participants were allowed to control their sp eed, in accordance with posted speed levels. Thus, Brake Reaction Time was cons idered not to be a useful indi cator of partic ipant response, since task difficulty and presenta tion rate of the dog would vary with the speed driven. Brake reaction distance was found to be le ss sensitive to individual di fferences in driving speed, and was selected as the indicator of choice. The composite score was computed as the average brake reaction distance, computed for al l 18 trials in which the dog appeared. For error trials (i.e., where the dog was not detected), a time-out dist ance (set to an arbitr ary maximum of 400 feet) was used. In the mixed between-within ANOVA, the same effects as in all precedent analysis were used. Group (4, MOH, UFOV, Tetris, and nocontact Control) was the between-persons variable, and Occasion (2, Pretest, Posttest) wa s the within-persons variable. The dependent score was the average brake re action distance over the 18 dog tr ials. There was a significant main effect of Occasion F (1, 51) = 8.5, p = .005, 2 = .14 (indicating that people improved, requiring shorter reaction distances from pre to posttest), but the main effect of Group was not significant F (3, 51) = .04, p = .989, 2 = .002. Analyses also reveal ed a non-significant Group X Occasion interaction, F (3, 51) = .85, p = .107, 2 = .04. Although there is a significant main effect for Occasion, the absence of an interact ion indicates there were no group differences on this measure. The mean values and standard deviation for the depende nt measure by group are presented in table 4-12. The relationship betw een baseline and posttest performance are illustrated in figure 4-9. Analysis on the Brake Reaction Distance by Trial Type As with the Useful Field of View, a concern was that the aggregate, com posite mean brake reaction distance across all 18 dog-trials may have obscured any effects that were spec ific to particular trial types. In particular,

PAGE 109

109 since the UFOV training had the largest effects, in the preceding section, on the more difficult UFOV subtasks (Selective Attention, Same-Di fferent), a question was whether transfer to simulator-measured Brake Reacti on distance might be greatest for dog trials in which the dog was more peripherally located and/ or in clutter. To further expl ore this question, the eighteen dog trials were grouped into four bloc ks of trials: (a) Block 1: D og was located in the center of the road, (b) Block 2: Dog was located at the side of the road, but close to the road, with minimal clutter (e.g., country road), (c) Block 3: Dog was located a subs tantial distance from the side of the road (between 80-110 degrees eccentricity) with more clutter (e.g., the dog was located between houses or trees), and (d) Block 4: Dog wa s located a certain distance from the side of the road (between 25 degrees eccentricity) but with extensive clutter and distraction (e.g., traffic, cyclists, pedestrians). Our question of in terest was whether evidence of training transfer (from UFOV or from one of the videogame trai ning conditions) might be greatest on the more difficult subgroups of simulator trials A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted, with two within-p ersons conditions and one between-person condition. The first wi thin-person condition was Block (4; centered dog; dog with minimal eccentricity; dog with substa ntial eccentricity; do g with substantial eccentricity and clutter/distract ion). The second within-person condition was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-person conditi on was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The dependent measure was the mean brake reaction distance in each of these conditions. The mean values and standard devi ation for the dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-13. Significant effects were reveal ed for Occasion (pre post), F (1, 51) = 5.7, p = .020, 2= .10; Block, F (3, 153) = 337.5, p < .001, 2= .86; and Block X Group, F (9, 153) = 3.0, p = .005,

PAGE 110

110 2= .15. No significant interaction was found for Occasion X Block, F (3, 51) = .74, p = .107, 2= .04; Occasion X Group, F (3, 153) = 2.1, p = .533, 2= .04. The three-way Occasion X Group X Block interaction wa s also not significant F (9, 153) = 1.3, p = .244, 2 = 0.7. The main effect of Occasion reflected a ge neral reduction in brake distance over time, and the main effect of Block reflected that the conditions hypothesized to have greater difficulty (e.g., Blocks 3 and 4, where the dog was at substa ntial eccentricity and in clutter) had longer brake reaction distances. The Group x Block interaction seems to reflect the fact that, especially on Blocks 1 and 2, the rank order of some gr oups varied across the Blocks of trials. The change between baseline and posttest pe rformance for block 1 (Figure 4-10); block 2 (Figure 4-11); block 3(Figure 4-12) and block 4 (Figure 413) are also presented. Driving Simulator Subtask 2: Lane Maintenance A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducte d on lane maintenance. The withinpersons independent variable was Occasion (2 : Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons independent variable was Group (4: MOH, UFOV Tetris, No-contact Control). The critical effect of interest was the Occasion by Group in teraction, which would inform us about whether there were group differences in the pattern of pre-post change. A significant main effect for Occasion was found F (1, 51) = 6.6, p = .013, 2 = .11 but no significant main effect was found for Group F (3, 51) = .22, p = .091, 2 = .11. With regard to the critical Occasion by Group interaction, there was no significant interaction F (3, 51) = .79, p = .503, 2 = .04. Thus, the groups got better at lane mainte nance at posttest, but there we re no group difference change on this measure. The mean values and standard deviation for the depende nt measure by group are presented in table 4-14. Pre-post accuracy perf ormance and group difference in change, are illustrated in figure 4-14.

PAGE 111

111 Analysis of Lane Maintenance by Trial Type As with the brake reaction distance a concern was whether the lane maintenance might di ffer for particular trial types (i.e., if training improved dog detection, and this meant that driver s could attend better to lane maintenance at posttest, would this effect be pa rticularly strong for some types of dog distracters than others?). To further explore this question, the eighteen dog trials were groupe d into four blocks of trials: (a) Block 1: Dog was located in the center of the road, (b) Block 2: Dog was located at the side of the road, but close to the ro ad, with minimal clutter (e.g., count ry road), (c) Block 3: Dog was located a substantial distance from the side of the road (between 80-110 degrees eccentricity) with more clutter (e.g., the dog was located between houses or trees), and (d) Block 4: Dog was located a certain distance from the side of th e road (between 25 degrees eccentricity) but with extensive clutter and distract ion (e.g., traffic, cyclists, pedest rians). Our question of interest was whether evidence of training transfer (f rom UFOV or from one of the video game conditions) might be greatest on the more difficult subgroup of simulator trials. A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted, w ith two-within-perso ns conditions and one between-person condition. The first within-persons condition was Block (4: centered dog; dog with minimal eccentricity; dog with substa ntial eccentricity; dog with substantial eccentricity and clutter/distr action). The second within-per son condition was Occasion (2: Pretest Posttest). The between-person conditi on was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, no-contact Control). The dependent measure was the standard deviation of lane mainte nance in each of the condition. Significant effects were reveal ed for Occasion (pre post) F (1, 51) = 6.7, p = .012, 2 = .11; Block F (3, 153) = 306.2, p < .001, 2 = .85 and Block x Group F (9, 153) = 306.2, p = .031, 2 = .14. No significant interaction was found for Occasion x Group F (3, 51) = .52, p = .667, 2 =

PAGE 112

112 .03; Occasion x Block F (3, 153) = .92, p = .363, 2 = .01. The three way Occasion x Group x Block interaction was also not significant F (9, 153) = 1.6, p = .171, 2 = .08. The mean values and standard deviation for the dependent measur e by group are presented in table 4-15. It looks like occasion signals general improvement over tim e (less variability while driving), and block reflects the fact that later blocks were more difficult, so SD is great in those blocks. The block by group effect seems to reflect that the rank order of groups varies across the four different types of dog distracter trials, but doesnt seem to be a meaningful effect or one related to the interventions. The change between baseline and posttest performance is presented in the following figures: for block 1 (figure 4-15), bloc k 2 (Figure 4-16), bloc k 3 (Figure 4-17), and block 4 (Figure 4-18). Driving Simulator Subtask 3: Dog Detection Accuracy Another question regarding th e driving simulator performa nce was whether dog detection accuracy (saw the dog or not) differed for each in tervention group (i.e., if participants could accurately detect more dogs at posttest than at pretest). Did the interv entions (especially UFOV and MOH) make participants more accura te detectors of roadside obstacles? Analysis on 18-trial Dog detection accuracy A mixed between-within ANOVA was conducted on Dog detection accuracy. The within -persons independent variable was Occasion (2: Pretest, Posttest). The between-persons in dependent variable was Group (4: MOH, UFOV, Tetris, No-contact Control). The critical effect of interest was the O ccasion by Group interaction, which would inform us about whether there were group differences in the pattern of pre-post change. A significant main effect for Occasion was found F (1, 51) = 4.6, p = .037, 2 = .08 but no significant main effect was found for Group F (3, 51) = .22, p = .876, 2 = .013. With regard to the critical Occasion by Group interaction, th ere was no significant interaction F (3, 51) = .135, p = .939, 2 = .008. Thus, there was an overall increase in accuracy at the posttest but the

PAGE 113

113 increase did not differ by intervention group, sugges ting that it was a gene ralized practice effect. The mean values and standard deviation for th e dependent measure by group are presented in table 4-16. Pre-post accuracy performance and gr oup difference in change, are illustrated in figure 4-19. We did not conduct an analysis by block t ype for this dependent variable, because numbers of trials in each block was very lo w, thus not providing enough variability in the dependent variable for the statistical analysis. Aim 3: Changes in Engagement/Flo w over the Course of Training This set of analyses was confined to the thre e groups of participants who were involved in interventions (MOH, UFOV, Tetris), and constitutes the original fully randomized sample. The question to be asked here was whether th ere were differences in participants task engagement by intervention group, and whether this changed over the course of tr aining. One rationale for using video games to train elders visual attention has been the assumption that games are more interesting and engaging. Thus, Flow scores we re assessed from all intervention groups after each of their six intervention sessions. Th e resulting mixed between-within ANOVA included one within-persons factor, Occasion (6, Trai ning Sessions 1 6), and one between-persons factor, Group (3, MOH, UFOV, Tetris). The de pendent measure was the Flow score obtained at the end of each of the six intervention sessi ons. Flow scores coul d range from 30-180, where higher scores represented more (positive enga gement) flow experience. Results revealed a significant Occasion X Group interaction, F (10, 185) = 2.0, p < .05, 2= .10. Table 4-17 shows the mean and standard deviation for each traini ng group at each session. Figure 4-20 illustrates the six training session Flow experience trend in the data, by intervention group. A post hoc t-test analysis using Bonferroni correction was conducted. However, given the number of comparisons (45), the resulting corrected p-value (.05/45) was so low as to not shed

PAGE 114

114 any light on the reason for the si gnificant interaction. Thus, a Least Squares Difference post-hoc analysis was conducted to provide a preliminar y, exploratory insight into the interaction, acknowledging that family-wise erro r was probably inflated in thes e comparisons. Here, the six training sessions were compared to one another, separately by training group (Tables 4-18; 4-19 and 4-20). The LSD results reveal ed different temporal trends fo r the three intervention groups. For the MOH group, there was a significant increase in Flow after the first sessions (Sessions 2 and 3 were significantly greater th an Session 1) and this persiste d through the end (Session 5 was also significantly higher than Sessi on 1). This suggests that part icipants experienced more Flow right after beginning the training sequence, and maintained th ese gains over time. A congruent pattern was found for the Tetris gr oup. Although the visual pattern of Flow improvement for this group was one of monotonic linear increase ove r the six sessions, concretely Session 6 was significantly higher than Sessions 1 and 2. Thus, as with MOH, participants ended the training with much higher self-rated Flow experience than they began with. A very different pattern was observed for the UFOV training condition. Here, the pattern was more congruent with little change over the six sessions, with the excepti on of one outlier session, Session 4. Session 4 was significantly lower in Flow than Sessions 1 a nd 5. Overall, then, the results suggested that the two videogame conditions experienced growth s in Flow over time, a phenomenon which was not observed in the UFOV training. Aim 4: Qualitative Participant Interviews Regarding Game Design A final consumer-oriented aim of this study was qualitative in nature, in that we wanted participants to relate their phenomenologica l experience with video games, and what recommendations they would make for change. These final analyses examined only the subset of participants who were in one of the two video game conditions (MOH, Tetris). A total of 27 participants, thirteen from the MOH group and fourteen from the Tetris group answered a

PAGE 115

115 qualitative questionnaire. This ques tionnaire was given to the particip ants as part of their posttest battery. Descriptive analysis was used to ex amine this aim, and was supplemented with anecdotal data from participants. The questionnaire was designed to measure part icipants interest in videogame ownership, issues that had prevented them from using videogam es in the past, and possible barriers to use of videogames in the future. A checklist was provided for each of these questions, and participants could choose multiple answers (Table 4-21). The questionnaire also asked for participants opinions about the design of the game they play ed, and how they perceived video game playing might have affected them. This part of the questionnaire was open-ende d, and participants answers were grouped into post-hoc categories via the investigators thematic analysis (Table 422). For the current purposes, only a single rater wa s used to code the themes in participants open-ended results; thus, future congruence am ong multiple coders will need to be assessed. With regard to the quantitative elements of the questionnaire, almost half of the participants (40.7%) said they were interested in owning a video game. The most cited reason for not owning a video game in the past was l ack of interest (44.0%) and cost (33.3%). Correspondingly, when asked What do you foresee preventing you from using a video game in the future? cost was the most cited reason (40.7 %), follo wed by lack of interest (37.0%) and lack of knowledge of the game (14.8%). Table 4-22 displays a summary of responses to our questions about videogame design, and about perceived benefits attri butable to videogames. Not ever y participant answered these questions, so the number of participants who re sponded to each part of the questionnaire is indicated in the table. Participants reported few problems with the screen/screen size (which was a 19 CRT television), and while most of the part icipants reported that the contro ller was good, a

PAGE 116

116 small sample said that the c ontroller should be made easier to use (25.9%). When asked How would you change these features?, most participants reported th ey would change nothing about the screen (55.5%) or th e controller (55.0%). With regard to perceived benefits, the most common perceived benefit reported was that of mental exercise (33.3%), but an almost equal pe rcentage (25.0%) felt that gaming could not help them in any way. Anecdotal data from participants who played the video games was also collected during the posttest battery. In general, it seems participants enjoyed the study/gaming experience. I enjoyed the training and looked forward to next class each time This has been a very enjoyable experience. I enjoyed the whole experience whether or not it stimulated my mind (I hope it did) I enjoyed the computer game. This makes a good competitive game playing with others. Thanks for introducing me to a game that I have never played before. The game playing was fun at times fr ustrating when I did not perform well. One pre-experimental concern (that violence, especially in the MOH game, might be offputting to some) was affirmed by some respondents. Specifically, a subset of female participants in the action-game Medal of Honor group did expr ess some concerns about the violence of the game I enjoyed learning the game, as I was curiou s how the games are played. I could probably become addicted to them, but I do not intend to buy one. I get no satisfaction out of killing people I was bothered by the violen t contentI found the instructor s very patient and helpful. I enjoyed the experience.

PAGE 117

117 The training manual and the step-by-step instru ctions guide developed to be used in this study seems to be generally adequate for the participants. Overall the training was understandable with go als that were easily id entifiable and fun. Found the whole experience very interesti ng. Game was interesting and adequate The training was well conducted, challenging and the level of difficulty was adequate. I enjoyed the challenge of the game very much. I am continuing to play it on line at home Training was a fun experience. Testing my skills against the program. Feeling good about my success Some participants commented about how the vi deo game training stimulated their brain. It stimulated my brain I think the training did help stimulate my hand-eye coordination. It also helped my anticipation in looking ahead to prepare for the next action In general, anecdotal data from participants suggests that video game playing can be an enjoyable experience for th e participants, although the violence in the game is not appealing for some, especially female participants. The de velopment of a manual guide with detailed instructions on game playing seems important in training older adults to play these games. Summary Overall, the results suggest that only UFOV training improved visual attention significantly more than the other video game trai ning. However, although not significant, the two video game conditions experienced more visual attention gain th an the no contact control group, a difference which reached significance for the Te tris group on the Selective Attention UFOV subtask. The results also suggest that the visual attention ga ins were not transferred to a simulator driving performance. In addition, when examining participant s engagement with the

PAGE 118

118 training ("Flow"), Flow improved over time for th e two video game conditi ons, but decreased for UFOV training group. Finally, when querying participants' opinions about the video games they had played (in the Tetris and Medal of Honor conditions only), results suggested that video games have high acceptability for this populatio n, and are perceived as potential "mental exercise" tools by ol der respondents.

PAGE 119

119 Table 4-1. Sample characteristics both for the total group and by intervention subgroup. Total Sample (N = 58) MOH group (N = 14) UFOV group (N = 16) Tetris group (N = 15) Non Contact (N = 13) pvalues Age .81 M 74.7 74.8 73.7 75.8 73.7 (SD) (6.4) (6.3) (6.2) (8.5) (5.3) Education .72 M 16.0 15.8 15.6 16.5 16.3 (SD) (2.4) (2.5) (2.6) (2.6) (1.7) Sex .33 Male N 28 9 5 7 7 (%) (48.3) (64.3) (31.2) (46.6) (53.8) Female N 30 5 11 8 6 (%) (51.7) (35.7) (68.8) (53.4) (46.2) MMSE .42 M 29.8 29.2 29.2 29.4 29.0 (SD) (5.2) (.97) (1.5) (.91) (1.2) HVLT Delayed recall .14 M 9.7 9.0 10.5 10.3 8.7 (SD) (2.4) (2.7) (1.7) (1.3) (3.4) GDS .16 M 4.1 5.5 3.0 5.2 2.8 (SD) (4.1) (4.9) (2.6) (5.3) (2.4) Hearing .14 M 3.7 5.7 2.0 4.3 3.1 (SD) (4.5) (5.5) (2.6) (5.3) (3.8) Vision .26 M 85.2 87.2 86.8 86.3 79.6 (SD) (11.5) (5.9) (3.9) (5.1) (22.3) Snellen equivalent 20/18 20/17 20/17 20/17 20/20 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learni ng Test-Revised; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale.

PAGE 120

120 Table 4-2. Sample characteristics for complete rs and non-completers of the study protocol. Total Sample (N = 70) Completed (N = 58) Drop out (N = 12) p -value Age .69 M 74.6 74.5 75.3 (SD) (6.3) (6.6) (4.8) Education .70 M 16.0 15.9 16.3 SD (2.3) (2.4) (1.9) Sex .68 Male N 33 28 5 (%) (47.1) (48.3) (41.7) Female N 37 30 7 (%) (52.9) (51.7) (58.3) MMSE .24 M 29.1 29.2 28.7 (SD) (1.2) (1.2) (1.6) HVLT Delayed recall .43 M 9.6 9.7 9.0 (SD) (2.4) (2.4) (2.2) GDS .21 M 4.4 4.1 6.0 (SD) (4.3) (4.1) (5.2) Hearing .39 M 3.5 3.7 2.4 (SD) (4.6) (4.5) (5.1) Vision .57 M 86.7 86.6 87.5 (SD) (5.0) (5.1) (4.7) Snellen equivalent 20/17 20/17 20/17 Training group and attrition group* .49 MOH N 14 5 (%) (31.1) (45.5) Tetris N 15 4 (%) (33.3) (36.6) UFOV N 16 2 (%) (35.5) (18.2) Note: = 1 participants dropped out before randomization; MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; HVLT = Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale.

PAGE 121

121 Table 4-3. UFOV composite scores before and after testing by group (mean SD) Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV Composite M 704.48 582.59 693.00589.43685.31440.06778.80681.13 654.69636.92 SD 232.70 246.08 254.83209.6794.29 171.25272.76219.00 280.56323.91 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor, UF OV = Useful Field of View Table 4-4. Post hoc analysis of UFOV composite scores by groups. Intervention group Intervention group Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value MOH UFOV 141.6855.252.5 28 0.08 Tetris -5.9056.10-0.1 27 1 Control -85.8058.15-1.4 25 0.88 UFOV MOH -141.6855.25-2.5 28 0.08 Tetris -147.5854.26-2.7 29 0.05 Control -227.4856.37 4.0 27 <0.01 Tetris MOH 5.9056.100.1 27 1 UFOV 147.5854.262.7 29 0.05 Control -79.9057.21-1.4 26 1 Control MOH 85.8058.151.4 25 0.88 UFOV 227.4856.374.0 27 <0.01 Tetris 79.9057.211.4 26 1 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View

PAGE 122

122 Table 4-5. Mean standardized scores and st andard deviations on four UFOV subtasks by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV speed M 21.86 17.93 18.29 19.43 19.88 16.94 20.13 18.53 30.15 16.85 SD 19.33 3.26 3.27 4.22 5.48 2.11 8.92 3.62 39.17 2.15 UFOV divided M 70.74 48.83 85.36 43.43 41.69 24.56 95.73 66.67 61.92 63.92 SD 76.72 60.67 86.24 37.96 20.52 11.55 100.61 70.68 72.98 92.01 UFOV selected M 225.53 171.34 225.64 172.64 209.00 118.63 256.93 185.33 209.54 218.69 SD 105.82 116.52 114.76 108.39 54.44 72.71 131.91 119.85 114.22 148.38 UFOV Same different M 386.34 344.48 363.71 353.93 414.75 279.94 406.00 410.60 353.08 337.46 S 89.14 108.82 93.20 95.34 62.39 107.03 90.63 83.82 102.60 112.73 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor, UF OV = Useful Field of View Table 4-6. Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviations for processing speed subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV speed M 21.86 17.93 18.29 19.43 19.88 16.94 20.13 18.53 30.15 16.85 SD 19.33 3.26 3.27 4.22 5.48 2.11 8.92 3.62 39.17 2.15 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor, UFOV = Useful Field of View.

PAGE 123

123 Table 4-7. Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviations for divided attention subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV divided M 70.74 48.83 85.36 43.43 41.69 24.56 95.73 66.67 61.92 63.92 SD 76.72 60.67 86.24 37.96 20.52 11.55 100.6170.68 72.98 92.01 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View. Table 4-8. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for selec tive attention subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV selected M 225.53 171.34 225.64172.64209.00118.63256.93185.33 209.54218.69 SD 105.82 116.52 114.76108.3954.44 72.71 131.91119.85 114.22148.38 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View. Table 4-9. Mean standardized scor es and standard deviations for the same different trial subtask by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post UFOV Same different M 386.34 344.48 363.71353.93414.75279.94406.00410.60 353.08337.46 S 89.14 108.82 93.20 95.34 62.39 107.0390.63 83.82 102.60112.73 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.

PAGE 124

124 Table 4-10. Post hoc analysis for se lective attention subtask by group. Intervention group Intervention group Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value MOH UFOV 37.3827.781.3281 Tetris 18.6028.210.6271 Control -62.1529.24-2.1250.23 UFOV MOH -37.3827.78-1.3281 Tetris -18.7827.28-0.6291 Control -99.5328.34-3.5270.01 Tetris MOH -18.6028.21-0.6271 UFOV 18.7827.28-0.6291 Control -80.7528.76-2.8260.04 Control MOH 62.1529.242.1250.23 UFOV 99.5328.343.5270.01 Tetris 80.7528.762.8260.04 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View. Table 4-11. Post hoc analysis for sa me different trial scores by group. Intervention group Intervention group Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value MOH UFOV 125.0334.523.628<0.01 Tetris -14.3935.05-0.4271 Control 5.8336.330.1251 UFOV MOH -125.0334.52-3.628<0.01 Tetris -139.4133.90-4.129<0.01 Control -119.2035.223.327<0.01 Tetris MOH 14.3935.050.4271 UFOV 139.4133.904.129<0.01 Control 20.2235.740.5261 Control MOH -5.8336.33-0.1251 UFOV 119.2035.223.327<0.01 Tetris -20.2235.74-0.5261 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.

PAGE 125

125 Table 4-12. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations for the overall driving simulator score by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post Simulator Composite M 243.24 230.57 244.19226.93248.32227.68237.57231.99 242.59236.27 SD 43.25 38.22 45.42 27.14 44.37 42.94 49.33 39.52 35.41 43.23 Table 4-13. Mean standardized scores and sta ndard deviations on four Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post Block1 M 165.66 158.92 172.20173.30176.21161.00170.85144.63 138.55159.63 SD 50.36 53.27 49.43 54.53 40.83 52.72 57.66 53.35 49.55 55.10 Block2 M 190.13 165.14 210.50175.43198.26156.38167.01170.20 187.84160.21 SD 63.21 53.72 67.09 48.13 67.40 61.96 66.70 49.65 44.41 56.47 Block3 M 248.21 245.90 225.85212.92244.21231.62256.46262.31 265.61277.41 SD 68.57 71.78 59.32 66.23 72.43 72.93 76.47 70.56 63.06 66.19 Block4 M 349.53 339.80 342.49332.13354.94350.11347.16334.30 352.32340.62 S 35.36 32.71 38.11 30.05 30.09 24.29 39.39 40.11 36.94 35.18 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View Table 4-14. Mean values and sta ndard deviation for lane mainte nance by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post Lane maintenance M .679 .616 .624 .513 .738 .698 .626 .610 .720 .616 S .188 .192 .173 .136 .164 .203 .181 .190 .227 .196 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View

PAGE 126

126 Table 4-15. Mean standardized scores and standa rd deviations on lane maintenance on four Simulator block by intervention groups for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post Block1 M 0.28 0.25 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.27 SD 0.16 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.23 Block2 M 0.31 0.26 0.37 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.24 SD 0.15 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.16 Block3 M 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.42 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.28 0.38 SD 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.12 0.32 0.20 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.28 Block4 M 1.60 1.48 1.35 1.11 1.72 1.80 1.46 1.46 1.86 1.46 S 0.64 0.60 0.56 0.34 0.61 0.68 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.67 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View Table 4-16. Mean standardized scores and sta ndard deviation on accura cy by intervention group for pre and posttest. Total MOH UFOV Tetris No-contact Measure pre post pre post pre post pre post pre post Accuracy score M 11.7 12.2 12.0 12.6 11.6 12.3 11.7 12.2 11.5 11.8 SD 2.4 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.3 1.8 Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View.

PAGE 127

127 Table 4-17. Mean standardized scores and standard deviations of Flow scores for the 6 training sessions, by intervention group. Total MOH UFOV Tetris Training Session 1 M 115.78 106.5 123.5116.0 SD 18.96 23.43 11.1318.62 Training Session 2 M 118.68 118.0 120.57117.36 SD 20.93 23.97 17.622.63 Training Session 3 M 117.35 115.58 119.36116.86 SD 22.06 25.0 12.6227.66 Training Session 4 M 115.18 113.5 110.14121.64 SD 26.23 24.51 29.9224.19 Training Session 5 M 120.68 118.25 119.5123.93 SD 24.11 26.95 17.2928.49 Training Session 6 M 120.43 117.08 115.57128.14 SD 27.67 28.28 23.9930.73 Note: UFOV = MOH = Medal of Honor; UFOV = Useful Field of View

PAGE 128

128 Table 4-18. Post hoc analysis for fl ow engagement for Medal of Honor Occasion Occasion Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value 1 2 -11.504.7312120.02 3 -9.084.1812120.04 4 -7.006.2012120.27 5 -11.755.2912120.03 6 -10.585.4212120.06 2 1 11.504.7312120.02 3 2.423.9412120.54 4 4.506.5412120.50 5 -0.253.9712120.95 6 0.925.4912120.87 3 1 9.084.1812120.04 2 -2.423.9412120.54 4 2.085.6812120.72 5 -2.674.1212120.52 6 -1.504.9412120.76 4 1 7.006.2012120.27 2 -4.506.5412120.50 3 -2.085.6812120.72 5 -4.755.0712120.35 6 -3.586.0712120.56 5 1 11.755.2912120.03 2 0.253.9712120.95 3 2.674.1212120.52 4 4.755.0712120.35 6 1.173.8812120.77 6 1 10.585.4212120.06 2 -0.925.4912120.87 3 1.504.9412120.76 4 3.586.0712120.56 5 -1.173.8812120.77

PAGE 129

129 Table 4-19. Post hoc analysis fo r flow engagement for UFOV Occasion Occasion Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value 1 2 2.934.3815150.51 3 4.143.8715150.29 4 13.365.7415150.03 5 4.004.9015150.42 6 7.935.0115150.12 2 1 -2.934.3815150.51 3 1.213.6515150.74 4 10.436.0515150.09 5 1.073.6715150.77 6 5.005.0815150.33 3 1 -4.143.8715150.29 2 -1.213.6515150.74 4 9.215.2615150.09 5 -0.143.8115150.97 6 3.794.5715150.41 4 1 -13.365.7415150.03 2 -10.436.0515150.09 3 -9.215.2615150.09 5 -9.364.6915150.05 6 -5.435.6215150.34 5 1 -4.004.9015150.42 2 -1.073.6715150.77 3 0.143.8115150.97 4 9.364.6915150.05 6 3.933.5915150.28 6 1 -7.935.0115150.12 2 -5.005.0815150.33 3 -3.794.5715150.41 4 5.435.6215150.34 5 -3.933.5915150.28

PAGE 130

130 Table 4-20. Post hoc analysis fo r flow engagement for Tetris Occasion Occasion Mean Difference Std. Error t df p value 1 2 -1.364.3814140.76 3 -0.863.8714140.83 4 -5.645.7414140.33 5 -7.934.9014140.11 6 -12.145.0114140.02 2 1 1.364.3814140.76 3 0.503.6514140.89 4 -4.296.0514140.48 5 -6.573.6714140.08 6 -10.795.0814140.04 3 1 0.863.8714140.83 2 -0.503.6514140.89 4 -4.795.2614140.37 5 -7.073.8114140.07 6 -11.294.5714140.02 4 1 5.645.7414140.33 2 4.296.0514140.48 3 4.795.2614140.37 5 -2.294.6914140.63 6 -6.505.6214140.25 5 1 7.934.9014140.11 2 6.573.6714140.08 3 7.073.8114140.07 4 2.294.6914140.63 6 -4.213.5914140.25 6 1 12.145.0114140.02 2 10.795.0814140.04 3 11.294.5714140.02 4 6.505.6214140.25 5 4.213.5914140.25

PAGE 131

131 Table 4-21. Video game ownership and usage Are you interested in owning a video game? N (% ) Yes 11 (40.7) No 16 (59.3) What had prevented you in the past from owning a video game? N ( % ) Lack of interest 12 (44.0) Cost 9 (33.3) Knowledge of the game 8 (29.6) Lack of perceived need 6 (22.2) Lack of time 4 (14.8) Training not available 3 (11.1) Too hard to learn 3 (11.1) Others 2 (7.4) What do you foresee preventing you from using a video game in the future? N ( % ) Cost 11 (40.7) Lack of interest 10 (37.0) Knowledge of the game 4 (14.8) Lack of perceived need 6 (22.2) Lack of time 3 (11.1) Training not available 3 (11.1) Too hard to learn 3 (11.1) Others 2 (7.4) Note: Participants could choose more than one answer.

PAGE 132

132 Table 4-22. Video game features What do you think about these features? N (%) Screen (n=26) Good 26 (100) Controller Good 17 (62.9) Make it easier to use 7 (25.9) Other 3 (11.1) How would you change these features? N (%) Screening (n = 17) Nothing 15 (55.5) Others 2 (7.4) Controller (n = 20) Nothing 11 (55.0) Make it easier 7 (35.0) Others 2 (7.4) How do you think the video game can help you? (n=20) N ( % ) Mental exercise 9 (33.3) I do not think it can help 5 (25.0) Eye hand coordination 4 (20.0) Others 2 (10.0)

PAGE 133

133 2 1 TIME 800 700 600 500 400 Figure 4-1. Pre-post change in UFOV composite performance, by training group Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View. UFOV Com p osite Scores Pretest Posttest Tetris Control MOH UFOV

PAGE 134

134 Control Tetris UFOV Medal of Honor Intervention group 0.00 -50.00 -100.00 -150.00 -200.00 -250.00 Change scores UFOV COMPOSITE SCORE Figure 4-2. Mean UFOV composite pretestposttest change scores, by training group Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View Chan g e Scores

PAGE 135

135 2 1 TIME 30 25 20 UFOV scores Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention group UFOV SPEED OF PROCESSING Figure 4-3. Change from pretes t to posttest, by group, for the Sp eed of processing UFOV subtask Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor UFOV S p eed of Processin g score Pretest Posttest MOH Tetris Control UFOV

PAGE 136

136 2 1 TIME 100 80 60 40 20 UFOV scores Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention group UFOV DIVIDED ATTENTION Figure 4-4. Change from pretes t to posttest, by group, for the Di vided Attention UFOV subtask. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor UFOV Divided Attention score Pretest Posttest Tetris Control MOH UFOV

PAGE 137

137 2 1 TIME 250 200 150 100 UFOV score Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention group UFOV SELECTIVE ATTENTION Figure 4-5. Change from pretes t to posttest, by group, for the Se lective Attention UFOV subtask. Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View. UFOV Selective Attention score Pretest Posttest Control Tetris MOH UFOV

PAGE 138

138 2 1 TIME 420 390 360 330 300 270 UFOV scores Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention group UFOV MATCH TRIAL Figure 4-6. Change from pretes t to posttest, by group, for the Sa me Different UFOV subtask. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor UFOV Same Different score Pretest Posttest Tetris MOH Control UFOV

PAGE 139

139 Control Tetris UFOV Medal of Honor Intervention group 20.00 0.00 -20.00 -40.00 -60.00 -80.00 -100.00 UFOV change scores UFOV SELECTIVE ATTENTION Figure 4-7. Pretest-posttest improvement on the UF OV Selective attention subtask, by treatment group Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View UFOV Chan g e Scores

PAGE 140

140 Control Tetris UFOV Medal of Honor TIME 0.00 -50.00 -100.00 UFOV Change scores UFOV MATCH TRIAL Figure 4-8. Pretest-posttest improvement on the UFOV Same-Different subtask, by treatment group Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View Intervention Group UFOV Change Scores

PAGE 141

141 2 1 TIME 250.00 245.00 240.00 235.00 230.00 225.00 Distance Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorGroup SIMULATOR COMPOSITE SCORE Figure 4-9. Change from pretes t to posttest, by group, for the av erage Brake Reaction Distance (18-trial average). Distance between the ons et of an on-screen dog and the depression of the brake pedal was recorded, in meters. Note: MOH = Medal of Honor; UF OV = Useful Field of View. Simulator Com p osite score Control Tetris UFOV MOH Pretest Posttest

PAGE 142

142 2 1 TIME 360.00 330.00 300.00 270.00 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 Distance Figure 4-10. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 1. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Distance Pretest Posttest MOH UFOV Control Tetris

PAGE 143

143 2 1 TIME 360.00 330.00 300.00 270.00 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 Distance Figure 4-11. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 2. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Pretest Posttest MOH Tetris Control UFOV Distance

PAGE 144

144 2 1 TIME 360.00 330.00 300.00 270.00 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 Distance Figure 4-12. Change between baseline and posttest performance for block 3. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Pretest Posttest Distance Control Tetris UFOV MOH

PAGE 145

145 2 1 TIME 360.00 330.00 300.00 270.00 240.00 210.00 180.00 150.00 120.00 Distance Figure 4-13. Change between baseline a nd posttest performance for block 4. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Distance UFOV Control Tetris MOH Pretest Posttest

PAGE 146

146 2 1 TIME 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 Estimated Marginal Means Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorGroup Figure 4-14. Change between baseline and pos ttest performance for lane maintenance. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Lane Maintenance UFOV Control Tetris MOH Pretest Posttest

PAGE 147

147 2 1 TIME 1.80 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 LANE DEVIATION Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention Figure 4-15. Change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane maintenance for block1. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Lane Maintenance MOH UFOV Tetris Control Pretest Posttest

PAGE 148

148 2 1 TIME 1.80 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 LANE DEVIATION Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention Figure 4-16. Change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane maintenance for block2. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor MOH Tetris UFOV Control Lane Maintenance Pretest Posttest

PAGE 149

149 2 1 TIME 1.80 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 LANE DEVIATION Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention Figure 4-17. Change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane maintenance for block3. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Lane Maintenance Control Tetris UFOV MOH Pretest Posttest

PAGE 150

150 2 1 TIME 1.80 1.50 1.20 0.90 0.60 0.30 LANE DEVIATION Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention Figure 4-18. Change from pret est to posttest, by group, for the standard deviation of lane maintenance for block4. Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Lane Maintenance UFOV Control Tetris MOH Pretest Posttest

PAGE 151

151 2 1 TIME 12.75 12.5 12.25 12 11.75 11.5 Estimated Marginal Means Control Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorGroup Figure 4-19. Change from pret est to posttest, by group for the accuracy (18-trial average). Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor Accurac y Pretest Posttest MOH UFOV Tetris Control

PAGE 152

152 6 5 4 3 2 1 Training sessions 130 125 120 115 110 105 Scores Tetris UFOV Medal of HonorIntervention group FLOW Figure 4-20. Six training sessi on. Flow experience trend in the data, by intervention group Note: UFOV = Useful Field of View; MOH = Medal of Honor SCORE Training Session Tetris MOH Control

PAGE 153

153 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Overview This final chapter is organized into four major sections. The chapter first provides a narrative review of the major fi ndings of this study, followed by attempts to interpret these findings. First, the major results of each study s specific aim will be re viewed. Second, a brief consideration of the limitation of the study will be considered. Finally, directions for future research on cognitive training with video games among older adults will be suggested. Summary of Major Findings Aim 1: Training Effects on Useful Field of View The first aim of this study was to investig ate whether UFOV performance can be improved by providing training in firs t person action video games (Medal of Honor (MOH)) and comparing this training to: (a) goldstandard touch screen based UFOV training, b) alternative video game (Tetris) construe d as a placebo control and c) no-contact pre post only group. It was hypothesized that the UFOV traini ng group would experience the most improvement in UFOV test scores; moreover, the MOH videogame grou p was expected to experience more gain in UFOV performance than the Tetris group and the no-contact control group (based on the work of Green and Bavelier, 2003). Results provided partial support for these hypotheses. First, the UFOV composite score (the sum of four UFOV subtasks) was examined as a dependent variable. Overall resu lts revealed significant improve ment only for the UFOV training group, which experienced significantly more prepost gain than the two control conditions (Tetris, no-contact). Subsequent analysis was conducted examining the four UFOV subtasks separately as dependent measures. While there was no signifi cant difference between groups for the easier

PAGE 154

154 Speed of processing and Divided attention subtas ks, there was a significant group difference in pre-post change for the Selective attention and Same -different subtasks. In the Selective attention subtask, results revealed that both the UFOV and the Tetris training groups improved significantly more than the no-c ontact controls. Improvement in the two videogame training conditions was not significantly different between groups, and did not differ significantly from that seen in the UFOV group. For the Same -Different subtask, the UFOV group improved significantly more than all other groups, but no other group differences (e.g., in favor of videogame training) were observe d. Our next section below consid ers several reasons for this pattern of findings. Aim 2: Driving Simulator Outcomes The second aim of this study was to investigat e whether video game training might transfer to simulated driving performance. Given previo us research suggesting that UFOV training also yielded improved driving simulator performan ce (Roenker et al., 2003), it was hypothesized that the UFOV-trained participants might show more simulator improvement than all other groups. In addition, if visual attenti on had been boosted by MOH trai ning, it was hypothesized that the MOH group might also show more improvement on driving simulator outcomes than the two control groups (i.e., Tetris, no-co ntact). The results did not suppor t this set of hypotheses. None of the groups, including the UFOV-trained group improved their scores disproportionately on any of the three simulator outcomes. Ther e was, however, a gene ral practice-related improvement on the simulator for all three group s. However, at least one simulator outcome (brake reaction distance) was si gnificantly correlated with UFOV performance, suggesting that there was a correlational basis for expecti ng transfer from improved UFOV scores.

PAGE 155

155 Aim 3: Changes in Flow Experien ce Through the Course of Training The third aim of this study was to investigate participants engagement with their training activities, and to assess whethe r there were any group differences in the pattern of change in Flow over the six training session. The analyses revealed an inte resting dissocia tion in pattern between the two video game groups and the UFOV trained group. Although the exact pattern differed slightly between the tw o video game groups, in both MOH and Tetris participants ended up with significantly higher Flow ratings than th ey began the training wit h. This suggested that there was growing enjoyment of and engagement w ith the games over the course of training. In contrast, the overall trend in Flow for the more mechanistic UFOV training was flat. There was one outlier session (Session 4), which was significantly lower than all other sessions, but this did not seem to indicate an overall downward trend in Flow. Instead, it appeared that the two game group experienced improvements in Flow (sudden and lasting for MOH, gradually incremental for Tetris), but this was not true for the UFOV group. Aim 4: Participants' Opin ions About Game Design The last aim of this study was to explore participants op inion about game design. This was a consumer-oriented aim, with the goal of sh aping future game design so that it might be more responsive to the needs of the older adult population. Contrary to the stereotype that older adults are unwilling to explore new activities or take advantages of later technologies, the current study showed that th is might not be the case. None of the participants from this study had previous contact with video games. This was a completely new technology for them. Recruitment of participan ts was not a major challenge for this study. The results showed that almost half the pa rticipants, all video game novices, would be willing to acquire a video game system. In fact, past research gives support to the receptivity of new technologies among older adults. Previous res earch has supported the id ea that receptivity of

PAGE 156

156 new technologies is directly infl uenced by ones level of concer n for problems that could be alleviated through the use of technology (Zimmer & Chappel, 1999). Relevant to this study, a substantial group of participants did perceive pos sible benefits from video games. About one third of the participants reported that they believ ed that the video games could serve as a positive form of mental exercise. An encouraging finding from this study was th e participants willingness to learn how to use the video games. Anecdotally, in the early tr aining sessions, some participants frequently expressed feelings of difficulty and challenge and even boredom with the games. But, most participants persisted with the games, and showed marked progress in game play (i.e., progressing to more difficult levels mastering controller operati on). Thus, although the pattern of transfer to UFOV test performance and dr iving simulator outcomes was not as strong as hypothesized, the positive comments of particip ants and the Flow-rela ted findings summarized above continue to support the notion that vi deo games may be a worthwhile and pleasing interface for cognitive interv entions with older adults. Theoretical Considerations and Study Implications Why did we not replicate MOH traini ng effects on visual attention? The results of this study stand in marked counterpoint to those of Green and Bavelier (2003). Their study, with undergraduates, found that as little as ten hours of training with MOH (but not Tetris) could produce si gnificant improvement in UFOV-like visual attention. In this study, after nine hours of MOH expo sure, healthy older adults did not experience significant gain on a different version of the UFOV task. There ar e several possible explana tions for the lack of effect. Ceiling performance on some UFOV subtasks Our participants did not have much room for improvement in subtask one (processing speed) and subtask two (divided attention) of

PAGE 157

157 the UFOV at pre-test. Most participants performe d at ceiling level (highe st score possible) or close to ceiling in these two subt asks, suggesting that there may ha ve been insufficient sensitivity to change on these tasks. Our sample performed substantially better at pr etest than, for example, the ACTIVE sample (Ball et al., 2002), suggesting that the advantaged nature of our cohort may have affected training outcomes. The third (selective attention) a nd fourth subtasks (same-differ ent) offered higher levels of challenge to participants, and co rrespondingly, it was these two task s that varied across training groups. However, even for these tasks, result s suggested no effect of video game training (Same-different task) or a counter-intuitive eff ect (Tetris, not MOH, improved more than nocontact controls). Insufficient training dosage in the video game conditions The second explanation for the absence of expected training findings may be related to the time that participants spent learning how to play each of the video games. It was hypothesized that participants from the MOH group would show more improvement than pa rticipants who receive d Tetris training. The rationale for this hypothesis was taken from previous studies on video games and visual attention. (Green et al, 2003). Gr een et al, 2003 used an experime ntal study design to test the hypothesis that action video game players would have more improvement in visual attention scores as compared to a placebo control game. The video game that they used for control was the Tetris game. Their hypothesis was supported by their findings. In fact, action video game players (undergraduates, in their work) improved in a range of visual attention scores while Tetris players did not. Our current findings were contrary to what they found. In the current study, older adults may have sp ent too much time tryi ng to learn the action video game, specially the game interface. In other words, instead of practicing the dynamic

PAGE 158

158 visual attention skills they need ed to bolster, they were "stuck at an earlier stagespending too much time trying to figure out controllers and what steps to follow in playing the game. This would suggest that future video game training wi th older adults would need to (a) spend much more time on pre-training game orientation; (b) might need to select games with less complex interface learning; and (c) might need to spe nd much more time on game practice to achieve comparable effects to those seen with undergra duates. This latter point is underscored by the work of Charness Schumann, & Boritz (1992), who has reported on other computer learning tasks (e.g., word processing) that ol der adults need much more trai ning time to achieve levels of performance comparable to that of younger adults. Larger training dosages may be needed for adults of all ages Above and beyond the unique challenges of training novice older adults how to play game s, Green and Bavelier have themselves recently indicated that much higher training dosages (30 to 50 hours) may be needed to achieve optimal visual attention gains (Green and Bavelier, 2006c). The dosage in this study, nine hours, was based on the repo rt of Green and Bavelier that te n hours of active play would be sufficient (for younger adults). Poor selection of visual attention outcomes A third possible explanation for the absence of MOH training effects may be related to the fact that past studies on video games have reported improvement in very specific aspects of visual selective attenti on (Green et al, 2003: & Green et al, 2006c), and the UFOV subtasks selected for th is study may have insufficiently tapped these aspects of visu al attention. In more recent work, Green and Bavelier have begun to shift to other visual attention outcomes. While in previous studies they demons trated that video game players outperformed non-players on different asp ects of visual attention, they recently investigat ed the effects of video

PAGE 159

159 game playing on individual differences in the number of simultaneous vi sual objects that could be readily tracked and attende d to(Green et al., 2006a). Tw o outcome measures have had particular salience: 1) an enumer ation task, in which participants have to report the number of briefly flashed items in a display as quickly and as accurately as possible and; 2) multiple object tracking, in which participants ar e required to allocate their atte ntion to several (moving) items over time. Video game players showed enhan ced performance on both tasks. These results suggest that future studies may consider broa dening the set of outcome measures, which might be more sensitive to attentional gains produced by video game play than the task used in the current study. Why did Tetris appear to have a stronger effect than MOH? An unexpected finding in this study was that Tetris group participants experienced significantly more Selective Attention UFOV gain than no-contract control participants. Several possibilities exist to expl ain this effect. First, while Gr een and Bavelier (2003) showed that Tetris was not a sufficient challenge to boost dyn amic visual attention in young adults, it may be that the whole-screen scanni ng and monitoring and mental ro tation was a higher level of challenge (and therefore had traini ng effects) for older adults, who were at a lower skill level. Expressed differently, during the Tetris game, pa rticipants had to look at pieces (tetraminoes) falling from the top of the screen while paying at tention on the bottom of the screen, where they needed to place the pieces. While in studies with college students this stimulus was not enough to provide visual learning, perhaps this was a more optimal level of challenge for novice older adults. Second, because Tetris is a much easier game to learn and explain (the core game, rotating tetraminoes in order to make a flat line did not become more complex over the course of training), participants may have "wasted" less time learning the game, and spent more of their

PAGE 160

160 nine hours actively playing the game. The challenge s of the Tetris game may actually have been more appropriate for elders' skill level. What this speculation strongly suggests is that videogame tr aining findings generated with younger adults may not be automatically generalizable to older adults. Much work must be done to identify the right game, the ri ght level of challenge, the righ t sequence of tr aining activities, the right outcome measure, and the right training dosag e to optimize transfer for older adults. Why was there no training transfer to any driving simulator outcomes? Previous studies in the literat ure had shown that performance on the UFOV test is uniquely correlated with driving performance. Ball et al ., 1993 found that visual attention measure was highly predictive of the self-repo rted history of older adults crash problems. Goode et al., 1998 examined a set of neuropsychological measures thought to be related to cras h risk in older adults and found that, of all cognitive tests administered UFOV was most strongly related to crash involvement. Myers et al., 2000 found that UFOV wa s the best single predictor of an on-road driving test. Given the fact that video game training impr oves visual attention (i.e., a UFOV-like task, according to Green and Bavelier), one might assu me that playing a video game might enhance driving performance. In addition to driving co mpetence, UFOV performance predicts important indices of mobility, including am bulatory ability, life space (the exte nt of travel throughout ones environment) and falls (Ball et al., 1993; Broman, West, Munoz, Bandeen-Roche, Rubin & Turano, 2004; Stalvey, Owsley, Sloa ne & Ball, 1999), suggesting fu rther breadth of transfer possibilities. In the current study, such transfer was not observed. However, there were differences between this study and previous work that help elucidate differences fr om previous studies.

PAGE 161

161 First, in those previous studi es where UFOV was predictive of driving, UFOV composite scores were used. In this study, training effects were observed at the level of specific subtasks (Selective Attention, Same-Differe nt), and this may have mean t that not a broad enough UFOV effect was achieved to obtain transfer, or the cu rrent participants may not have had much room for improvement in this test. Second, our selection of drivi ng simulator outcomes may not have been the right ones. One possible explanation for the lack of tran sfer of UFOV significant score to the driving simulator might be insufficient sensitivity to chan ge in the driving simulator scores (i.e., brake reaction distance, lane maintenance, dog detec tion accuracy). Previous studies have found driving simulator tasks could be good proxies fo r visual attention (Roe nker et al., 2003; Lee et all, 2003), and that UFOV improvement might al so improve driving simulator performance, although they have used different outcomes as previously described. Ho wever, it is also important to note that the ACTIVE study failed to find evidence of UFOV transfer to any selfreported driving outcomes (simulator data were not collected; Ball et al., 2002) Are group differences in Flow changes meaningful? One area in which interesting training group di fferences were observed was self-rated Flow experience. The two game playing groups showed significant gain in Flow from the start to the end of training, while the traditionally trained UFOV group did not. This may have reflected the differences in training experience by group. Specifically, the UFOV training is highly repetitive. While training conditions change incrementally fr om trial to trial, th e root task remains unchanged over the six sessions. Moreover, the in terface is dated (black and white, text and twodimensional icons). The interface is not ve ry "game like", and so is not a source of fun/entertainment, unless participants enjoy the puzzle-like challenge of the task itself. In Tetris

PAGE 162

162 and MOH, the interfaces were clearly games. For MOH, the significant difference between the first session and later sessions (which had si gnificantly higher flow) may have reflected the initial confusion of learning the complex game. For Tetris, Flow gains were more gradual and incremental, and may have reflec ted participants growing sense of mastery of the game. This incremental gain in Flow for the Tetris gr oup is consistent with the conceptions of Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) Flow Theory, which stat es that Flow is said to occur when people are able to meet the challenges of their environment with appropri ate skills and accordingly feel a sense of well-being, a sense of ma stery, and a heightened sense of self-esteem. Tetris appeared to be most likely to prom ote this sense of mastery. Limitations The present study used an innovative cogniti ve training strategy among older adults. The findings might contribute to the advances in the field of cognitiv e training and aging. Nonetheless, this study has several key limitations, owing largely to the co nstraint of resources and time constraints under which data was collect ed. One key limitation of this study is the sample. Specifically, participants who took part in this study were healthy, highly educated and Caucasian, which does not fully represent th e broader American ol der adult population. A second sample selectivity of the study relates to high participant function at baseline. According to UFOV normative data (Edwards et al., 2006), the participants from this study were already below the scores that th eir older peers normally have (i .e., were performing much better than the average older adult). Normative data in dicated that adults with an average age of 74 years and who are highly educated ( > than 12 years of education) have a mean score of 863.85 (UFOV composite score among the four subtasks). In this study, partic ipants with similar demographic characteristics had a mean UFOV score of 704.48, which is much better than the normative data encountered for older adults at this age. This suggests that, on average,

PAGE 163

163 participants did not have much room for improvement. Indeed, se veral UFOV training studies in Alabama, which had much larger UFOV training effects, selected participants with low performance at baseline (Ball et al., 2002; Edwards, et al., 2005). This suggests that the results of the current study may have shown somewhat weak er training effects th an previous research both due to lower dosages of trai ning (see below) and more advant aged participants. In addition, many participants reached ceiling performance on subtasks one and two (Speed, Divided Attention) of the UFOV test. A third limitation of this study was the num ber of training sess ions in which the participants were involved. Participant traini ng was divided into 6 tr aining sessions of 90 minutes each. Many times participants needed a break during the training, so that their cumulative training exposure could well have been less than 9 hours. As discussed earlier, since some of the training time was also spent learning the game (but not playing the game actively), the dosage of game play was likely well be low optimal, especially for the MOH group. A fourth limitation of the current study, which is also resource based, concerns the pool of trainers used in this study. With two exceptions, trainers in this study were volunteer undergraduate students who had re sponded to a flyer requesting stude nts to help with this study. Although these students were committed to the st udy, they did not have any previous experience in training older adults. In addition, because of their school schedule, there were occasions in which a participant was trained by more than one trainer, which could have produced inconsistency in the training offered. In general, a professional staff of tr ainers, who consistently train participants, and who are monitored with re gular quality cont rol observations could serve to improve the effectiveness of training.

PAGE 164

164 Another limitation of the study re lated to the invari ant contrast of the presented dog (i.e., Dalmatian) throughout the scenarios. We did not a ssess contrast sensitivit y at baseline, and so could not determine whether indi vidual differences in this vi sual-perceptual attribute were responsible for individual diffe rences in responding. Moreover we did not vary the dogs perceptual features throughout trials, and so we could not determine whether more-or-less perceptible dogs would have affected responding. In our assessment of flow and opinions about game design, we were unable (due to limited cell sizes) to contrast males and females. It is reasonable to assume, however, that there may have been gender differences in game acceptability and enjoyment. (For example, the military style violence of MOH may have been more unfamiliar to female participants than males; indeed, our participant comments about violence came from the wo men). Future research should more systematically sample males and females in order to examine gender differences in game response. It may be that diffe rent kinds of game design would be needed to optimally engage men versus women. Another limitation to be mentioned is that even though the brake reaction distance was correlated with the UFOV subtasks in this st udy (providing an empirical basis for expecting UFOV-related training gains to transfer), the se lection of simulator outcomes in this study was idiosyncratic, and based on available data fr om the simulator program. To facilitate comparability with other research, it may make se nse to develop a standardized set of simulator scenarios and outcomes that can be employed acro ss training studies, and th at are selected (in part) based on a known theoretical or empirical c onnection to the ability being trained. The current simulator outcomes had not been used in any previous training study with older adults.

PAGE 165

165 Future directions The current study confirmed the value of UFOV tr aining for older adults at least in terms of improving UFOV performance. The narrow ba nd of transfer (e.g., no effects observed on a driving simulator) were disappointing, but consistent with the lack of tran sfer reported for UFOV training in much larger trials (see Willis et al., 2006). A promising initial finding was that participants in the video game groups (espec ially Tetris) experience d significantly more Selective Attention gain than no-contact contro ls, suggesting that there may be some visual attention benefits of videogaming in older adults. However, many questions were raised by this pattern of findings, and future research must clarify these. First, future research should attempt to recr uit samples of a more di verse population, with a particular emphasis on attracting participants wi th lower baseline function. It may also be sensible, in larger samples, to assess important potential covariates like socioeconomic status, medication use and health status at baseline. Secondly, future studies should explore the impa cts of larger dosages of training. Recent studies have suggested the need of at leas t 30 hours of training sessions to show major improvements in visual attention of undergrad stud ents (Green et al, 2006c) It is reasonable to think that older adults woul d benefit from longer dosages of training. Indeed, a linear interpolation of the pre-post UFOV gain in the Tetris and MOH groups suggests that, with more exposure, these groups might eventually "catch up" to the UFOV trained group. The reality of this assumption needs to be tested, and the number of additional sessions needed to achieve larger UFOV effects must be determined. On e reason we sought to explore commercially available video games was their "s calability"; i.e., these are low co st (under $200) interfaces that use televisions (already present in most homes). Thus, it would be quite feasible to place these devices in participants' homes, and to investigate much larger dosages. A secondary advantage

PAGE 166

166 of exploring home-based training is that this better simulates "home based exercise", which has been shown to be effective (in the physical domain) in boosting the health of older adults. This is the ultimate goal of this line of research: to incorporate training in the everyday activities of older adults, and thereby naturally increase the dosage of training incorporated into elders' everyday lives. Future research should also explore broader outcome measures. Gr een and Bavelier, in their work with younger adults, have been explor ing broader outcome measures like enumeration tasks and multiple object tracking. These measures cannot be automatically used with older adults (they are quite difficult), and would need to be recalibrated for older users. However, with more specific tests for critical subcomponents of visual attention, the magnitude and breadth of videogame training could be better determin ed. It has been argued (Bavelier, personal communication, April 2007) that the UAB UFOV test (Ball, et. al., 1988) is a more global test and might not be able to capture the sub tleties of attention ch anges produced by action videogame training. Another area that needs to be investigated in future res earch concerns driving outcome measures. There are generally three outcome measures used in driving studies: driving simulator, behind the wheel assessment and archival cras h records. A driving simulator program was selected for the current study because it constitute d a safe way to collect driving data in an immediate time frame, while cont rolling visual attention demands in a systematic way. Behindthe-wheel assessments would have introduced potential safety c oncerns and difficulty controlling visual attention demands. Arch ival crash data would have re quired a much longer follow up period than the current study allowed, and who have been plagued by the potential reporting biases inherent in regulatory driving data. Although simulato rs seem like an ideal outcome

PAGE 167

167 measure source for visual attent ion intervention studies, future studies using simulator outcome measures should explore devel oping and using standardized simulator scenarios and outcome measures, with pilot work identifying those simu lator outcomes that are most 'saturated' with visual attention variance. Another area for future research developmen t is to better characterize progress in the games themselves. This has two benefits. First, if game playing proficiency can be reliably assessed, this would provide a better indicator of proximal outcome progress on the most direct target of training (i.e., game play). Secondaril y, it would permit a better empirical estimate of how gains in game playing performance translat e into gains in other outcomes. Third, better assessment of game playing performance would better permit adaptive customized training. If the level of game playing difficulty can be conti nuously calibrated to par ticipants' current skill level, this would better permit the tailoring of game scenarios to match each participant's exact level of training need. As has been stated several times in this document, our participants were positively advantaged. All were current drivers, and this may have restricted the amount of room for improvement that our sample had. Future research should also look at more restricted drivers (e.g., those constrained to only daytime driving, or driving in particular neighborhoods) or even drivers who have experienced recent license susp ension for visual attention reasons. For these participants, with more potential room for improve ment, the effect sizes of training like this may actually be higher, and the prac tical consequences of training might be greater: For such individuals, a question to be a ddressed with whether visual atte ntion training might actually be able to help some individuals rehabilitat e and recover their dr iving privileges.

PAGE 168

168 Conclusion Overall, the results of the current study suggested that UFOV training improved visual attention significantly more than any other group. However, it was noted that (although not significantly) the two video game groups experienced more visual attention gains than the nocontact control group. Actually, when the anal ysis was divided by UFOV subtasks, UFOV and Tetris (but not MOH) experienced significantl y more gain than the no contact control group. Several factors might explain th e reason why MOH gains were not replicated in this study such as possible insufficient dosage of training and the selection of outcome measures. The results of this study also in dicated that the visual attenti on gains, even after traditional UFOV training (which was highly effective), were not transferre d to several simulator-based driving outcome measures. This mi ght suggest that the simulator outcome measures used in the study were not sensitive enough to detect training-re lated changes. Future studies will need to more strongly develop a rationale for th e specific outcome me asures selected. However, in contrast to absence of trai ning transfer to simulator based measures, significant differences between tr aining groups were observed in the session-to-session changes participants' Flow experiences. That is, analyses of self-rated Flow suggested that engagement improved over time for the two video game c onditions but not for the UFOV training. This finding is also related to our re sults regarding particip ants opinions about game design, in which participants affirmed their willingness to use this technology, and ma ny perceived that the technology was a viable approach for "mental exercise". Although this study did not provide conclusive ev idence regarding the be neficial effects of video game interventions on older adults' visual attention performance, the preliminary data from this study "set the stage" for future research by indicating that (a) older adults enjoyed the video game training, and could be compliant with it, an d (b) while video game training effects were not

PAGE 169

169 significant, gain trends in visu al attention were in the right direction. Linear interpolation suggests that with higher dosages, video game training may be more effective in boosting UFOV performance. This serves the ultimate goal of this line of research: to investigate the effectiveness of incorporating game-based mental exercise in the everyday activities of older adults.

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX A MOH MANUAL GUIDE MISSION 1 Go forward out of the bunk room and into the hallway ahead of you, with the flashing red lights and the sirens going on. Go right down the corridor, watching a fello w soldier get electrocuted by some stray wires that have been blown into a door jam. Dont stand too close to the wires or you will be electrocuted as well. From there, look left and proceed forward into the shower room. In the shower room, you'll meet up with another soldier who will tell you to follow him. If you do not meet the soldier, look ri ght and pass into the toilet room. If you saw the soldier, follow him as he goes into the adjacent room, and swing right into a hallway where you'll find a barber s hop pole next to the door in front of you. If you did not find the soldier, look right into a hallway where you'll find a barber shop pole next to the door in front of you.

PAGE 171

171 Ignore the room in front of you, look left and move down through another corridor, where you'll see a man get blasted in the f ace with some extremely hot steam, falling to the ground. Go up the stairs beyond him to the upper part of the USS California. < Need to show how to jump> Go forward, now, down the corridor to a pi pe and some wires sticking out of the floor. The game will instruct you to jump over the pipes and wires, which you should do. < Need to show how to duck> < Need to show how to stand up> Further up the corridor, you'll be instructed to duck under and walk below some pipes coming out of the ceiling. At the end of this corridor, assist the e ngineer shut the door ahead of you by pressing the action button, taking care of an optional objective on this mission. Then, look left and go up the stairs, gett ing closer and closer to the topside. Once here, go left and move forward dow n a corridor, where a man will scream and run leftward down the corridor. Follow him as he approaches a fire down the corridor, grabbing the Fire Extinguisher automatically.

PAGE 172

172 Approach the fire in the immediat e left and help him extinguish it Dont get to close. Fire hurts! Proceed down the corridor to the first fire-engulfed door. Look left, use the Fire Extinguisher to take care of that fire. Run into the room, taking out another fire as well. Turn around, go back, now, to the previous corridor. Look left, continue forward and exti nguish the fire in the corridor. Move forward, look left at second fire e ngulfed door, and take care of the fire. Move forward entering kitchen. Approach the chef who is trying to put the fire out and hand him your Fire Extinguisher, which will allow him to put out the flames Work your way forward and then right into the adjacent room. En route, as you're in the adjacent room, you 'll see a save point (blue radiating light) that you can use to save your progress if you desire. Turn around, move forward, l ook left (after the second pol e) and you will see a door. Move towards the door and exit the cafeteria room.

PAGE 173

173 Look left and move down the corridor to the staircase Follow another staircase up, finally be ing topside on the USS California. The soldier next to you will throw you a Br owning Automatic Rifle LMG. This rifle can do some serious damage, but don't even bother with it. Quickly run up the set of stairs to the large mounted machine gun in front of you, using that as your weapon. Press action button. Using this massive gun (which has unlimited ammo), you'll want to shoot down as many planes as you can, as well as an y torpedoes coming at your ship. Play this part of the mission until you ge t really low on health, at which point you'll be knocked into the ocean water.

PAGE 174

174 MISSION 2 Keep turning the turret and ta king aim at the planes as they begin to swoop down from all directions.

PAGE 175

175 MISSION 3 Run leftward to the end of the bridge. Fo llow your soldier companion, while avoiding running into fire. Meet up your brother at the end of the br idge, who is kneeling behind a barricade. Stay behind the barricade and start s hooting as many soldiers as you can. Walk around and shoot the soldiers coming at you. < Change to the Garand gun> Direct your attention to the porch-like platform on the left side, where you will find a crouching Japanese soldier taki ng shots at you. Shot at him. Focus on finding the various goods in the area.

PAGE 176

176 Turn around and find a tank that needs to be fixed. It is near a staircase. Get close to the tank and it wi ll say Find Tank Coogwheel. Go to the back of the tank. You will see a staircase. Go Pass the staircase and enter the first left entrance. Move towards the end of the room and, turn right. Move forward until you reach the wall, look right again and you will see the cogwheel on the floor. Get close to the cogwheel and press the ACTION button. Turn back, move around the cr ates. Leave the alcove. Turn right and go back to the tank. Get close to the tank (left side) until it sa ys Press ACTION to fix Tank on the top of the screen. Press ACTION button. You should escort the tank by st aying on the right side of it initially and follow it into the street beyond the barricade. You will see a Japanese soldier on the ri ght side of a porch. Shoot at him and continue moving forward.

PAGE 177

177 There will be two more Japanese soldiers in an alcove ahead on the right side. You should shoot them. Move forward with the tank as it heads left, down the next street. If you need health, grab the Field Surgeon Pack on your right as the tank turns left. Suicide soldiers will r un at the tank with e xplosives, shoot them. Continue up this street towards a decorative fountain on your right. Shoot at any Japanese soldier as you go, including the suicide bombers. Go forward, and let the tank turn right again. Follow the tank down. There wont be too many enemies as you go. In case you need health, you shoul d shift right into a buildi ng as youre going to grab a Field Surgeon Pack to heal yourself if need be. There will be one Japanese soldier on your right. Shoot him from the street. There will be two Japanese soldiers on your left. Get closer to them and shoot. Go back to the tanks position on the stre et as it now heads down yet another road. Continue following the tank until it stops at a forced-dead end made from rubble.

PAGE 178

178 Go slightly behind the tank and to the ri ght, you will find a staircase leading up. At the top of this staircase, the door is locked, but you will find a Field Surgeon Pack if you need it. Backtrack all the way to the vacant road before this small complex of houses. You will find soldiers as you come back, you should shoot them. Move toward the tank. From the tank, make a left and move forward all the way to the end. Turn right and move toward the bui lding in your left with smoke. Shoot at the soldiers in front of the building. You will find that the building has a door th ats not closed anymore, but now blown open. Run at the door and ente r into the building. You will see a staircase in the initial room in this building. Behind the staircase is a save point. Get close to the blue radiant light and save the game. Go up the staircase. Move forward on to the pl ank into the new room. Go through the hole in the wall to an outdoor destroyed half-room of this house.

PAGE 179

179 Go down using another plank. You will find yourself outside the build ing and on the street again. Shoot the Japanese machine gunner. Get close the machine gun and mount it, pressing the ACTION button. You will see soldiers coming from your right and left side. Shoot them. Dismount the machine gun by pressing the ACTION button. Turn right onto the street. Look right and follow the street. Turn left at the bend in the street. Proceed forward until you see a huge wooden brown gate on the right hand side. Shoot all enemies. Look directly at the gate. On the right and left hand sides of the gate on the floor, there are sewers. Approach the right sewer gutte r on floor and follow it down. Turn left into the sewer. Press crouch button and turn right.

PAGE 180

180 Proceed forward into the sewer. After the sewer, press the crouch button again, which will make you stand up again. Look right into sewer. Follow the right path when the sewer path splits. There is a staircase at the end of the path. Proceed up the staircase. You will see enemies coming in you r direction. Shoot the enemies. Look right and proceed forward along the wall to the right. Follow this wall until some bleachers are reached. Go up the stadium stairs. Once on the top of the stairs, look left a nd you will see a booth with a radio operator. Enter the booth and shoo t the radio operator. Turn around and exit the radio post. Look right and proceed forward down the stairs. You will see a brown door at the other side of the stadium. Once you get close to the door, it will open automatically. If the door does not open, move around in the open area in front of the door.

PAGE 181

181 Shoot the soldiers in front of you. Move in the direction of the gates that were previously closed. Turn right. Make a left at the bend of the road and look for a hotel-like building ahead of you. Proceed into the building. Look left and enter into the adjacent room. You will see a staircase. Climb staircase. Make a right and follow through doorway. Go left and up the stairs. Make another left and go to rooftop. Once you get to the rooftop, approach the machine gun. Press ACTION button to mount the machine gun. Destroy the tank and crates in the middle of the town square with the machine gun.

PAGE 182

182 Press ACTION button and dismount the machine gun. Turn around and ente r into the doorway. Go down the first set of stairs. Go down the next set of stai rs which will lead you back to the lobby of the hotel. Enter the doorway and look left. Proceed forward through the metal gate and into the courtyard in front of you. Proceed forward towards the fountain. Move towards the truck at the far en d of the courtyar d in your right. Reach the front of the truck. A soldier will automatically greet you. Locate the lost explosives truck objective completed. Turn around. Proceed forward a few steps and look left. You will see a church. Enter the church steeple. Proceed forward.

PAGE 183

183 Look right and find the radiant blue light. Move toward the light. Press ACTION button in front of it to save game. Turn around and proceed toward the back of the room. Look left and climb the staircas e to the top of the steeple. At the top of the staircase, follow a pa th around to the end of the platform. Look left at the bells. Press ACTION to ring the bells. Turn around and go back down to the bottom of the stairs. Look right and proceed forward through the archway and exit the church. Look right and proceed toward the truck. Make your way towards the back of the truck. Face the back of the truck and pr ess ACTION to board the truck. The truck will automatically start up. Turn around and shoot the soldiers.

PAGE 184

184 Using your guns and grenades ta ke out attacking enemies. Destroy the tank by throwing grenades at it or by throwing them on the ground where the tank will pass over. <6 grenades hit will destroy the tank>. Keep firing enemies until the truck comes to a stop. MISSION COMPLETED!!!

PAGE 185

185 MISSION 5 Go forward a bit until the path widens and follow the brown path ahead until you meet up with a trio of Japanese soldiers. Shoot the enemies here. Go forward from there, and the path will swing rightward. Here you will see a light brown tree w ith root coming up from the ground. Move towards the left side of the tree Look right and pick up two Garand clips positioned around a campfire on the ground. o Go pass the campfire and approach a narrow tree trunk. Look left. o Shoot at the Japanese soldiers su rrounding the ridge in front of you. Once the path is clear, you can grab some M1 Garand Clips and a Medical Kit on the ridge they were guarding. Work your way rightward you will hear the pounding of a mounted machine gun here. Follow your compass North and find the mounted machine gun shooting at you. Shoot at the enemy on the machine gun. Mount the cleared off-mounted machine gun an d use it to clear the Japanese soldiers ahead.

PAGE 186

186 Approach the rebels, who are accompanied by an allied officer. Hell talk to you briefly, and then lead you to a small hide out that the rebels have near there. Follow the allied officer to the hide out. Go straight ahead down the cavelike path, where youll find a Field Surgeon Pack some M1 Garand Clips and Grenades Get close to the blue radiant light a nd press action button to save the game. Go back down the path and make a left at an opening in the cave like path. Head up this linear pathway, coming back up outside. Once outside, approach the allied officer again, and hell tell you to look ahead for the lost Allied patrol that we were looking for. Get as close as possible to the Japanese soldiers holding up the Allied prisoners as possible, and begin to fire away. < Be cautious of a sword wielding officer who c an inflict massive damage up close. He will come after you if you get too close to the prisoners. Use the cover in the area (preferably stayi ng in the shrubs to k eep a low profile) and pick away at the soldiers as they come. Eliminate all enemies in the area.

PAGE 187

187 You will need to walk behind the three Alli ed prisoners, now, and untie each of their hands when the on-screen prompt tells you to. Talk to the prisoner in the mi ddle, and hell tell you that he and his crew were sent to take care of Pistol Pete, but were captured. They want to join your group and help you do the job, now. < From there, the rescued prisoners grab their g uns off the porch of th e house behind them.> You can grab two boxes of M1 Garand Clips from that same porch as well. Go behind this house and you will see a small ditch underneath. If you go in a crouch, you will be able to cr awl into this little area and grab the coveted Machete here. Turn around, move forward and stand up. Look left and go around the house until you see break in the fence on the right. Approach the break in the fence. Follow the fence up the grassy hill. Approach the top of the hill on the left side where the fence ends.

PAGE 188

188 You will see some bushes here that do not let you move forward. Use the Machete to clear the path. Run down this initial linear path beyond the bushes we just cut, picking up a Medical Kit and some Garand M1 Clips en route to another bush, which we need to cut out of the way. Beyond these second bushes, youll follow another linear path to the third bush we need to cut. Use Machete to cut these bushes as well. Run left up the hill there, shooting enemies with your M1911 as you go. o Youll eventually see a huge gun inst allation, the Howitzer, on your right surrounded by Japanese soldiers. o Shoot at the Japanese soldie rs surrounding and on the gun. o Man the Howitzer. Shoot at and eliminate all enemies. A tank will come at you, eventually (by your left side), which youll need to eliminate. Two or three well-aimed, qui ck Howitzer shots should do the trick. < Press action to dismount the cannon>

PAGE 189

189 When things calm down around the huge cannon, collect the M1 Garand Clips around the gun, as well as the numerous items the dead enemies undoubtedly left behind as well. Run straight down the hill now (in direct line-of-sight of the Howitzer) and, across the road at the bottom of the hill, youll find two M1 Garand Clips. Run leftward down the path, and go down th e linear direction it leads until you come to a turn in the road that puts you in the direct sight of a Japanese soldier manning a mounted machine gun. Run towards his gun and jump over the ba rricades surrounding the gun to find some M1 Garand Clips. Look across the tiny river to kill two more Japanese so ldiers standing by a second machine gun. Go across the bridge to the other side of th e river, and over to th e location of the two Japanese soldiers we just killed, behind the second mounted machine guns position. Youll find a Medical Kit here. Man the second mounted machin e gun there and wait for the soldiers to run down the path to your right. < Press action button to dismount the machine gun> Go back on the path in front of the bridge and continue up a short ways until the path forks. Take the right fork, which soon thereafter leads to a dead end.

PAGE 190

190 Save the game Grab the goods Head back to the main path, where the fork was. This time go right. Youll meet up with two enemies hidden behind a ridge and one who pops up from the ground. Shoot at these enemies. Take out all enemies. Go up the ridge on the right side of the clearing to find a Medical Kit Proceed forward down the ridge and continue forward to the path in front of you. From there, youll want to continue down the linear path beyond this opening, killing any more enemies you come across. Join in on this battle, eliminating all Japane se soldiers on the left side of the river. Lob some Grenades or fire away at the rest of the soldiers in the area across the river as you go right and run into Martin Clemens, the Allied officer who is with the local rebel force.

PAGE 191

191 Talk to him, and hell tell you to conti nue your quest, automatically giving you first the Thompson M1 SMG to equip yourself with if you so desire. From where you meet up with him, firs t go backwards to a small overlook area, where youll find a Medical Kit Turn around, cross the river and pr oceed down the path beyond it. Eliminate all enemies along the way. < Watch out for kamikaze attacks from the enemies > Kill these enemies, and then bear right and up a small hill to the position of an enemy sniper we killed earlier, when we we re on the other side of the river. Up here, youll find two boxes of M1 Garand Clips, and a Medical Kit as well. Go back down the small hill to a fallen tree trunk. Jump over it and continue up the start of a narrow path, killing Japanese soldiers as you proceed. When the path forks ahead, go left a nd down a small, linear, vacant path. Enter into this cave and follow the linear maze of crates as you go forward. Kill one Japanese soldier on the ground.

PAGE 192

192 Look up the path going up in that room to fire on two or three more soldiers. When all enemies are dead, go up this path and itll lead to another cave, which overlooks the area below with a huge Howitzer. Kill off all five enemies with some quick fire from your Thompson and then collect the various goods around the gun. One of your accompanying soldiers will au tomatically set up an explosive on the large gun and allow you to set if off. Before you do so, look behind the gun to find a little out-of-the-way branch to this cave, where youll find a save point as well as a Medical Kit and some M1 Garand Clips. Save your game, grab the goods Use the detonation box attach ed to destroy the gun. < the detonation box that will be in your left> From here, go towards the gun and look le ft for a door out of this room. Go through this door, and down a pathway, kil ling pistol-wielding Japanese soldiers as you come to an open room in this cav e with a wooden bridge suspended over it

PAGE 193

193 Cross the bridge. At the end of this bridge youll find a Japane se soldier. Japanese soldiers are all over the bottom of this room as well. Kill the soldier(s) on the bridge, then si mply fall down to the ground below, taking out any remaining foes. With all of the Japanese resistance in th e room dead, go right and head back outside. Once out here, go leftward towards the bri dge leading over the gigantic chasm ahead of you. The enemy resistance here will be almost ex clusively on the other side of the bridge, so run across this bridge, taking out the enemies there. On the other side of the bridge to your left, youll find some Grenades and a Thompson Magazine while on the right side of the bridge once you cross it, youll find a Medical Kit and some M1 Garand Clips From here, climb up the large staircase ah ead of you to the ridge above, killing any remaining enemies as you go. Once up the stairs, move right and do a fu ll charge towards the room ahead of you with a mounted machine gun sticking out of it. Make sure to quickly shoot the enemy at the machine gun before he opens up on you, as well as the soldier accompanying him.

PAGE 194

194 When you do, the door leading into that r oom will explode open, granting you access. Grab the M1 Garand Clips near the mounted machine gun. Bear right into the next room with the Howitzer within. Kill the Japanese officer and the two Japane se soldiers before proceeding into that room. As you walk into the room, grab the M1 Garand Clips and the Thompson Ammo as your partner sets explosives on the Howitzer. When your partner runs behind some crat es to watch the Howitzer explode, you should do the same. When the gun explodes, look to the door at your left, leading out of the room, where a Japanese soldier or two will run into the room, gunning at you. Kill these enemies and proceed out of this room, to the corridor beyond the door. Run down this corridor, guns blazing, as you come across the last resistance of Japanese soldiers in this cave system. When you can either go right, or go forward, go right, kill the enemies in this room, and quickly run up the stairs to your right, and up to the final Howitzer in the area.

PAGE 195

195 Your partner will explode the gun, and when th at happens, youre able to run out of the door to the left of the now-destroyed gun, and back outside. Once outside, run leftward towards the bridge killing the Japanese soldiers as you go. Cross the bridge to find some of your rebe l friends and the rebe l Allied officer as well. En route, however, your colleague will trip while he is planting some explosives on the bridge Stop and grab him by facing him and pressi ng action to complete the second of two optional objectives on this mission. Get over the bridge thereafter. After a set amount of time, the bridge will explode. MISSION COMPLETED!!

PAGE 196

196 APPENDIX B UFOV TRAINING Start Point for Customized Training Speed __________ Divided Attention __________ Selective Attention _____________ Is SPEED screening score 30 or lower? Go To YELLOW TRAINING TRACK N O YES Go To PINK TRAINING TRACK Is DIVIDED ATTENTION screening score 40 or lower? Go To BLUE TRAINING TRACK N O YES Is SELECTIVE ATTENTION screening score 80 or lower? Go To GREEN TRAINING TRACK N O YES

PAGE 197

197ID Training Track Color Computer System Number Sess Task Center TaskDuration Ring Bloc k1 Bloc k2 Bloc k3 Bloc k4 Bloc k5 Bloc k6 Notes Easy --Hard Easy------------Hard Hard----------Easy Easy--------Hard 1 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 2 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 3 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 4 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 5 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 6 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 Inner Middle Outer

PAGE 198

198400 7 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 8 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 9 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 10 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer 11 Speed Div Sel P/A I SD A 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 Inner Middle Outer

PAGE 199

199 LIST OF REFERENCES Arthanat, S., Nochajski, S. M., & Stones, J. (2004). The internati onal classification of functioning disability and h ealth and its application to cognitive disorders. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26 (4), 235-245. Austin, R. A., & Faigin, B. M. (2003). Effect of vehicle and crash factors on older occupation injury. In W. C. Mann (Eds). International Conference on Aging Disability and Independence Proceedings. University of Florida. Baltes, P. B., Dittmann-Kohli, F., & Kliegl, R. (1986). Reserve capacity of the elderly in agingsensitive test of fluid intelligence: Replication and extension, 1 (2), 172-177. Ball, K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L, & Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of Optical Society of America, 5 (12), 2210-2219. Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults. A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288 (18), 2271-2281. Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (1991). Identifying correl ates of accident involvement for the older driver Human Factors, 33 583-595. Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (2000). Increasing mobility and reducing accident of older drivers, in Schaie KW, Pietrucha M (eds): Mobility and Transportation in the elderly. New York, Springer: 213-251. Ball, K., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1993). Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 34 (11), 3110-3120. Ball, K., Owsley, C., Stalvey, B., Roenker, D. L., Sloane, M. E., & Graves, M. (1998). Driving avoidance and functional impa irment in older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30 (3), 313-322. Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (2000). Increasing mobility and reducing accidents of older drivers. In: Schaie K, Pietrucha M, eds. Mobility a nd transportation in the elderly. New York: Springer, 213-250. Ball, K., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1990). Developmental changes in attention and visual search through adulthoo d. In J. Enns (Ed.), Advances in Psychology, 69 489-508. Baltes, P., & Mayer, K. (1999). The Berlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100. New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 200

200 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderato r-mediator variable di stinction in social psychological research: Con ceptual, strategic, and st atistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. Bergen, J., & Julesz, B. (1983). Parallel versus se rial processing in rapid patter discriminations. Nature, 303, 696-698. Blieszner, R., Willis, S.L., Baltes, P.B. (1981). Tr aining research in aging on the fluid ability of inductive reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 247-265. Broman, A. T., West, S. K., Munoz, B., Ba ndeen-Roche, K., Rubin, G.S., & Turano, K.A. (2004). Divided visual attention as a predicto r of bumping while wa lking: The Salisbury eye evaluation. Investigative Ophthalmology an d Visual science, 45(9), 2955-2960. Castel, A. D., Pratt, J., & Dr ummond, E. (2005). The effects of action video game experience on the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search, Acta Psychologica 119 217-230. Charness, N., Schumann, C. E., & Boritz, G. A. (1992). Training older adults in word processing: Effects of age, training technique and computer anxiety. International Journal of Aging and Technology, 5, 79-106. Christensen, H., MacKinnon, A., Korten, A., Jorm A. F., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P., et al. (1999). An analysis of diversity in the c ognitive performance of elderly community dwellers: Individual differences in ch ange scores as a function of age. Psychology and Aging, 14 365-379. Clark, J. E., Lanphear, A. K., & Riddick, C. C. (1987). The effects of videogame playing on the response selection processing of elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 42 (1), 82-85. Collia, D. V., Sharp, J., & Giesbrecht, L. (2003) The 2001 National Household Travel Survey: a look to the travel patterns of older Americans. Journal of Safety Research, 34 (4), 461-470. Colsher, P., & Wallace, R. (1991).Longitudinal a pplication of cognitive f unction measures in a defined population of community dwelling elders. Annals of Epidemiology, 1 215-230. Cook, S. E. (2007). Impact of distraction on simula ted lane navigation in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Doctoral Diss ertation, Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of the optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York. Dahl, T. H. (2002). International classificati on of functioning, disabi lity and health: An introduction and discussion of its potential imp act on rehabilitation services and research. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34 201-204.

PAGE 201

201 Donmez, B., Boyle, L., & Lee, J. D. (2007). Safe ty implications of provi ding real-time feedback to distracted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39 581-590. Dorval, M., & Pepin, M. (1986). Effect of pl aying a video game on a measure of spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62 159-162. Dorn, L., & Barker, D. (2005). The effects of dr iver training on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37 (1), 63-69. Drew, B., & Waters, J. (1986). Video games: Utilization of a novel strategy to improve perceptual motor skills and cognitive functioning in the non-institutionalized elderly. Cognitive Rehabilitation, 4 (2), 26-34. Edward, R. (2001). Roybal Centers fo r Research on Applied Gerontology. Issues Brief, 4 University of Alabama at Birmingham. Edwards, J. D., Ross, L. A., Wadley, V. G., Clay, O. J., Crowe, M., Roenker, D. L., et al. (2006). The useful field of view: Normative data for older adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 275-286. Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Myers, R. S., Roenker, D. L., Cissel, G. M., Ball, K. (2002). Transfer of a speed of processing interven tion to near and far cognitive functions. Gerontology,48 329-340. Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Vance, D. E, Wood, K., Roenker, D. L., & Ball, K. (2005). The impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday performance. Aging and Mental Health, 9 (3), 262-271. Enochsson, L., Isaksson, B., Tour, R., Kjellin, A., Hedman, L., Wredma rk, T., et al. (2004). Visuospatial skills and computer game expe rience influence the performance of virtual endoscopy. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 8 (7), 876-882. Farrow, S., & Reid, D. (2004). Stroke survivors perception of a leisur e-based virtual reality program. Technology and Disability, 16 69-81. Fisher, D. L., Laurie, N. E., Gl asser, R., Connerney, K. Pollatsek, A. Duffy, S. A., et al (2002) Use of a fixed-base driving simulator to eval uate the effects of experience and PC-Based risk awareness training on drivers decisions. Human Factors, 44 (2), 287-302. Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975) Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinicians. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198. Fonda, S. J., Wallace, R. B., & Herzog, A. R. (2001). Changes in driving patterns and worsening depressive symptoms among older adults. Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56, 343-351.

PAGE 202

202 Fratiglioni, L., Paillard-Borg, S., & Winblad, B. (2004). An actively and socially integrated lifestyle in late life migh t protect against dementia. Lancet Neurology, 3 343-353. Fried, L. P., Carlson, M. C., Freedman, M., Frick, K. D., Glass, T. A., Hill, J., et al (2004). A social model for health promotion for an aging population: Ini tial evidence on the experience corps model. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 81 (1), 64-78. Gagnon, D. (1985). Video game and spat ial skills: an exploratory study. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33, 263-275. Ghisletta, P., Bickel, J., & Lvdn, M. (2006) Does activity engage ment protect against cognitive decline in old age? Methodol ogical and analytical considerations. Journal of Gerontology, 61B (5), 253-261. Glass, T. A., Freedman, M., Carlson, M. C., H ill, J., Frick, K. D., Ialongo, N., et al (2004). Experience corps: Design of an intergener ational program to boost social capital and promote the health of an aging society. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 81 (1), 94-105. Goode, K. T., Ball, K. K., Sloane, M., Roenker, D. L., Roth, D. L., Myers, R. S., et al (1998). Useful field of view and other neurocognitive indicators of crash risk in older adults. Journal of Clinical Psychol ogy in Medical Settings, 5 (4), 425-440. Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Tran sfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Human Factors, 36 (3), 387-405. Gourlay, D., Lun, K. C., & Lee, Y. N. (2000). Virt ual reality for relearni ng daily living skills. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 60 255-261. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action vide o game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423 (29), 534-537. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of video games. Digital Media: Transformations in Human Communicat ion. Messaris & Humphreys (Eds.) Green, C. S, & Bavelier, D. (2006a). Enumeratio n versus multiple object tracking: the case of action video game players. Cognition, 101 217-245. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006b). Training visu al attention with video games: Not all games are created equal. In press Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2006c). Effect of action video game on the spatial distribution of visuo spatial attention Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32 (6), 1465-1478. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-videogame experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 18 (1), 88-94.

PAGE 203

203 Greenfield, P. M., DeWinstanley, P., & Kilpatri ck, H., & Kaye, D. (1994). Action video games and information education: effects on st rategies for dividi ng visual attention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 105-123. Griffith, J. L., Voloschin, P., Gibb, G. D., & Ba iley, J, R. (1983). Differences in eye-hand motor coordination of video-game users and non-users. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 155158. Hoffman, L., McDowd, J., & Atchley, P., & Dubinsky, R. (2005). The role of visual attention in predicting driving impairment in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 20 (4), 610-622. Hultsch, D., Hertzog, C., Dixon, R., & Small, B. (1998). Memory change in the aged. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, C., Small, B. J, & Di xon, R. A. (1999). Use it or lose it: Engaged lifestyle as a buffer of cognitive decline in aging? Psychology and Aging, 14 (2), 245-263. Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Deve lopment and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 18 1735. Jones, S., Nyberg, L., Sandblom, J., Stigsdotter Neely, A., Ingvar, M., Magnus Petersson, K, et al. (2006). Cognitive and neural plasticity in aging: General and task-specific limitations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 864-871. Kawashima, R., Okita, K., Yamazaki, R., Tajima, N., Yoshida, H., Taira, M., et al. (2005). Reading aloud and arithmetic calculation improve frontal function of people with dementia. The Journal of Gerontology, 60A 380-384. Kelly, J. R., Steinkamp, M. W., & Kelly, J.R. (1987). Later-life satisf action: Does leisure contribute? Leisure Sciences, 9, 189-200. Koepp, M. J., Gunn, R. N., Lawrence, A. D., Cunni ngham, V. J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., et al (1998). Evidence of striatal dopami ne release during a video game. Nature, 393 266-268. Kramer, A. F., Bherer, L., Colcombe, S. J., Dong, W., & Greenough, W. T., (2004). Environmental influences on cognitive and brain plasticity during aging. Journal of Gerontology, 59A (9), 940-957. LabouvieVief, G., & Gonda, J. N. (1976). C ognitive strategy trai ning and intellectual performance in the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 31 327-332. Lee, J. H., Ku, J., Cho, W., Hahn, W. Y., Kim, I. Y., Lee, S. M., et al. (2003). A virtual reality system for the assessment and rehabilita tion of the activitie s of daily living. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 6 (4), 383-388. Lee, H. C., Cameron, D., & Lee, A. H. (2003). Assessing the driving perf ormance of older adult drivers: on road versus simulated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 797-803.

PAGE 204

204 Lee, H. C., Lee, A. H., & Cameron, D. (2003) Validation of a driving simulator by measuring the visual attention skill of older adult drivers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 324-328. Lee, H. C., & Lee, A. H. (2005). Identifying older drivers at risk of tra ffic violations by using a driving simulator: A 3-year longitudinal study. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59 (1), 97-100. Lennartsson, C & Silverstein, M. (2001). Does enga gement with life enhance survival of elderly people in Sweden? The role of social and leisure activities. Journal of Gerontology, 56 B, 335-342. Luszcz, M. (1998). A longitudinal study of psychol ogical changes in cognition and self in late life. The Australian Developmental a nd Educational Psychologist, 15 39-61. Mackinnon, A., Christensen, H., Hofer, S. M, Ko rten, A. E., & Jorm, A. F. (2003). Use it and still lose it? The association between activity and cognitive performance established using latent growth techniques in a community sample. Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 10 215-229. Mahncke, H. W, Connor, B. B, Appleman, J., Ah sanuddin, O. N., Hardy, J. L., Wood, R. A., et al. (2006). Memory enhancement in health ol der adults using a brain plasticity-based training program: A randomized, controlled study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 103 (33), 12523-12528. Marotolli, R. A., Mendes de Leon, C. F., Gla ss, T.A., Williams, C. S., Cooney Jr, L. M., Berkman, L. F, et al. (1997). Driving ce ssation and increased de pressive symptoms, prospective evidence from the New Haven EPESE. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 45 (2), 202-206. Marsiske, M., & Margrett, J. A. (2006). Everyda y problem solving and decision making. In J.E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds). Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (6th ed), 315-342. Burlington, M.A: Elsevier Academic Press. Massimini, F., Csikzentmihalyi, M., & Massim o, C. (1987). The monitoring of optimal experience. A tool for ps ychiatric rehabilitation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175 (9) 545 549. Milgram, N. W., Siwak-Trapp, C ., Araujo, J., & Head, E. (2006) Neuroprotective effects of cognitive enrichment. Aging Research Reviews, 5, 354-369. Mourant, R., & Thattacheny, T. (2000). Simulato r sickness in a virtual environment driving simulator. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, San Diego, C.A, 1, 534537. Moritz, D. J., Kasl, S.V., & Berkman, L. F. (1995). Cognitive functioning and the incidence of limitations in activities of daily living in and elderly community sample. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141 (1), 41-49.

PAGE 205

205 Myers, R. S., Ball, K. K., Kalina, T. D., Roth, D. L., & Goode, K. T. ( 2000). Relation of useful field of view and other screening te sts to on-road driving performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 279-290. National Highway and Traffic Ad ministration (NHTSA). (2002). Traffic Safety Facts: 2002: Older population. (no DOT HS 809 611). Washington D.C.: National Highway and Safety Administration. Newman, C. W., Weinstein, B. E., Jacobson, G. P ., & Hug, G. A.(1991). Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap In ventory for Adults. Ear and Hearing, 12 355-357. Newson, R. S, & Kemps, E. B. (2005). General Li festyle activities as a predictor of current cognition and cognitive change in older a dults: A cross-secti onal and longitudinal examination. Journal of Gerontology, 60B (3), P113-120. Orosy-Fildes, C., & Allan, R. W. (1989). Psychol ogy of computer use: XII. Video game play: Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69 243-247. Owsley, C., Ball, K., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1991). Visual/cognitive correlates of vehicles accid ents in older drivers. Psychology and Aging 6 (3), 403-415. Owsley, C., Sloane, M., McGwin, G., & Ball, K. ( 2002). Timed instrumental activities of daily living tasks: Relationship to cognitive functi on and everyday performance assessments in older adults. Gerontology, 48, 254-265. Pham, T. M., Winblad, B., Granholm, A., Mohamm ed, A. H. (2002). Environmental influences in brain neurotrophins in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavioral, 73, 167-175. Plemons, J. K., Willis, S. L., & Baltes, P. B. ( 1978). Modifiability of fluid intelligence in aging: A short-term longitudi nal training approach. Journal of Gerontology, 33 (2), 224-231. Richards, M., Hardy, R., & Wadsowrth, E. J. ( 2003). Does active leisure protect cognition? Evidence from a National birth cohort. Social Science and Medicine, 56 785-792. Richardson, E. D., & Marottoli, R. A. (2003). Visual attention and driving behavior among community-living older persons. Journal of Gerontology, 58 (9), 832-836. Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., Ball, K. K., Wadley, V.G., & Edwards, J, D. (2003). Speed-ofprocessing and driving simulator training result in improved driving performance. Human factors, 45 (2), 218-233. Rosenberg, B. H., Landsittel, D., & Averch, T. D. (2005). Can video games be used to predict or improve laparoscopic skills? Journal of Endourology, 19 (3 ), 372-376. Rowe, J. W., & Kahn, R. L. (1997). Successful aging New York, NY: Dell Publishing. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rock ro ads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychology, 24, 113-142.

PAGE 206

206 Scarmeas, N., Levy, G., & Tang, M. (2001). Influen ce of leisure activity on the incidence of Alzheimers disease. Neurology, 57 2236-2242. Scarmeas, N., & Stern, Y. (2003). Cognitive reserve and lifestyle. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25 (5), 625-633. Schaie, W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood. The Seattle Longitudinal Study. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scogin, F., & Bienias, J. L. (1988). A three-year follow-up of older adult participants in a memory-skills training program. Psychology and Aging, 3 334-337. Sekuler, A. B., Bennett, P. J., & Mamelak, M. ( 2000). Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Experimental Aging Research, 26 103-120. Shapiro, A. M., Benedict, R. H., Schretlen, D & Brandt, J. (1999). Cons truct and concurrent validity of the Hopkin Verbal Learning Test-Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13 (3), 348-358. Shechtman, O., Classen, S., Stephens, B., Bendixe n, R., Belchior, P., Sandhu, M., et al. (2007). The impact of intersection design on simula ted driving performance of young and senior adults. Traffic Injury and Prevention, 8 78-86. Singer, T., Verhaeghen, P., Ghisletta, P., Linden burger, U., Baltes, P. (2003). The fate of cognition in very old age: Six-year longitudinal findings in the Berlin aging study, Psychology and Aging 18 (2), 318-331. Singh-Manoux, A., Richards, M., & Marmot, M. (2005). Leisure activities and cognitive function in middle age: Evid ence from the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health, 57, 907-913. Small, B., Dixon, R., Hultsch, D., & Hertzog, C. (1999). Longitudinal changes in quantitative and qualitative indicators of word and st ory recall in young old and old old adults. The Journal of Gerontology. Series B, Psyc hological Sciences and Social Sciences, 54 107115. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1986). Pract ical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press. Stalvey, B. T., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., & Ball, K. (1999). The life space questionnaire: A measure of the extent of mobility of older adults Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18 (4), 460-478. Stefanidis, D., Korndorffer, J., Dunne, J., Black, F., Sierra, R., Touchard, C., Rice, D., Markert, R., Kastl, P., & Wang, F. (2006). Psychomotor tes ting predicts rate of skill acquisition for proficiency-based laparo scopic skills training. Journal of Surgical Research, 130 (2), 186187.

PAGE 207

207 Stucki, G., Ewert, T., & Cieza, A. (2002). Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicine. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (17), 932-938. Suto, M. (1998). Leisure in occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65 (5), 271-278. UFOV Users Guide. Version 6.0.6. Southbridge Center 2100 Southbridge Parkway. Suite 650. Birmingham, AL 35209. U.S. Census Bureau (1995, May) Economics and statistics administration, US Department of commerce stun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenback, J ., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The international classification of functioning, disability and health: A new tool for understanding disabi lity and health. Disability and Rehabilitation 25 (11-12), 565-571. Velozo, C., Magalhaes, L., Pan, A., Leiter, P. (1995). Functional scale discrimination at admission and discharge: Rash analysis of the level of rehabilitation scale-III. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 76, 705-712. Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., et al. (2003). Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of Medicine, 348 (25), 2508-2516. Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1992). Improving memory performance in the aged through mnemonic trai ning: a meta-analytic study. Psychology and Aging, 7, 242251. Whalley, L. J., Deary, I. J., Appleton, C. L., & Starr, J. M. (2004). C ognitive reserve and the neurobiology of cognitive aging. Aging Research Reviews, 3 369-382. Wang, Y., Mathews, V. P., Kalnin, A. J, Mo sier, K., Dunn, D., & Kronenberger, W. (2006). Short term effects of violent video game playing: an fMRI study. Paper presented at RSNA, November 28. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of Positive and Negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Weiss, P. L., Naveh, Y., & Katz, N. (2003). Design and testing of a virtua l environment to train stroke patients with unilateral spa tial neglect to cross a street safely. Occupational Therapy International, 10(1), 39-55. Willis, S. L., Blieszner, R., & Baltes, P. B. (1981). Intellectual training re search in aging: Modification of performance on the fl uid ability of figural relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (1), 41-50.

PAGE 208

208 Willis, S. L.(1996). Everyday cognitive competence in the elderly persons: Conceptual issues and empirical findings. The Gerontologist, 36 (5), 595-601. Willis, S.L., & Nesselroade, C. S. (1990). Long-term effects of fluid ability training in old-old age. Developmental Psychology, 26 905-910. Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., et al. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on ever yday functional outcomes in older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296 (23), 1-10. Wilson, R. S., Mendes de Leon, C. F., Barnes, L. L, Schneider, J. A., Bienias, J. L., Evans, D. A., et al. (2002). Participation in cognitively stimulat ing activities and risk of incident Alzheimer disease Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(6), 742-748. Winocur, G. (1988). Environmental influences on cognitive declines on aged rats. Neurobiology of Aging, 19 589-597. Wittmann, M., Kiss, M., Gugg, P., Steffen, A., Fi nk, M., Pppel, E., et al (2006). Effects of display position of a vi sual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 187-199. Wolinsky, F. D., Unverzagt, F. W., & Smith, D. M. (2006). The effect of the ACTIVE cognitive training trial on clinically relevant declines in health-related quality of life. Journal of Gerontology, 61B (5), 281-287. World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, ICF. Geneva. World Health Organization. Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., Rose, T. L., Lu m, O., Huang, V., Adey, M. B., et al. (1983). Development and validation of a geriatric depr ession screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17 37-49. Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information processing skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83 643-647. Zelinski, E. M., & Burnight, K. P. (1997). Sixt een-year longitudinal and time lag change in memory and cognition in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 12 503-13. Zelinski, E. M., & Stewart, S. T. (1998). Indi vidual differences in 16year memory changes. Psychology and Aging, 14 18-33. Zimmer, Z., & Chappell, N. L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21 (5/6), 222-230.

PAGE 209

209 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patrcia da Cunha Belchior is a doctoral candi date in the Rehabilita tion Science Doctoral Program at the University of Florida. .She ear ned her bachelor's degree in law in 1998 and her bachelor's degree in occupational therapy in 1999 in Brazil. During her doctoral studies she worked as a research assistant for the Rehab ilitation and Engineering Research Center for successful aging and for the National Older Driv ers Research and Trai ning Center. She has shared publications on several journal articles and she has presented national and international conferences about aging and technology. Her cu rrent research focuses on cognitive training using video game to improve driving skill s and driving safety among older adults.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101206_AAAAGG INGEST_TIME 2010-12-07T05:06:03Z PACKAGE UFE0021218_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 85624 DFID F20101207_AAABMG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH belchior_p_Page_189.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
1e09521c3cedd05052191eb1f3a4c70b
SHA-1
1cb6b94eff817bb493c3c823bfd236e8684d40d2
109593 F20101207_AAABLS belchior_p_Page_163.jp2
2db7a10fbec1dcba824f5199003169be
3b99f6056896d15c83a82cd65aab00336b703dd6
107887 F20101207_AAAAJE belchior_p_Page_034.jpg
3497e84ef1625a1333f443bba7760ff8
0bd6665dcd4bb285f5818f53d84dd0b7ddd53c04
8552 F20101207_AAAAIQ belchior_p_Page_015thm.jpg
0a55c8292de63b52f43b0630bcd47379
74caa20798490bef9064982140d99e5e017687ae
89573 F20101207_AAABMH belchior_p_Page_190.jp2
bcc6684140649c4c9e2c5fbfe6b71159
10d9ea2bc5824e2bdb7d14c2a7981e76100c7f8e
110140 F20101207_AAABLT belchior_p_Page_164.jp2
73d62edb4e29a20c6f8685349b86a2d0
27aa593a3087f4f0586bd960b41fc21ba1e327b0
19180 F20101207_AAAAJF belchior_p_Page_182.QC.jpg
3654bdf8ca26499b6e744b9779b7786f
ef2d8dac3cd7f4c45501209101ad325eda774796
8958 F20101207_AAAAIR belchior_p_Page_063thm.jpg
46791770a5e3263353080580e2bc4fd2
3b8741a1525abe9078731ae7f0848f5782d52984
75553 F20101207_AAABMI belchior_p_Page_194.jp2
1a0c9943e85a070b48de70ab541a14b2
0e10d360c4c2d1f7d6ca76a3f4f2306cb7cfb7ff
113940 F20101207_AAABLU belchior_p_Page_166.jp2
ef06773bb25c14a99a23dfb1927d2c15
7628403449315b9db61a44b62ffe60d8081620d8
33636 F20101207_AAAAJG belchior_p_Page_052.QC.jpg
326b0de254071379c6e46ee4d8fcc0d6
4935597f5b53fd38950e8958ae183fce1abb300a
1476 F20101207_AAAAIS belchior_p_Page_193.txt
e3dbc738309fea3c6a7f27c17fb672d7
5e8ccd47efdd20ce384c8d44107011f97b16ee3c
46024 F20101207_AAABMJ belchior_p_Page_195.jp2
3c2973ebe1056f0bf41cf58aa2bc6ac2
5134cc6ea2d5b242763adae5ffefb08f6561cb69
120737 F20101207_AAABLV belchior_p_Page_168.jp2
8cdde34f1c9671ce94d432363d7fa031
0d7225dc3d8bc1dbe6ab2b1e240b3584f4764e49
65837 F20101207_AAAAJH belchior_p_Page_206.pro
a66114bc9326fde5152c897b8fe2401c
00c37daf82107247b7b1f1e228d7488ea5550e34
1053954 F20101207_AAAAIT belchior_p_Page_207.tif
42d597bbffd2c53f7c83b1e75eb17a13
da12ee5cda4e26fbbf471724cd8e2d82f949b293
61273 F20101207_AAABMK belchior_p_Page_197.jp2
65b8459cc60b9fb9f71f6bec7122e22a
919747ada90db8e16cf40fa89b9e88297289fc7d
110102 F20101207_AAAAJI belchior_p_Page_100.jpg
82dd4a97a5cb713522293d80ee04e328
22294593d6710526a6869cbd7a7d5b1cef53f19a
138710 F20101207_AAABML belchior_p_Page_201.jp2
f19416585c4a337c084dab97e3678ce3
ec2fade4ec88eed08af9f5427e259f11ab10d036
25243 F20101207_AAABLW belchior_p_Page_169.jp2
07c52624f853151282da1919ea7dac0d
64442fcc938659ea00920c46f66a334792c83626
53043 F20101207_AAAAJJ belchior_p_Page_033.pro
42561f2cdaaed4bcf80eca9660391adf
9bda261fdb1e7401c6cee6583a4b73f5dfc7c3d7
77169 F20101207_AAAAIU belchior_p_Page_177.jpg
9eb5ea234c7273a4ff7a3fb3d62a1d41
dc889a3322fae996c0778ebdc04e5b23eca50914
F20101207_AAABNA belchior_p_Page_019.tif
fadb88f4a6f84d1ba378ce4157ae46bc
f06d51a61e1095c1b383b97bda031a5c6c303329
144120 F20101207_AAABMM belchior_p_Page_202.jp2
244b5b07742fc47f825a03843f9d7487
de106c3be609beb1dd9a4ace0fb68cb329828c9d
90132 F20101207_AAABLX belchior_p_Page_171.jp2
d8fdd7e567282a4e62fd1d25d780e4d1
bc3e705f5aba2a750748a6c6e24c23e204f15956
F20101207_AAAAJK belchior_p_Page_204.tif
50d00af73e359858d2e6546939c75340
fe0fcb0c9bdca5669a876161c90d23deb5727ab0
51397 F20101207_AAAAIV belchior_p_Page_070.pro
7dc190c41f6ee7a90c65685406567d45
171e4549f1e59652bdd1e766a0b0c6a7fd4f5766
F20101207_AAABNB belchior_p_Page_024.tif
58546f3c530d49212d543c5ce7f02d00
e95466418f5498f0ba5eb5fda6618a06f7728d5b
139232 F20101207_AAABMN belchior_p_Page_206.jp2
79969057ffdb9ccd088dde4d9d5eaac6
54f449b4a9760078baf30a8225d7578b27dadfa3
55311 F20101207_AAABLY belchior_p_Page_173.jp2
0421661636fa9b5c8b6a7ef39f8aae65
ab8a29a5e981af53e4d5f466edf9798ca5585b69
F20101207_AAAAJL belchior_p_Page_128.tif
8e03bfcceae94287792fb59adb933382
c2c5f40fa24736466463d061ce5e23e49a82e21c
38822 F20101207_AAAAIW belchior_p_Page_189.pro
7ad8bde1b35bd2cf57db096f5296ca2a
6bf40ff2de85d2c72482e649090f7e87ad565ca1
F20101207_AAABNC belchior_p_Page_029.tif
4e894ab04edb3a67f1de1930ef1b17de
d67a61f3cd48fe7ea2972d5954574345f5a85cee
133316 F20101207_AAABMO belchior_p_Page_207.jp2
bcefe8b493b18a44b806352c3e49b7cc
439237fe679e76b3621a24a9b5e45eb795387983
76696 F20101207_AAABLZ belchior_p_Page_177.jp2
4f6ff361e0ffbd9ec97bdb2ee60d6007
07ae79ef1c602431dd9bde10add36e1f6a8e83de
39142 F20101207_AAAAKA belchior_p_Page_196.jp2
28831a5d2a55e46a5fe9084793db7c83
e20753664134c54c5a7b05ae50c1b41247cce297
24813 F20101207_AAAAJM belchior_p_Page_172.QC.jpg
705bc7291aa5b534f55477a342d28dbe
0308205f149e1fc145d9cf9ed095a8117d0a7f72
1977 F20101207_AAAAIX belchior_p_Page_028.txt
44c864b7002662b2268c09f823cf6f4d
c87ed082377b3caacebf6fbb01ebbaab00218304
F20101207_AAABND belchior_p_Page_030.tif
2de2fd30ae9c5c4d83884b43ec6670f8
da68f52660d05982c6539505fa32abd920924ecb
47091 F20101207_AAABMP belchior_p_Page_209.jp2
14be12b9333358ade5d4da26a5b8defb
2c47b7562b35187b5efb4b2a0e8c33a72fadeca5
28421 F20101207_AAAAKB belchior_p_Page_001.jpg
9546225f1f2610cad52bee74caf0e498
69438edd7b5759851ce237491cea1e809897c889
500 F20101207_AAAAJN belchior_p_Page_012.txt
1a84dc9e72df43dc9b83c7dedaaace19
56a68a2a68b57e2f784a0635d316fef0295c773f
35888 F20101207_AAAAIY belchior_p_Page_156.QC.jpg
81b3cb7dd46b4ba33b1dbe933d620790
9adbf42384d9286dc3b4c12c02b472a2e8f670f6
F20101207_AAABNE belchior_p_Page_033.tif
4534a433cdcfdc2d104e561ebe1baca1
24e846260287cfb63f553dc9e0d36e19215df7bb
F20101207_AAABMQ belchior_p_Page_001.tif
8611f2c3ee995848cd7100fe49e2cf4b
49f72bf50a57d2b8c6daaa788bdf7fb2a977afaa
8658 F20101207_AAAAKC belchior_p_Page_035thm.jpg
897a92a8463640c0ce7df60b0176bafb
1a3a82f5919ee620940c02c84c4de8c8375aa521
F20101207_AAAAJO belchior_p_Page_178.tif
200afe05f40e615bacb3f40186f5e58d
2149805996fe7c850e3204d0eb1bc244e5ccf091
101722 F20101207_AAAAIZ belchior_p_Page_065.jpg
14fd69e514f3d9a867ba2bf750cf2336
934805db41f1b3e04958f2c283a6325024ce04ac
F20101207_AAABNF belchior_p_Page_034.tif
b9a35219925e571bfc6013ce16d44558
32564cba98db03202d61fbf2f4eaf48afcd3e209
F20101207_AAABMR belchior_p_Page_003.tif
d742b6f0ccb118aad500cc5fb99522a0
43c62af6fce91ea04ca5bd8a3eef83ae9c7b5d32
8912 F20101207_AAAAKD belchior_p_Page_022thm.jpg
4f595c2266e4267a38e985f94f69fb08
ef40a69fba209788125cf6f7c42935cf3067fb86
F20101207_AAAAJP belchior_p_Page_145.tif
ac19607e47707a8ad98f055ccbc11b69
58bcb90b7ece235f786d84cf596f2cfe86e73c1b
F20101207_AAABNG belchior_p_Page_036.tif
5f710dd93dd45b462ad9cba700a35bf9
6bc67526c8d83bb471791c78a711d1a3d892643a
F20101207_AAABMS belchior_p_Page_004.tif
8b422b6ac20f321ee9b53bd9cd642935
4a0c98a14acc2d3a8ea4bc95025560f357a06513
123693 F20101207_AAAAKE belchior_p_Page_207.jpg
65f45dbba0fc025b9340c9544769a4d9
95c6b2646bd2fecc9387e8d23f04685dbc3dfde3
F20101207_AAAAJQ belchior_p_Page_065.tif
08b517068f892363d98cf10d239d73ad
0f8870c08f4ed54bfa11096998d94b33a97372d6
F20101207_AAABNH belchior_p_Page_039.tif
5aa586cd6431667af6ae8d79d3d8a547
135bb1b265db6b8e8710943bb748efb2f996f4de
F20101207_AAABMT belchior_p_Page_005.tif
c7889ddd35c384f6f87c39feff98ab84
bfddcdc17ea00a083437c1115d99c421e7fb8f25
37747 F20101207_AAAAKF belchior_p_Page_155.QC.jpg
48d85ce5a875f0775b85f23334e46873
da92071a90bb544c971a85e4526946350374fc91
103098 F20101207_AAAAJR belchior_p_Page_163.jpg
67242a5ae6c27b4bb57499c47df219cf
de0a0665e29cccb40b3d905a70773e65b8fabac0
F20101207_AAABNI belchior_p_Page_041.tif
c6c7ce1500ff4f5a5074685ac5925493
612446f6da6b5294644dd38f96c3410b7532527e
25271604 F20101207_AAABMU belchior_p_Page_006.tif
9f7a76facf09f8bdb94d9e8399379556
e214bc752df1b2b34df4e21b5014df08b8d0a6ff
31045 F20101207_AAAAKG belchior_p_Page_011.QC.jpg
8517f4617eba1ee8308bbdc529436209
6f25e754566b98d8493b8d9f79481d89c0b03d6f
1079 F20101207_AAAAJS belchior_p_Page_179.txt
998941743307d756bec6ce4c9a37746a
ec5326c968539d60f4926e98938ce215c04fa9fd
F20101207_AAABNJ belchior_p_Page_043.tif
59b7a337dfded8dc1d3469c65df39aab
329bd687b21ec05d801a3f9d463bd6cda5edf691
F20101207_AAABMV belchior_p_Page_009.tif
d0fbd5642b5c4df084b720c769288c8b
9d36012785359930966b9078f1a387ec42f33944
46173 F20101207_AAAAKH belchior_p_Page_196.jpg
8424a429290616a8406068381b3d895a
5d3ceaefc8bc5042051f865f4934dfb97eaa63fd
1767 F20101207_AAAAJT belchior_p_Page_096.pro
a37f671f1a54274a0f150e6d773dff6c
4dcdd6cad5f48b093e856314ab2fdd27561d8db2
F20101207_AAABNK belchior_p_Page_044.tif
bd50d42844ddd3d90330344030f59477
44d6781c0c7ce3d46463223101625ca5925409cb
F20101207_AAABMW belchior_p_Page_011.tif
28f33259b155958f5bc7e472188a81d3
fed7b68fbf85cfe3d9bac9441dded58c04f4fd74
53192 F20101207_AAAAKI belchior_p_Page_157.pro
9b990b7e3107ba93b3eeb4b8de165d64
c03e952e7154de1488f36d5596c1c468e0d23fc2
9029 F20101207_AAAAJU belchior_p_Page_073thm.jpg
197f0e88c4bea3d8b15bc124085146bb
b786e6b00a4cff77645f324c17ee9a1a48236c96
F20101207_AAABNL belchior_p_Page_048.tif
7ba60a5d19580136c1d97caba321884a
c344055cf477e184cc30d1655edc8dffc5b448c9
9418 F20101207_AAAAKJ belchior_p_Page_204thm.jpg
b6d093e53cb57a3636bd5c8d68065355
d5c3cf1957e0ae41aeaee557f778b9f42089f969
F20101207_AAABOA belchior_p_Page_080.tif
dc3f94d1157f59683552246a73fe4cf3
01290fcf7401a501792288520484bee3e42f923f
F20101207_AAABNM belchior_p_Page_049.tif
ab1e59010fb5cabe45d381034febc897
819cf42ad6de571c6790cb59470e061f7cca7feb
F20101207_AAABMX belchior_p_Page_013.tif
511a8dc0e5c2637e31f41b1d08ee59f1
f65711553409305742d0f8a01817cefd2c26dde2
10980 F20101207_AAAAKK belchior_p_Page_049.QC.jpg
d8b090e4a49c9d4311bde9abe89c3ebe
2b5c2a5ef42b42c61bfb6482acc106b07ae94bfb
6243 F20101207_AAAAJV belchior_p_Page_124thm.jpg
bc427f9dc1d8266cbfb8f1bcb8575246
4bd8a56a5eca64f0f1cb9ff750dafed0d93cb84b
F20101207_AAABOB belchior_p_Page_083.tif
24341387e2a9c6f7c3d23cb183366a5c
df9c13f2bf9e406516ee7304b05d66dfd23f3e21
F20101207_AAABNN belchior_p_Page_051.tif
842cb25f6cee3c65de067af561e56820
acd510ab735fc57b6444009aaa94713a234431f7
F20101207_AAABMY belchior_p_Page_014.tif
425e578d550fc270b8bf1d7b13f28810
f60e1e752c407285f123e0005127b8fba0110451
37596 F20101207_AAAAKL belchior_p_Page_027.jpg
c998381e26158ae43add630d1c2850a8
987b78c1eb49c8b8daeaa5ca64b2e56e4c4c9424
33493 F20101207_AAAAJW belchior_p_Page_163.QC.jpg
9ab24c875d787dd1c3f7c3bdbed99fc4
98ad7abfba90b41db73176890dda2c1d54005882
F20101207_AAABOC belchior_p_Page_087.tif
3d999bf8ab23a87a999678dfc282d5ac
88fabfbffca55d31a4620eb7bfbafbc3a4eda938
F20101207_AAABNO belchior_p_Page_053.tif
b72ce89f1b707f8c1994360655998063
78b234e56bcbff3b633f6c72fa532a46576414c1
F20101207_AAABMZ belchior_p_Page_015.tif
bc18bc7e93ef7f5a798efd28030bef20
5ce95856a76ad0bd74510cde8ca2403e36fc721b
35732 F20101207_AAAAKM belchior_p_Page_103.QC.jpg
8c92900bb2dbcaf81554cc2250e20e96
23086c0c009637ebcd7b396b50d309ef8588cf51
114605 F20101207_AAAAJX belchior_p_Page_101.jpg
3ba066b8849c438e612d0e16df485329
90ad5dc18be1b96e715a5c8c30d34be06e56d5a1
208 F20101207_AAAALA belchior_p_Page_093.txt
f4c5270c02f5c9eabaf034f74ea34062
e33ced465a521db1b919423b47a7f178d7f382c1
F20101207_AAABOD belchior_p_Page_091.tif
4d1bc9bb3bd4bb0dcc0139d790fb53e9
cf561969acbe2902285b63569d5d4fda644695ec
F20101207_AAABNP belchior_p_Page_054.tif
5cf3176dc53de360fb9b18bfab1b8846
175e8008688caebe580c5d97a94ec145343061f4
F20101207_AAAAKN belchior_p_Page_031.tif
34993fa436b218655e469ddad017de41
5aee42b2316962d1a7b6fa0acf8ea8d339aaf9be
8145 F20101207_AAAAJY belchior_p_Page_143.pro
dbc77ec594af1260a1df6b9e8d9ff4e4
157a4cac4a61a920ace29c09d7495e55d5a68aad
88896 F20101207_AAAALB belchior_p_Page_186.jpg
65ae62da5e82ecd590c1d30df2152acf
72789fa8a1faae3f4f9e1bf269ee9439375b24fa
F20101207_AAABOE belchior_p_Page_092.tif
8ef91135ee644b4c8326d9f32770fc26
6c4c5fe298c132df64774a45e8cd11df2ea3e34a
F20101207_AAABNQ belchior_p_Page_055.tif
179138aa0687bf5b46b8295d09f2c106
5e08a2e093b93020cf764d9c5c325d2705cd539d
8477 F20101207_AAAAKO belchior_p_Page_118.QC.jpg
cebef97293e120ed6ff0d4dfb0259e63
b20624476a74ba6ed92c36dff7bf81436c2a666d
34172 F20101207_AAAAJZ belchior_p_Page_132.jp2
01a8f0e825bc062c96db79674b6afa4d
3d05766599907a42e47da1236d42ee3a9a39581d
2563 F20101207_AAAALC belchior_p_Page_207.txt
d05686a10e8368a0434074441484e400
758ea92bcae632abd9251ff7196b3c61cd611478
F20101207_AAABOF belchior_p_Page_093.tif
30d9a1ff2fcb26616c9f4eaae25ef939
132514d63aa8c7192d1e52492ce13558a6216b6d
F20101207_AAABNR belchior_p_Page_058.tif
d5bb02c009f23a05e1e6cb69e1154bf2
c554ead809d439b843bbd2c5d4d5e914d5dcd190
9083 F20101207_AAAAKP belchior_p_Page_017thm.jpg
ccdc74a8781676755b6e1588a62f23fa
334e57cbf6f9ba36b74d46d7b3d42b4f8c406a55
55657 F20101207_AAAALD belchior_p_Page_101.pro
0669dcdcac4970a27f24e2db01b21266
1df9891fe9dfe8527654849c3f3e03a02faf8f28
F20101207_AAABOG belchior_p_Page_096.tif
4b392f126e1211e7c5a2a972d1d48630
c458d999d00740a3f2235af6a42e74e9f4b30942
F20101207_AAABNS belchior_p_Page_059.tif
429b5fb43b41eb810b43ca5e750022e5
9029920fd4e0ab7c9771bd175ea3ffb2c51abe10
2339 F20101207_AAAAKQ belchior_p_Page_011.txt
ab7f5df6a3b7c4cf6558f59d7b7fedbf
612df0ac5a1f0bb693df3aa0bf3f0bc01ea53a9a
35969 F20101207_AAAALE belchior_p_Page_111.QC.jpg
00aec2af679d471d39ec073af1f7d8cb
967ce382c8e9b6613569a2c86bfb07292619b60c
F20101207_AAABOH belchior_p_Page_097.tif
2e35a7af559f72bd7ac1a5b56b17d3e0
aeb4f065ac910fef965b2eeef93b1b49f2da72a5
F20101207_AAABNT belchior_p_Page_063.tif
488836deb03de49105cf556c9025b8cd
2054e9862a64a2f11a097ffef05195e254948014
F20101207_AAAAKR belchior_p_Page_140.tif
ff5f6dd337ca452b2bb5c6cc249f8622
d963630057656119de763e20054ca711627dc179
1484 F20101207_AAAALF belchior_p_Page_191.txt
c21de1a4164078c288d07038cd20af7d
85f71a5ef08e69bdcd028fd4e7665ef2a5582e9c
F20101207_AAABOI belchior_p_Page_100.tif
883372f6336e68d04e434ef6ea413156
f5524c5765136fb14789fb6ae004d0da01b3eff5
F20101207_AAABNU belchior_p_Page_064.tif
aa73ea8cb3ab3ee0a8ae079fa9370058
0038d72da532a7a2215d7e0a876f1cf815d219d8
5564 F20101207_AAAAKS belchior_p_Page_136.pro
54bb0cb1e8a62992c31b9d67fbbb931d
587440e9ab61263efbfe2367ddf3d07ca83bac26
8579 F20101207_AAAALG belchior_p_Page_053thm.jpg
46ff0a202074c099aa4f994224b5b0b5
02db5bea2e1e75519882bf2d7d18d739ff30a40a
F20101207_AAABOJ belchior_p_Page_101.tif
a66a1dffbb72bab7586f14b548b725d8
0739a2d4aaacd93f73e36083812218a47750eef5
F20101207_AAABNV belchior_p_Page_066.tif
4371648062dfb3321c69eed9bed95599
68e94c1a1f228905a1694d8aeb5afd0130107081
597 F20101207_AAAAKT belchior_p_Page_097.txt
48f880ac80ee7dfc300a36a840a86c17
3878c52d807d9cd22d94e8a85aa049c00ca6445b
1648 F20101207_AAAALH belchior_p_Page_189.txt
2fd84e84f26e2237208fd7fab293bda2
d87e0381ddb89bcc371f617d12420f297f1b7f09
F20101207_AAABOK belchior_p_Page_102.tif
4aeb93fcdf98f4edb1938132fecac758
0430fb1aa1e0b5a283dac084279520274df624a8
F20101207_AAABNW belchior_p_Page_070.tif
0c27231a171ede65809daf4e6340d414
0df8b345ebb71a43321ffaba49e3da13cea141de
826 F20101207_AAAAKU belchior_p_Page_209.txt
1b6dffcaa35d91c4a77e107c89b20d66
6e8aa0cbb1efc02bb4e3535d4c4c9c61ebfc425c
14586 F20101207_AAAALI belchior_p_Page_097.QC.jpg
6f58fea722f688864b9274d0265fa9f7
a9ad950596b8fb56011e9cd36f37181c38dd4e20
F20101207_AAABOL belchior_p_Page_103.tif
581f2c055c0cfc274f9178d9f7ca7181
53fa48cf5d1f33703326daf94398e43096a81185
F20101207_AAABNX belchior_p_Page_071.tif
25ccf4f49abee535aa81cfa97602c6ef
93f1ab83471be3e26fa8c00c08915bff3b3e3771
39000 F20101207_AAAAKV belchior_p_Page_068.QC.jpg
54320a74afc8001f16554d33a4099253
a727327c4b1e906eec5519f60731e847efd1efa4
F20101207_AAAALJ belchior_p_Page_187.tif
22577ac4396943c687b651a38e105788
2319aaa6f43864e5257291dbe8e28b49c8e49d08
F20101207_AAABPA belchior_p_Page_138.tif
e70340de667ace13be9cdf14718ddc83
ca95d671bc70086ac3ff8ee3c72df01d2b36fd3c
F20101207_AAABOM belchior_p_Page_107.tif
85b5aaa0a747d3363ed9504888e74c6f
f95b12505d72c7eb5eed89f7b9395f0f11b6d5ea
2177 F20101207_AAAALK belchior_p_Page_024.txt
b32b9bb0e942ca93eb3fbf37f1ddea98
76574905229989b30c0ac7aaf2db547b08cbdfb4
F20101207_AAABPB belchior_p_Page_142.tif
a28ef7cd5fb0ba1bfae360f7339d5370
2287c5c43b5f7379773826169494a5f9e136b059
F20101207_AAABON belchior_p_Page_108.tif
9c76fd5dbdf5263a75acf169da274c14
8fc007cfd510032a64196c2969e43880ddf6635b
F20101207_AAABNY belchior_p_Page_072.tif
11f5cb3f57000c4eb9c88a65d9ae7168
27b64e1991eaf3f96220da8f941ebff29c23c41c
85687 F20101207_AAAALL belchior_p_Page_187.jpg
46697cb52eccb3b1d563e21143395ce3
6e648f3de1f36860c0c8f0de4b36c730dc4d94ee
F20101207_AAAAKW belchior_p_Page_098.txt
68b72d329196852f472843e2572d92be
998c0642e16fa348a8ed4e1b1d29fd0fb14a20b7
F20101207_AAABPC belchior_p_Page_143.tif
f0c845c5ef92bfb9906c559cedc82256
cbeab02fcf9238aad15b6160b9baff73f8151aff
F20101207_AAABOO belchior_p_Page_114.tif
e5a4394861ccc9ae9aacd13a8ce0e3cb
a2615fbc4a2f37a037d01039db053928a6f509d5
F20101207_AAABNZ belchior_p_Page_075.tif
c93efd16ab50e1879cce2eaeeea54b53
3c6bdcac95ba40f3fefa345fce51103f8255b094
2506 F20101207_AAAAMA belchior_p_Page_144thm.jpg
64307c3bdd58d0c55b78aa4b0171e73e
0d324141c2da3ce43046265ece6dae723241509c
103165 F20101207_AAAALM belchior_p_Page_062.jpg
a2b1110ee2e6c45e3982705a97113833
93df5045b01047d2a4e79f95f737d7b503369b4a
40476 F20101207_AAAAKX belchior_p_Page_188.pro
0e0f94ebc9d8b360de192949674afd8d
eb01618d45e884d6e6f902e651f27093da358e1d
F20101207_AAABPD belchior_p_Page_144.tif
d4f99e5c22af68871173e361b70bbf2e
cfae36e486c14008a75520005d9fb0b42cd7a938
F20101207_AAABOP belchior_p_Page_118.tif
e2ebe87a90bfb7422415fbb2fc704738
32e79c79411ef55601f4cdfd2816772d1779e05d
55992 F20101207_AAAAMB belchior_p_Page_079.pro
a445c09f9b5d2700fa5108278c6d2113
b415fd39a5f1d933757ab5a5ea9a00e317f04363
F20101207_AAAALN belchior_p_Page_086.tif
30a26d383152947db1d8ed3298fb01f4
7258f4499cff4dae659bf453fb20dc4b4f07eebe
37674 F20101207_AAAAKY belchior_p_Page_058.QC.jpg
10f57fd159fdbb0573b9dcb5be8d7188
9e074820919ad535a02a3e596ba798eed5d7b850
F20101207_AAABPE belchior_p_Page_146.tif
8b654b546c90a9ede4f5a840d798e73c
f46cd5a144c69f9b24ef90433941fc620849bad1
F20101207_AAABOQ belchior_p_Page_120.tif
c535da49219dd206bbfb2d16f8c51571
5130174f2d4d11f0f78ee505d63fb0521b1bdf4d
26977 F20101207_AAAAMC belchior_p_Page_187.QC.jpg
ec3155c770fe06adec92d73240210a8a
7d70dfd5b51c590ba061a62075e995265449cb8b
2118 F20101207_AAAALO belchior_p_Page_023.txt
153336c8cc3db4d6d788dc65d20f9574
cd9fec8ec7a8b990e04a78795ce88e7430fd70bd
32943 F20101207_AAAAKZ belchior_p_Page_069.QC.jpg
12c6604f7e1130244b24d54da3cf9c2f
e720ca5b0d87d4197d4303bba31fcf3716c7b972
F20101207_AAABPF belchior_p_Page_149.tif
bbe7e6639532c36528667845332c01bd
8e6872c0e65acd4a3c1e29046ab9f055e3616c20
F20101207_AAABOR belchior_p_Page_121.tif
7230123465404a8aef393514df2cb56f
6944d8db2d590d18164e6482de135d3ff0dc9ab9
9335 F20101207_AAAAMD belchior_p_Page_114thm.jpg
ada98603f3cb4999e4fe958becf4c2ee
cfe250868b650ec9e34aa94d30abf9b6be5cb72d
119956 F20101207_AAAALP belchior_p_Page_022.jp2
04e98720a6dca846b3db85122513f2ca
3c701b0bda2efebb3aa793182eb83c46bba1314f
F20101207_AAABPG belchior_p_Page_150.tif
e4479b81a57cc30edb69bd7abc0076ec
a6622527817dcae045e566f20d8f6de0d1315412
F20101207_AAABOS belchior_p_Page_125.tif
15997c08d14f703610eaacec72862c10
da1cf435d82d57d6a2c260b35f8d05aa61941392
9102 F20101207_AAAAME belchior_p_Page_106thm.jpg
7b0517d5f6edd544083a1e59ff4cb0d1
a18c501cd4133478fea454ac4fe675708508151d
128631 F20101207_AAAALQ belchior_p_Page_199.jp2
bc2d68b858407df25c583d15cae81957
6ce9de265555627e8b5630168b08e7ca55d03337
F20101207_AAABPH belchior_p_Page_151.tif
c6e308b5eb82c1f9eb46900ba9b89dfd
3187d4ad94cf0edc71adbcc000851ff4c0abd959
F20101207_AAABOT belchior_p_Page_126.tif
eaef2762e9759a7202f07c5554741f6d
c70dd2871058c591e4d384a2f97fd6b9eb6ba915
2139 F20101207_AAAAMF belchior_p_Page_040.txt
b1d5bdb002e021de9b08a7fb1f4e4010
76de73f69014904ab4289d4314fb88ef9d6ce4f7
54299 F20101207_AAAALR belchior_p_Page_107.pro
19956d3723172b9f66438d75da866c2a
2737f4a564846da6c394c47bb400453755999811
F20101207_AAABPI belchior_p_Page_152.tif
74525b3a677868e4f59f8efe6ab6f5b0
4921cca3a8623218fc68d192441f49e4531f73a3
F20101207_AAABOU belchior_p_Page_127.tif
6430b475b5fcda38d66cec5646ac6f94
09dd08b8bb0c4ee1b870d02235852882e4af73ba
2052 F20101207_AAAAMG belchior_p_Page_053.txt
6a5ac1165a2ac36ec13b2279f109c218
b19bd715aa955e1e1abe63452dc23776733aed60
111908 F20101207_AAAALS belchior_p_Page_110.jp2
571c99da13add81b8dd01ef45cf59bb0
dce508807c09f41599cd5636b658deba109dc6c7
F20101207_AAABPJ belchior_p_Page_157.tif
d93a94dd0e7fa195455d6d7191dfc746
85ddbe5f584098fdfc0117e869e8ed134bfdd659
F20101207_AAABOV belchior_p_Page_131.tif
19df4726f19283b3fbcee46471939992
45ede901bebda579d9d9ebbf2e52abf3ac273628
41049 F20101207_AAAAMH belchior_p_Page_187.pro
7057c929b7e9d62c7d1375e90dc39d4e
11140a8a2b87f3dbc193b20a78482b87c60384f2
57659 F20101207_AAAALT belchior_p_Page_074.pro
cf256fc3e50ffef2191c0de4dba38f60
7184268c68adfc519f1effa069febb45d3af15f4
F20101207_AAABPK belchior_p_Page_158.tif
25b9ff24721d70018383f8b6ceee1223
0efb31865c295b09513d9117219f38769d684e12
F20101207_AAABOW belchior_p_Page_132.tif
a88526dbb9bd29b4982451bf08d7b626
05d4640dcbf536b7fc83090bab1fcba0ebaaaf12
2214 F20101207_AAAAMI belchior_p_Page_058.txt
ca34a707af9f8dde939dac8eb7e5cbec
842a9807acf925389482da68bd6332aef478ffc6
1051984 F20101207_AAAALU belchior_p_Page_092.jp2
df8c2a0cbc12faa3514dddb3c1272971
54f8dac15b34e8ed065caf236420b7565a2045f1
F20101207_AAABPL belchior_p_Page_161.tif
c33f7df34a42abc17a1d3be2f8ea02bd
2ff4e8d84759d788242ea5c79008290bec762017
F20101207_AAABOX belchior_p_Page_134.tif
1be914539ccfd1d292d0610d26edcf41
74de150edbf9390d1b9a34c2f98ee8c44b7f031a
34241 F20101207_AAAAMJ belchior_p_Page_177.pro
d9e068fb1f8fc79862ed98c4747d561b
77e1c0aaff39bf4a8bb4789e4b8389ed95ccefac
53256 F20101207_AAAALV belchior_p_Page_108.pro
0764e7306371af058a4812c68b292118
4eed4ba49c1d1fa86b81213f4bdfb1966ce623d0
F20101207_AAABQA belchior_p_Page_190.tif
e1ed5ec31a6bed19688a91e92cc2ebb4
3c540cb125b37065bf6c1c318d67ddd878b3acf9
F20101207_AAABPM belchior_p_Page_162.tif
e45d675944888930b3692b49827e08bc
aaffbf1fbfe63f7c3d9b2f3999250fa5a882e13b
F20101207_AAABOY belchior_p_Page_135.tif
a0ffd3da433bce613ce3d0032353cc39
a3e8f1fbabf0600010e6da2203a02f5134474637
9198 F20101207_AAAAMK belchior_p_Page_103thm.jpg
d4f143f5e0e8c34bcb9cd0405e246f1d
f86a1a2d591e01ee08279e8d96a36b131b0d5603
39727 F20101207_AAAALW belchior_p_Page_190.pro
183c0f41767ce0822f1e1c25780fc0d9
b4b56ad2064489302f1a6739a956cae5883a8c56
F20101207_AAABQB belchior_p_Page_194.tif
7495e6ee334108421ef3a30ae9e1457a
7e5ce2a85e4a182f502aaf52bebc1a5b02848124
F20101207_AAABPN belchior_p_Page_163.tif
c66640e208ad655e364d51846fb96e8e
9a6c281907b6532b3ee818570120948930fc190e
117152 F20101207_AAAAML belchior_p_Page_035.jp2
a4f5000f4e014e780b87ede9ffe34919
f366dc0f749aae67f29940fd0b4124377fe84d17
F20101207_AAABQC belchior_p_Page_195.tif
da0e2e812fb86f9a7b64e3844412d4ac
9ea5d318d4a70a5fdb620c126ccd7819deb0cb8e
F20101207_AAABPO belchior_p_Page_164.tif
24dc427161bc158d6b7cb77722004cbb
116acf9fa766489062f07399487b44cfc8a04f52
F20101207_AAABOZ belchior_p_Page_136.tif
620874011607134e7c60b81c4c23cf12
29041298b45ce5899e030d9b2da9c5122a5fdc20
32729 F20101207_AAAAMM belchior_p_Page_194.pro
c6fb3d40ba9c8f58ebe77f64d7de6993
3c65140eadcb142f08005325f1b26015659acdb2
1144 F20101207_AAAALX belchior_p_Page_002.pro
d6cf56cef4148e1643b0d9a2e00b8394
664b502dc1454e2776ee569cb945a8a8b426d094
F20101207_AAAANA belchior_p_Page_172.tif
932137a4592924b56edc8ac1c16f24bc
ba240894aee8cea9238ade72621414d7b3eb5b57
F20101207_AAABQD belchior_p_Page_196.tif
6f28bcd3a1155bce686b0360309ee0ee
75f1299bb7632ea1da81af7d00e5e1a6ce28991d
F20101207_AAABPP belchior_p_Page_165.tif
fec28b4d71335e255ff49c5c37b730dc
c6998c92336d1c17e7cf09fa3a515f4bde9982cf
106384 F20101207_AAAAMN belchior_p_Page_158.jpg
6fe075eb62bc81b65667038f853498e7
4282452e7e346b3f9916eb6c89a939e83f152386
22881 F20101207_AAAALY belchior_p_Page_146.jpg
dd13644479f43f1948a267b115b13f88
11731e5bd4a9125d49c91112bcbb362c5f034f91
35716 F20101207_AAAANB belchior_p_Page_097.jp2
bb16d06b62c28b0824ecf4c94405bd40
f85c1f6e0603d5c3bf577e6e1516724d6c1adab6
1054428 F20101207_AAABQE belchior_p_Page_197.tif
9776e99edd6444c138f39b5ea1a01185
1738084f73c2156841e9c5a1d5db3d1b549c0c9c
F20101207_AAABPQ belchior_p_Page_173.tif
3d1d41314ea86308fd49b6634653490a
758a73fc51ad89a46e5c5441a5360beaf97849eb
2176 F20101207_AAAAMO belchior_p_Page_056.txt
31c5b34275badbaa6a11f178a66b7e38
a98d80e3d6cd5ea613fcc6a996a05e256eac70da
2172 F20101207_AAAALZ belchior_p_Page_030.txt
c243671ce3c1dbbaa71c0624f8f0590c
63c583c65ea33e990beea6f862e1cebe18e09531
2365 F20101207_AAAANC belchior_p_Page_012thm.jpg
4b391cd697ce6a8e39f7db1686dc877c
3f706ef2fa52d84171f9f9dcd8109508f3f927c7
F20101207_AAABQF belchior_p_Page_198.tif
5ef14d0a32f34125c1b4148ed4cead06
45a568f41e091628e036150e89b75946f48dd83a
F20101207_AAABPR belchior_p_Page_174.tif
1c1750d6f683566b51b306db74abdc4b
c851566e085d55f01f84c0740ea8d55e25d47a5a
104077 F20101207_AAAAMP belchior_p_Page_098.jp2
1b3d8038233a14fcbde6e69e2020db48
b8f77171450771d7f7cda24fe35e679289d1a060
52616 F20101207_AAAAND belchior_p_Page_130.jpg
4531febcdc9599030017bb529e4d4bce
29f853922122515cd9cbe121efa7f5be6788dbee
F20101207_AAABQG belchior_p_Page_199.tif
3f31959dde6338c5cbe13e46ebf507ea
47be6dec45a1dbb13959656e3426d06f95b7879d
F20101207_AAABPS belchior_p_Page_177.tif
a49b6e3f301706e7c67701313b2e3c33
3100c2133ae2612456191d3021083ded0e08db7b
27264 F20101207_AAAAMQ belchior_p_Page_121.pro
92c4a22a6592107ce52e12bddb3cbe86
76cd80334fa38d5fc68ff32a3dd262dbfb80f37a
70974 F20101207_AAAANE belchior_p_Page_200.pro
b58a82b49fd5cbda515f52e98861546e
843615aab8f29ab3a8efc7a581b8d7b2847979cf
F20101207_AAABQH belchior_p_Page_202.tif
ab780804f8401cbf20962cd88a103b0f
dbc275c84d5131feb2a9fc94b82be8d877c080cf
F20101207_AAABPT belchior_p_Page_179.tif
7f8996d7670976ed684bc119efcebeb4
93086482badb4da46fdcbabd19f822ab400db4af
107228 F20101207_AAAAMR belchior_p_Page_157.jpg
98f28c64697152e53ac1ffcb5aefda31
8a4609497ffa5dfdd90055c98d5c751a09a95913
8980 F20101207_AAAANF belchior_p_Page_038thm.jpg
e2c2ce7dc6fcaa41e3e7f645d10472cd
b8ef9f1d949c0bd54a75425771ba70f7fbc5e3a6
F20101207_AAABQI belchior_p_Page_208.tif
07ed4a4c2df9f6705cef5308e0ec8cc8
599455564633251d771e8dc931089e11cb372b21
F20101207_AAABPU belchior_p_Page_180.tif
c705f4e3bc0b3a584efecdb39eb996b2
ca58a0df9d615652b3778a067c144d90590fe710
78025 F20101207_AAAAMS belchior_p_Page_193.jpg
402412b7fcdb2c739b2376ff0340e3b2
12077bbec72b4ead99e1de7d14a5c86ddcd42f53
F20101207_AAAANG belchior_p_Page_006.jp2
209853461d55d23876cca3527bb95cb3
694fcac7b9f294e32a443ae06c24b424d124839d
1534 F20101207_AAABQJ belchior_p_Page_003.pro
0f622664d992bd4452f9541488a1cf15
a476ba3f64e31af1a8cb6965575c5830e185e4ad
F20101207_AAABPV belchior_p_Page_181.tif
2f30c2173722dad992e02043063d86a0
509f664c273f0d24d9ceae68e5b374d61003a8c2
119113 F20101207_AAAAMT belchior_p_Page_025.jp2
0978e9bbc478ad9559f26649fd5ca87f
019f4289e85ee0ae29de423b303992ed9a60d339
2247 F20101207_AAAANH belchior_p_Page_168.txt
49f3edb971fc5914d04d9e70ee70561c
20dd01123fa65ef1131608df70e2003c6a666fdd
78370 F20101207_AAABQK belchior_p_Page_006.pro
2ad697bfc25f7f25733b3058dd963d78
1668b40d70de42610b257412feb2cf1887ebf600
F20101207_AAABPW belchior_p_Page_182.tif
256199011b709941321400eb0bae42b1
2a422dfb06e05bc57b83c5b755383784a587c1a2
2414 F20101207_AAAAMU belchior_p_Page_142thm.jpg
26dfa15ee302b1ce06457b319e69c273
d9a195675a4faf5d6f2360b11e26079fc2119374
56905 F20101207_AAAANI belchior_p_Page_112.pro
e33321233a15ef85ae265694778f4c00
5831ea0af065b9277967065ea324ef690cea1c5b
98063 F20101207_AAABQL belchior_p_Page_007.pro
ee099d8bdf6e75844cf128e070bbbcf1
47f988a594dfe7bb10be7bbbf1fe8d99cbd3d856
F20101207_AAABPX belchior_p_Page_183.tif
56abc4c49d970c95266805c1c495d56b
1345e950ff91a58936fe324e2fb191101fbd15f4
6057 F20101207_AAAAMV belchior_p_Page_149.pro
4caa46a7091ead2e27f2bd91a993bae4
fccc3c00fe9a0b7c7605c3cb45f1f28f21f4ae5a
542 F20101207_AAAANJ belchior_p_Page_145.txt
1c65d17a5ab5461e76f3780993dc6bed
d6107144772e1338ad8f2b2ed62ab31eeb11116a
54320 F20101207_AAABRA belchior_p_Page_034.pro
ed28112f4c26f90d7b113b10fe0a74e1
5d204140e882cea68d3b537656d3b4f8af0e781a
20020 F20101207_AAABQM belchior_p_Page_008.pro
1deeeac4294b3d6bf7eabf0708203200
8d213df4ab44806b7830bc7953dc3cbec1dae94b
F20101207_AAABPY belchior_p_Page_185.tif
1112f74cac37ef4f81d9b35020dc0e4d
20272e436063b842c927afc5ee50ce860764dad3
1516 F20101207_AAAAMW belchior_p_Page_170.txt
d4246576f3a33d367e69fb505d9c942e
fe018a9697a8ca13f2596965a6e7d529cdf51cb7
F20101207_AAAANK belchior_p_Page_037.tif
094175c724ef8d5be9fc41f6854166bc
adfa7009ddea3f7d140ddb13a1cc9b56fad32cf0
54936 F20101207_AAABRB belchior_p_Page_035.pro
3f63e1a1b2a5aaf1ddc3e2c668f2f3eb
f024d08eb4c078314ad86e07bac07da581cb3907
65022 F20101207_AAABQN belchior_p_Page_009.pro
0fe82b284387ab2f67907cf1ab03716e
b7a0248cb5316147f3acdbc1a13c2b9420ae95b0
F20101207_AAABPZ belchior_p_Page_188.tif
81729d65bd76e8d6ef69b050e0dbdc07
a289b20dd745b1a640e7ae195a880a05a0dd0e63
774490 F20101207_AAAAMX belchior_p_Page_090.jp2
23e41a4d8de6de10eb4e017f2504ac7d
bcd7aa55dd6c6ab65db9eef808858b82dd22bcc1
8241 F20101207_AAAANL belchior_p_Page_033thm.jpg
0197022e94290da5f150a07c9e1342d5
d1b87456a8edf55ec9e37f711840e606586357d2
58474 F20101207_AAABRC belchior_p_Page_036.pro
a94a8ded71715aa08581f47ffdcde92e
47bf69c438bdebaad4602faf296c1ceadad29edf
56281 F20101207_AAABQO belchior_p_Page_011.pro
f55be42279b64ff4388857cb27383ead
5b9d34ddf43573174d09d8fb9e91146e9228ddab
33458 F20101207_AAAAOA belchior_p_Page_007.QC.jpg
344dc0f4abfb442b2de4c877c231b79f
a73c0ecb30b3e6523a0e0734627a3110ca5e57b3
10704 F20101207_AAAANM belchior_p_Page_132.QC.jpg
6a8c92ffd6c20d8114b80cd942d41b53
8324945e870c15966e5b72d0ea9553ce52907fc9
56010 F20101207_AAABRD belchior_p_Page_038.pro
3a437b4986eadf32d51001e20b9338b3
d2bddd9dd5040514b0709a445d0b167bb13f1d28
46974 F20101207_AAABQP belchior_p_Page_013.pro
d3d94c5063f8b8c52e5bf4ea49a8056b
119b56d06149f95449faddb99c5b2c5b2f1ffe41
37048 F20101207_AAAAMY belchior_p_Page_066.QC.jpg
093eb0e48b49f6039301a70aef80f589
b07bfeda77a7867f0d02daf8b37b48d6b41e6f52
6379 F20101207_AAAAOB belchior_p_Page_152.pro
6066b7210e6e2f52c9801ee1931cea3f
1d6363223cf353c6301c86f9eabcd8524128b1e8
125 F20101207_AAAANN belchior_p_Page_090.txt
459ba1f002ac0487761265f617a61ecf
0220c34853dfaf0e00cb5207d8473f97c4aca926
53456 F20101207_AAABRE belchior_p_Page_039.pro
21b30f15082f1bed1dff3aa3f5bbb063
e7d335f118e0fda19d0f2d3c08b85521b01294ec
54342 F20101207_AAABQQ belchior_p_Page_016.pro
90f3a526e9236b263d23aa6bac68c12a
90e217ea2c20f52d310a761e7325e4e656f19233
145411 F20101207_AAAAMZ belchior_p_Page_203.jp2
a73113046b6c69faed92216cbc71ec56
2d117a3355c93025e42b1a8dd363ec57da5bc9be
36011 F20101207_AAAAOC belchior_p_Page_039.QC.jpg
27f2a0aaac6181595a3cc4781111a7c1
1785c711bf996435163fdb8e307b22e9eb33d43f
22299 F20101207_AAAANO belchior_p_Page_126.QC.jpg
395a9e88ef59705c9e5f1bd547f010ba
5d4f9925bbacb99550773fa967592a8ba589a7ce
54455 F20101207_AAABRF belchior_p_Page_040.pro
05ea82558940f5cde0653918ac2de324
adf807e7973bf3bc833e89839a793aaf6283c6dd
56368 F20101207_AAABQR belchior_p_Page_018.pro
89186cbde121952bfeac476e685bd2d6
83d5c39fd4b4e500ea5fc30cf6fb3c849d0620de
124562 F20101207_AAAAOD belchior_p_Page_046.jp2
848d47cb437201ba8e52047da2c2c4d1
ef481be527f1ca34aad6485867269a50750985f4
F20101207_AAAANP belchior_p_Page_166.tif
0e54cc2446f3c6b4e584bc1681a77faa
85b21d5d95190d3e46b8325a21aa3cba396e7ad2
56284 F20101207_AAABRG belchior_p_Page_043.pro
78d5f5a6321969e39e2e6bec53f31945
f78a55a39cb53c5ad854e59ffa7b780958a81429
60114 F20101207_AAABQS belchior_p_Page_019.pro
4bd4d7ad7f950fdaf8c9d5d3ad2e5867
96b09c1f32d77e1acb24f513ced254528dc37464
32975 F20101207_AAAAOE belchior_p_Page_065.QC.jpg
c3678758a360e9212bdccb00ae36493f
cd7b4ca86da6d446a0b36322eeb7a52c5f98bda0
F20101207_AAAANQ belchior_p_Page_002.tif
a76a88f5d2d3894d2c5f5e291dedca8c
a505bbc41fc2c6b357baaa96a8dd66edaa139425
53310 F20101207_AAABRH belchior_p_Page_048.pro
799e38263e8226f917c8896173e363f1
baa30862cf7c4f17001f001bdea9d5a707b9601d
54134 F20101207_AAABQT belchior_p_Page_020.pro
5f87e3fe6259f53ec3696866632c1f71
4a2ee6406491a1e79d8c5211b526075da21ccf62
100715 F20101207_AAAAOF belchior_p_Page_167.jpg
0f841e53dcf5c70f13ee7612136b8127
fbab3c2ee03f99660d80a5a820dcb4278e51bd6e
1000 F20101207_AAAANR belchior_p_Page_175.txt
10a79cd3570728221bd04cc5d91f5c01
11a98a540382a61800aae1611f3d6a4b19c63812
2286 F20101207_AAABRI belchior_p_Page_050.pro
e4572a9e7a33a107a4d40ca27fce4e12
657bbc834f57c5dc004471f180d54fce6d9d96e9
54409 F20101207_AAABQU belchior_p_Page_021.pro
dcc22ba11f75a4a8b149aa0f67ede5d3
9a28b3daed7f199f3a811db947736ef27c960178
31689 F20101207_AAAAOG belchior_p_Page_028.QC.jpg
0aedc2318a8f632e9f047a79e62d4fbc
802bfb72343bd03028285f1d6ed78b8b8ea77690
F20101207_AAAANS belchior_p_Page_042.tif
98a311c292ea227448172e33f6b42ea0
ecf0b73b3409ed5358f2f79bbce480f568d77821
52920 F20101207_AAABRJ belchior_p_Page_057.pro
853ea87ef1b83d8ad716970c0663aed2
327d3899e6b43860cf26b264fc86cd46b9842b88
55284 F20101207_AAABQV belchior_p_Page_024.pro
827756246fdc65b8a15e61a6372ceebc
bd3343a6eb364e94116fe227a5a3a429660a66fa
2122 F20101207_AAAAOH belchior_p_Page_060.txt
50c7c5bc54628943f4d8b312c1428bc9
868c0fb7a98facb949a79d71803482192d66e83f
3694 F20101207_AAAANT belchior_p_Page_082.QC.jpg
43aa8ce7ccf6ffd5bded7c6bf73b8e7e
c72e2298cccadff76b9b4f3f9ff90ffd5eb5ff2a
46978 F20101207_AAABRK belchior_p_Page_059.pro
2476bbfb172913e409fe0fdaefeb29b3
0abe3a6706bd570d61522d273b671a61347a03bb
57209 F20101207_AAABQW belchior_p_Page_029.pro
55600c1092a408525cf77ec76908cbf4
3002f19394f0f8252f2cceab9c5f347fa108bdf2
36239 F20101207_AAAAOI belchior_p_Page_165.QC.jpg
42a008143764492adaf739c4dc21b47f
017238a90239d464b5b63f7bc95e1993618d1bc0
6403 F20101207_AAAANU belchior_p_Page_151.pro
1e3741a0a3a398c7e8e8a09d0a35ecf4
a34122c2116956d83312f1107bac508ad37495f3
51063 F20101207_AAABRL belchior_p_Page_061.pro
fce70b21eb80c9276514bfaf9ccb3b4a
e795027aba5991aa426c8e4817303009b6d578b5
55329 F20101207_AAABQX belchior_p_Page_030.pro
953afb9758373544b6fcecbed95c814e
ec51786b15309f1bc2845ad89138528fed90ac5f
31727 F20101207_AAAAOJ belchior_p_Page_125.QC.jpg
17e11cab46dd9e954ff30d7b54a6826d
38269ea0ba8d333c7fcb8cf48c69e7bef2c5fdae
1900 F20101207_AAAANV belchior_p_Page_059.txt
048df3db48a0026481a886a8c1ff902e
4a9b6df61c8cf5e7b3b665746554012ff442dbd0
20146 F20101207_AAABSA belchior_p_Page_084.pro
435d41e5343091d8863e379e338ee1a5
84261963d9e0d5dbdfd2700c4f926d9e2c9b2448
55545 F20101207_AAABRM belchior_p_Page_063.pro
d94fbfda28f06de3540e25309c0955f3
03810a2755cc3fbaaf8d5984bedb834d53912730
52871 F20101207_AAABQY belchior_p_Page_031.pro
da93f0679029d283e4718b0c0ac34b0a
309f4ee4a59d9a2043d7ff58bcad02d1d959c18e
35503 F20101207_AAAAOK belchior_p_Page_057.QC.jpg
3e34415451f98df9912cc5e3da5e98c4
48a193b313c37e29a8880c9d46dad5c8d0405cf8
54642 F20101207_AAAANW belchior_p_Page_075.pro
3857a9a41615648b08f0ec24d005ba00
a69fd55ecd817276d11cf164a017ef1c5a5fca92
4383 F20101207_AAABSB belchior_p_Page_086.pro
5fd382ecd26594510f9be69774b64228
bf28440cab2f6568c399f999962c698fc47eaa77
51034 F20101207_AAABRN belchior_p_Page_065.pro
0c368c297a5dc323c094afc0b37a0019
36cfa02650e1b1a64c004ed34e75602ed15c4372
54101 F20101207_AAABQZ belchior_p_Page_032.pro
2505c7b14a0cff8c1db3c543cb425118
e928d3f5862e16a5cf70ab01ee8d80796cf2c67b
5567 F20101207_AAAAOL belchior_p_Page_095.pro
8a8590ce4a549a7206427f4c6d378f4d
8089c10eb03c81395f4e07cd838f8c4c15f3d7db
17957 F20101207_AAAANX belchior_p_Page_084.QC.jpg
227194e92407f7792fb673d831130533
6de1a95f102f47faea380d5f059813dcfd417f25
7647 F20101207_AAABSC belchior_p_Page_088.pro
843471eb08b24cd1078f104030f90973
192073b5bd78362dc738d8b9f06b4896fc9b2c32
57504 F20101207_AAABRO belchior_p_Page_066.pro
bc83250d0ce7e82d26138daa165488fd
686c3392856763712a395ec2ac6ffd1d2d91b3e0
37222 F20101207_AAAAPA belchior_p_Page_162.QC.jpg
81f110c8cbc0199fe98135733189cbfc
b051b5083f933addd0c06b2c0a9bafa21f3bedc3
F20101207_AAAAOM belchior_p_Page_191.tif
1dd97d091910f78cd9bde92f969c4d63
62073a2d9bd6f374fd609141a3f09e1195d10bc0
985 F20101207_AAAANY belchior_p_Page_173.txt
cde391577ef738300963076273a401b3
8d0cd8ccdb9c1caaac137a2f8a52133b8a6f0745
1793 F20101207_AAABSD belchior_p_Page_090.pro
8dda0f56d0d61f6b56e6281e7fe3183d
7166e7b10e01ff63f7f5869231c06a9d91ddfe37
57167 F20101207_AAABRP belchior_p_Page_068.pro
f13e45b3cdf27edaa3a0efde4e55b628
f7abae731880c911442d88dda4d5485fbfa12d7b
9989 F20101207_AAAAPB belchior_p_Page_093thm.jpg
7f3b106723cbbfc2594ad7eb4f9a8583
ab356aa68af7c1fa452405ce354053dd09bf8192
F20101207_AAAAON belchior_p_Page_169.tif
6bab0a82d702692584c4107717a6e2b6
d5030370fd71e86b8887d83f2fa4bee5e39c1a49
2818 F20101207_AAABSE belchior_p_Page_092.pro
c2951474405694db6845398baa27bf27
542a050b9240a2b92ecb93733a0301e6a8bb5a1a
52917 F20101207_AAABRQ belchior_p_Page_071.pro
484335963ffeae00092366d9fa5874e0
36c321a4bb930b67a7aff92be36ee0753eefd220
116660 F20101207_AAAAPC belchior_p_Page_111.jp2
ab52b5864749d85dbcb5646b8afece30
f56e2c47caff895d4485288e7373e6d00b0cbc20
51651 F20101207_AAAAOO belchior_p_Page_104.pro
9f8fd722a10f60978ca9c5727f7ecf1a
7e041e9d4a48e59f958df920465ee11368b624c7
51030 F20101207_AAAANZ belchior_p_Page_053.pro
1e8401aa429c714bf4e3c7e6999e8662
ac25b0336b216333fda6e221fde82b990057a4ae
4081 F20101207_AAABSF belchior_p_Page_093.pro
5713a70d885316f43cb1ff5951419aaa
482164a0690d5ff6bad74a7b7c606ae6489842d0
52932 F20101207_AAABRR belchior_p_Page_072.pro
0d2adc03d27a8ad4d4b7c16e71f747da
5f6baef99fe929d9729e0e7bce4816a50de8b138
109783 F20101207_AAAAPD belchior_p_Page_111.jpg
a285ccf6b5f5876bb4184bf71f55bf18
e634f2d7b60ddbba8869c1ab6827cd85d1ba66c4
5237 F20101207_AAAAOP belchior_p_Page_196thm.jpg
a24e27ef42a98e5a1e2dfecfd2e01f4b
e2de8602bc9f1170c33d5bfa63780eb4cc59a247
5847 F20101207_AAABSG belchior_p_Page_094.pro
69072497876831b18e44218070b7b27c
489c0e65057bf2f85b413ebf346853af1f2c5d3c
51257 F20101207_AAABRS belchior_p_Page_073.pro
5b0f74030255cdbd03bed8217e782f47
528f42ba8471b4235ad46bf4517ab012d1c6c072
F20101207_AAAAPE belchior_p_Page_110.tif
56d50d2ceb30058a9019ef43596c4361
34fd8b6cf3e4ba95f366572003413357a4c020cb
9216 F20101207_AAAAOQ belchior_p_Page_074thm.jpg
c9f301c61a661e5783ea5f748badcbd2
316e8b395655cbc50be916a17edb5e1a2d67394a
47084 F20101207_AAABSH belchior_p_Page_098.pro
0670ace4ffa0837b2f19eaa60c4ede31
63a88c9b9fa422e7c388f9f7b1cbbb67c9b63486
52867 F20101207_AAABRT belchior_p_Page_076.pro
7fcf4b9690c58e9d684d1c86421dcfcf
6a6d55dc2e08853ccd2e667228f35648dae74a20
112050 F20101207_AAAAPF belchior_p_Page_015.jp2
dc6c999e9a3e0ec5219cd03ccb0e15da
f1b64cf70e7e56d8bb6012b7ab064da62ed886a8
110919 F20101207_AAAAOR belchior_p_Page_104.jp2
efc0e317656480f5ba85fa7fb5157173
9a25346cc743b2b453cc2dd56372f26fe13bb177
53866 F20101207_AAABSI belchior_p_Page_100.pro
d6021d71f8bf4bf4cf8ecebf487b8bde
45cdf1f82ac66606dc40a49030aea00f6f8dc717
52002 F20101207_AAABRU belchior_p_Page_077.pro
e4bdcc2a875d40cfa8ce1a19eb2866a0
8a433fe1365d546d9fb3ee8921c9cd9b548352e5
F20101207_AAAAPG belchior_p_Page_175.tif
d0d7154ac762ecff099a02573634cf8b
58c64896533c326eb7ade73246fc94166e9e462e
9078 F20101207_AAAAOS belchior_p_Page_092thm.jpg
115c50dcaba4e729f32ceed29e3f2453
35df2d638167b82dff65cc5ebb2d29886f1a57e3
53912 F20101207_AAABSJ belchior_p_Page_103.pro
0f997e7761f888af6a8a358a73c9869f
f5d5f26d3ef4f384f2523f90359efdb512a8b975
56026 F20101207_AAABRV belchior_p_Page_078.pro
6fc6d807087bcb14a3a0f3f0a974b389
0eefcc4499f5be77dea8556c6fc9c15d16da1299
5328 F20101207_AAAAPH belchior_p_Page_135.pro
b2d3bb63a6c29d0b09cef11b18e06e41
2514ddfee36ce43a8bec22a354177feae546ad22
8519 F20101207_AAAAOT belchior_p_Page_151.QC.jpg
3d4dfda7ed76b30c1c38fb0e0d6e0fa6
227c5dcdf4c31f95ba133281f930601946a962b2
53130 F20101207_AAABSK belchior_p_Page_105.pro
8c82ccc55fe4a4c78d350da6671f18c0
9d8d7ba68a4b0f058d4e7d21a08728ca1834550c
54158 F20101207_AAABRW belchior_p_Page_080.pro
59e7e9b1bb0b64a1c450faf6b90ded12
de9c2839e6d4d115ad5224fb42e9583796f59640
119655 F20101207_AAAAPI belchior_p_Page_078.jp2
3d6a1c139f2a43de69f69832de9e2ba7
61918d57be58c49568d197e71e8086e505c412d9
23533 F20101207_AAAAOU belchior_p_Page_169.jpg
ff677f2b1026eba34250e160ba98a13b
8ab98ec3f0a8db6c400e0773634a794cee80f747
54976 F20101207_AAABSL belchior_p_Page_106.pro
f75f83618b5cb9d87f35172e8d8a0c15
92507614d371946fcb760e99ad9d43d02539a517
54534 F20101207_AAABRX belchior_p_Page_081.pro
332f8c81bf42ce65022eb78e88503f28
20a81455c66096219dc7a182666d48a2e59b9ea5
F20101207_AAAAPJ belchior_p_Page_134.pro
deba84d42ab12956c0e634cf4e7efa43
5164fe0f8b6723cb113f83b3d4f2860722898218
112953 F20101207_AAAAOV belchior_p_Page_058.jpg
64fb3a098c011f8d02974d430ed4984f
a4f9e0402cc3df88b02f6751c4cf311ae3051a16
8565 F20101207_AAABTA belchior_p_Page_142.pro
1ac111ceac39b8387b0d125142e7a4a5
be7c79e34567954e5bd30aa1e48af4e866c15aa2
F20101207_AAABSM belchior_p_Page_113.pro
5bed15bd01f016127633a8adf1af9c09
82b14ab91d0ee7632c9d8c35d103db7381d471c5
3603 F20101207_AAABRY belchior_p_Page_082.pro
2a72448b28d558fb4aaddcfe78079269
a8babb96e9d2e7d3f06061b9bfd414c5bdb903dc
8941 F20101207_AAAAPK belchior_p_Page_001.pro
63a5a8d06ce7bc9f2fc53c6d85ab6e9d
4edaf2fcf8523a42ab6932767dff21e72d3e0224
8626 F20101207_AAAAOW belchior_p_Page_045thm.jpg
bad18a95da2f1b40f8e0ea73591b9216
06ad245f96e29b01f3f8273216996543926664fd
7597 F20101207_AAABTB belchior_p_Page_144.pro
0719f58f8c2071b3b6d3c00257a21788
35d143600830b6d41f499097e44fdb9fa73a16d5
48289 F20101207_AAABSN belchior_p_Page_117.pro
b934d17ba76f8ea82e88e46718bcf053
d204d0b6b8eb958df3fe1df516719bfd0f8c3f6e
18150 F20101207_AAABRZ belchior_p_Page_083.pro
5f1b8f248a4a4f2cd142a97130c3b9da
5b9b4d0a5e60c485db11ae6117bf9b693112dff1
F20101207_AAAAPL belchior_p_Page_095.tif
1c9f22d60ade6afef89c9cfd94914e48
0e91ad2e48f800a5e4a382e31abd9f2ecce70c69
1642 F20101207_AAAAOX belchior_p_Page_171.txt
f4272e6ce697e4aa9092435fb8438e7c
5d7639c6e6409cbe6e6e691acbeb188a8c5b4d48
6818 F20101207_AAABTC belchior_p_Page_145.pro
02bca552ce0cc101cf5ca4e5e5147423
bb7810e36bb577ad0bcf67b7e66f8b35c34110d7
30751 F20101207_AAABSO belchior_p_Page_119.pro
15a8e726851875b3f32d566ca1bcf091
f226c2b79a65957a2a061fdf67d70070940ae7d7
8945 F20101207_AAAAPM belchior_p_Page_115thm.jpg
abcfbfac6667ced508cd5481c8dd64f8
ac0da3bcd1646517bf95207e2d16eb57c30e5f69
2625 F20101207_AAAAOY belchior_p_Page_009.txt
2ba6ba30be1d36ccbfcd57cdc53eab33
331f433d4d89c33f4c9e66ec0b0459bfc126d881
115745 F20101207_AAAAQA belchior_p_Page_109.jp2
191d8499c01ebbdcb081f208867fb2b6
566621bc929d5778c1f5fc8b59f4060f815b18ae
6846 F20101207_AAABTD belchior_p_Page_147.pro
dc22a60ef534e374f255183d877c7293
07d7d08b179810979624182567f2bf7a5283038e
34393 F20101207_AAABSP belchior_p_Page_122.pro
42a320cf1c5d7da8c2ecf14c43290b11
e6c5b2a3d85316c80fdd9067ee8c451128d421ae
59680 F20101207_AAAAPN belchior_p_Page_179.jp2
2700c00e706cf7e68b07f05facb9821a
4e14b08d2f65e213bf96992858d6517a6ca3e8da
F20101207_AAAAOZ belchior_p_Page_105.tif
3316b54eee8127bdf1c2819610488f80
06640d470a11e8b579e6005082550248d0c51d38
8939 F20101207_AAAAQB belchior_p_Page_107thm.jpg
15d552646eb2a17d4eb9f423567e4835
5c3dbbf52f7109c70728077cdd38c16e19664d63
50196 F20101207_AAABTE belchior_p_Page_154.pro
8206fe9fb1975346524af7314c026736
b0592ae4f13bbc58e7870740e395f248fb669aba
34910 F20101207_AAABSQ belchior_p_Page_123.pro
1cc298cb7abb14a909f9935aa0979a93
0cf986015d41491e4d0c4b49894e9fd2a5d2a584
61808 F20101207_AAAAPO belchior_p_Page_120.jp2
e35cbb5001018f10cd03749a5df5f100
0206079b81f309fc2b3313b7420c1379aec78129
20236 F20101207_AAAAQC belchior_p_Page_142.jpg
b913314e18c9a34dc28ed2bc93d5b2d1
9264b39cc9727bc648aecf70c3e1f2a33d587798
52962 F20101207_AAABTF belchior_p_Page_158.pro
d826d8e42aa589737c24816ecf805994
8445cbe5601a7b11ffb0293e506e01d749fd2ad9
34500 F20101207_AAABSR belchior_p_Page_124.pro
c07c045fba604bb84162f8e49e16358e
47143cf81284e2599c7b94aba8681a20d6e6dc96
F20101207_AAAAPP belchior_p_Page_160.tif
8518739e819549986583018a082c29a2
ec158e73bca0e441fc69962a450eefda3b7d242e
2078 F20101207_AAAAQD belchior_p_Page_057.txt
b446d54e693b3834ed5febd68a352409
1e516f05b9ff269b37ed04819fdf19894de950e4
54693 F20101207_AAABTG belchior_p_Page_159.pro
2c52427709ff0df2dc9f9874d78432ce
2ef464fdab97a530d04e4895e78738048069b632
31279 F20101207_AAABSS belchior_p_Page_126.pro
9f3ab9dd7e753260ff222cb21c7b23f1
b249849f9041558e8af20114cfdbe9b8b7d5d074
F20101207_AAAAPQ belchior_p_Page_047.tif
fe5bf27d26dee8f90612214fffdbaaff
85063b8ebfddf80606e0a8b22d09f0668beed214
33260 F20101207_AAAAQE belchior_p_Page_054.QC.jpg
b019b7c1b2fb6b93ee64b2bfef4543e3
180c0b057940910da05421130f4c2b10f4f2f86d
53822 F20101207_AAABTH belchior_p_Page_161.pro
09dde9d5eaf0fdb6e86e6cfedf9c6b28
15dda46c70a90d181a615b8682e876839393a2e9
18777 F20101207_AAABST belchior_p_Page_127.pro
f6862637f03bc43302c53a64ee9c9a35
4f8cc0b8c3a8e868ae1c661893f925ef8370e034
F20101207_AAAAPR belchior_p_Page_035.tif
59003d4642678eca4498786694d4a3bf
2ebadb6ebfca587d51e737efa5b39f138e976d62
9075 F20101207_AAAAQF belchior_p_Page_081thm.jpg
42a1ac6577756364f0c0f3d64a2dd436
f4617091c70eed3524afcdd4efc0f93c1784aa3e
50839 F20101207_AAABTI belchior_p_Page_163.pro
1970627c932480a895e33227a02cefac
c0728be2c44faa4bdc0cc12480d6b8a3ae7aeae8
22878 F20101207_AAABSU belchior_p_Page_128.pro
556fb73451b67c22754849f1e0bda06f
fb88150c1270c964abff51b4f7b31ee062db4968
F20101207_AAAAPS belchior_p_Page_067.tif
1f1b3bc2df90cf4e3a7f6e3ff3b822d7
84d935ec026cbc5dd305fe402f7a7edc32873273
7403 F20101207_AAAAQG belchior_p_Page_177thm.jpg
966db0237f91b90d2400664064a5fc26
76e64aa5695f88b8379b3446414ed00f440b24d5
50797 F20101207_AAABTJ belchior_p_Page_164.pro
15b4e8f167a4e0403c1a63351c94bb48
db1c9f2d16b6a212922e24fac9349da8e8ec5ca3
19554 F20101207_AAABSV belchior_p_Page_130.pro
ef05f8706cdb892d4e6339cee27166fe
f23bf2942e3a9c88a108813c59fd6a1843d1a07e
9053 F20101207_AAAAPT belchior_p_Page_043thm.jpg
b035201b1040740d30ecdfe711427241
ddf227abd568db212d33b4795baae2e942e6cbe0
2763 F20101207_AAAAQH belchior_p_Page_146thm.jpg
1e7b6fcf81391d50e8ce217504135d99
d9704e38d8ac11f45c6630048126ccee7207fb0e
55515 F20101207_AAABTK belchior_p_Page_165.pro
8a91b2d39fef96cc4ee5c48ef9cf5b15
da4951e286f171ab290c4de72d01830101cd78da
6210 F20101207_AAABSW belchior_p_Page_133.pro
4b17fa750a51341a08943c094a983936
6355d6cd0cbf20b6e18060ba55c17fefdc11528f
6956 F20101207_AAAAQI belchior_p_Page_123thm.jpg
8a296affc01e9845811370e8d0b7cc44
8ac0016090a00235930278bb6a6a4cb0199c73b8
23550 F20101207_AAAAPU belchior_p_Page_175.pro
e61ddd1d99b98683de8232c207f88419
3ae0840474172aef1fda307e7a92dfc49cff4254
50820 F20101207_AAABTL belchior_p_Page_167.pro
be80f023ceceb834b9211010dd4298e8
2535e0bf931f7c11439cacdedaddd695bcd478c1
7284 F20101207_AAABSX belchior_p_Page_137.pro
8d6eb4dbc297a7bcf1519e583b748ff7
ae255ccb8307d5013227958ad05f873992f49267
2419 F20101207_AAAAQJ belchior_p_Page_208.txt
f3043260ec835b1f6f1e778b88b234dc
a02b4da4538d81ce2792e467860f050db491e7ca
57700 F20101207_AAAAPV belchior_p_Page_114.pro
268b9029c2e5ec7cd42b919c21d66e4b
316161b5da5e96f631dbc2836668da67d233d03b
62950 F20101207_AAABUA belchior_p_Page_207.pro
8a7e0a6cf9fa06b77017274eda7554dd
268e7ecf573076c9a73ec1892d4bac3156d19889
55991 F20101207_AAABTM belchior_p_Page_168.pro
c74fa4ee34c908a46feea5d94bbda229
8d77abfd6cc7779c6b2432e557b4f9c5abd81c34
7339 F20101207_AAABSY belchior_p_Page_138.pro
6b7dfc61a75498f597c98ac837adc25f
ac55346d3de32e8d065150f47675c5b43e384b7e
26321 F20101207_AAAAQK belchior_p_Page_010.pro
9c2634af002f9158bcceb886c31793de
4fe4e60feae4545b3caa99dd61dbe8e525059a03
31369 F20101207_AAAAPW belchior_p_Page_153.QC.jpg
21689a9e1bc3341234d4169768cbe962
57fbaef263edbcc2906ba24885789c6238849fbb
19828 F20101207_AAABUB belchior_p_Page_209.pro
e4df4d3e1ce9eff89de070199c1b8eb1
20c7550329938377dc1221b72df9d8c7af25008e
40268 F20101207_AAABTN belchior_p_Page_171.pro
73493061c9c71bb9ded551f14c30337f
0274017cba2dbd3eb13f8b58293c684270bda32f
11135 F20101207_AAABSZ belchior_p_Page_141.pro
085576e6d7583ba9bc38b875da8a255b
366483d359bd9a202bf66079c8856b49ce7f01d0
20868 F20101207_AAAAQL belchior_p_Page_119.QC.jpg
1ce74cf9fba1b773137639c72d84cb33
6ae47adc90c17c6f4bb4121e7a657eaf80ae53b1
F20101207_AAAAPX belchior_p_Page_016.txt
fdd92ffdd1e4c1813f5f1860a647939d
0a966e3cd95b50b8d5148d7823348f559ed94288
509 F20101207_AAABUC belchior_p_Page_001.txt
e17c3b22749985fde40a4818ab6df6cc
4ad97e6ae0765b6bcfc951e73868fc1abe20609b
35291 F20101207_AAABTO belchior_p_Page_172.pro
a3d2eb68d009f309bf1ae3d27defe1de
edc0d392d47a3fb54379ca263262db88d2584670
111268 F20101207_AAAARA belchior_p_Page_054.jp2
138e13a217b911b709fd0178cca2ded8
06ed79fde87b13c690957c8c7da41c86f66b3c19
F20101207_AAAAQM belchior_p_Page_123.tif
1eedc802dc4bfe7e598a03c19e3330b0
4c9ccfd27319d67015a54add714d683753966382
55939 F20101207_AAAAPY belchior_p_Page_025.pro
404ed67c2acb22cc5f74a9463f6fd492
a2bcf9359eb6767b3f3f4893514f9b98b44145ed
117 F20101207_AAABUD belchior_p_Page_003.txt
f807630da27195095c70915cebb8e316
6ca207796241a589da18aebd416b37b216d0b36c
30435 F20101207_AAABTP belchior_p_Page_178.pro
58fb0aa38fc90de063d31d14ac483941
4de4ea71aa4f7de46ab70a7ca55ebba31611a046
37794 F20101207_AAAARB belchior_p_Page_009.QC.jpg
c5fd51f594c603dc668577ebf53d0852
a8fb8537bbe399a8abb94ede779d85414882101b
7921 F20101207_AAAAQN belchior_p_Page_007thm.jpg
ec058858da425c05ebb0681642ebc335
0b250448480b10d4135e5b34d456d09ec670d0eb
F20101207_AAAAPZ belchior_p_Page_124.tif
58ce0b86c97fc3b44ee4a5af36fcdc6a
19a099a3468a3b513cd3d1952b61fbf1ad5a1a3a
2120 F20101207_AAABUE belchior_p_Page_004.txt
d9e10ffc20c7176d9c421b184d06fc3e
66ce8f2916d2e4ab9bf66fce9363fbea16142997
25244 F20101207_AAABTQ belchior_p_Page_179.pro
50d036dd487f6c48c5c9af46e7d74c27
e7427e3f315ef3841626b9735d879f877847db7c
117414 F20101207_AAAARC belchior_p_Page_056.jp2
325befc436e8d821c58f7e11ba659989
aac8620c185a0a21d65d2fed7a3ae2eda0468d4c
F20101207_AAAAQO belchior_p_Page_016.tif
76326f3fa27fa19854641445bef6323f
122acf893e4f8026ce82f0aa3ae97b8e1aec4f58
1021 F20101207_AAACAA belchior_p_Page_082thm.jpg
147beba3f7cbdb9cfcd7dd4a973f0b0c
a29fa443ea0061afd4a5b7b85ae90ae7f1e7f20a
3440 F20101207_AAABUF belchior_p_Page_006.txt
fd604b5ae553e9fed999fbe77e209cde
9976bfbabf29f02f799371f3153a313c31e431be
33468 F20101207_AAABTR belchior_p_Page_185.pro
63196092a58890f9c62eec1c2f3df618
9b8a6d1e543a9ae145d2d2b9aa5e209ab75ff6a6
32316 F20101207_AAAARD belchior_p_Page_117.QC.jpg
f5eac0cf9348e96ae8bbbe6c70428fb2
482f3133a3fdc0b2932a904ba80a88907847292c
19962 F20101207_AAAAQP belchior_p_Page_183.QC.jpg
4112c0b30d89314b48aa79966b9b64f7
3b4b66fd5244d714dc026a9ce5bc74ff10d47882
2228 F20101207_AAACAB belchior_p_Page_145thm.jpg
09b95535d11ba6aa58b8ebb1398be14d
c410ed5e449f09d1ec0f45d3e8baad9e2c64f4e3
4226 F20101207_AAABUG belchior_p_Page_007.txt
4180dde9865e0126bbe0a1dd2c81346b
62f8ad4711c6a011afe04c48d4fde9dd26669e50
43986 F20101207_AAABTS belchior_p_Page_186.pro
ccca4dbf4df85349293027b70212ae5d
798c79c4d96c2a43278285a99bd7647648bc4e21
121554 F20101207_AAAARE belchior_p_Page_074.jp2
1567924ada6e293a7c630d03ff375f80
64ce1329d428cef0e69092abb689d61b3f2420cc
112092 F20101207_AAAAQQ belchior_p_Page_004.jp2
aa90e85ea314be55febe625c5f5b7656
36045e95a1979719fce7cde5b2c92c22d23462fc
9133 F20101207_AAACAC belchior_p_Page_112thm.jpg
dc2dbceabed969a1960b2ddab277f31a
176d1aa90ada29974eeab6f180bb1c49a56c143b
874 F20101207_AAABUH belchior_p_Page_008.txt
3c2cb9e44c39209bcc4f9c7ffa5e5e56
eda888c0b6f9711ee1194e5f0fd8004c8c30df4c
34896 F20101207_AAABTT belchior_p_Page_191.pro
b61f3cb0852c8fbbb77ee916cceb668e
578c27105165bea3f371eef91ff581becac297e7
F20101207_AAAARF belchior_p_Page_012.tif
110eba6aaaaf35d5ca3a45ec90f34539
64bedc393b07a0db9ee32e4c3affab9da1f466c1
34760 F20101207_AAAAQR belchior_p_Page_193.pro
86608aafeaac19521adf890ab2584a27
bae4675fd3ee2f6f870e7604afff503acfdf3afb
16727 F20101207_AAACAD belchior_p_Page_130.QC.jpg
452afc7a4cc6c04214cc74bc63605308
68fbb9dfe816855e23aef4620d9f81ccbd434818
2192 F20101207_AAABUI belchior_p_Page_017.txt
65efe913a7d189e2722ec2aba598ec37
48c4a56519e29b5e8d9e6b49bdfb2cba5188850f
3173 F20101207_AAABTU belchior_p_Page_196.pro
4f26b3206d239b185f2d6ef1b22708a0
e9bd6348da966f0876c3a8e99c5402a4c025820f
8847 F20101207_AAAARG belchior_p_Page_056thm.jpg
d78fa4742244202423ed02ebf39f7a8d
e6377366e2e79b69069a915876fe3b393525c253
7133 F20101207_AAAAQS belchior_p_Page_139.pro
750e24a11adc37100d46d9475bad8693
80b3bfa4b3a8d26ebc97857c27546c2096cbab4c
F20101207_AAACAE belchior_p_Page_041thm.jpg
3c0dacb45bd86d5fa6b284c3da6be5db
f9a800a5d3389456fe304a63f6b4efc87ea0055e
2141 F20101207_AAABUJ belchior_p_Page_021.txt
09587c2d23c716d30dfee682441fa07f
e5da9a367ca1e4bdaa3917c180dde806ad6ce08f
61752 F20101207_AAABTV belchior_p_Page_199.pro
2ae97c9a40a7af0fd146089a14fbcd3b
cac9cd4f946756ee3e17d4dec0f50db2b6270427
7980 F20101207_AAAARH belchior_p_Page_150.pro
c23bd6b54427cc3d5a2da3c72bd19284
f9c31b16b63b469e608acd35621e6e1b22ece5ac
8492 F20101207_AAAAQT belchior_p_Page_137.QC.jpg
67bbe70e6dab7d81ec272ca9ab8422e7
be5d68caf58df45fbc345d1572c55fdf8d874311
6354 F20101207_AAACAF belchior_p_Page_179thm.jpg
4323ee915ca968c5e4346e098a0c666d
67641e39e521c88fa05f68bd1a6587e9d3d0e174
2260 F20101207_AAABUK belchior_p_Page_022.txt
bb2113720ef8f2b87fff7d03876fa99c
5666b6b0606178083c026a7ac81f74989283d25f
68459 F20101207_AAABTW belchior_p_Page_202.pro
40bb2c3fee29f2d213268ca0a6128706
63b722ab8928d9e308d9d9936bb7184224990463
F20101207_AAAARI belchior_p_Page_147.tif
bb05448ad30c4dce66008d3378512f6a
ee70918bf046bfd9724b95a6345717134320b482
22066 F20101207_AAAAQU belchior_p_Page_148.jpg
1acb9bfabbabf094b63bad55570b4eda
81824f34e42239e86ecd75727b5340098faf80fa
35388 F20101207_AAACAG belchior_p_Page_060.QC.jpg
c3c4fae7be3d8e1137fb839b6c549bfd
531996b22ad7a8602899a5f2dadd8b34fe69bc5e
519 F20101207_AAABUL belchior_p_Page_027.txt
2fb330c8d5787b4fb8081774770f3e24
49d67616e86d2692229cdd9d422478a5c420161c
70033 F20101207_AAABTX belchior_p_Page_203.pro
8f292e093ee8e41fcb23fafa4ee1033c
e36a94b5e7b75dfed3dc30e777063fa03cc5add2
2167 F20101207_AAAARJ belchior_p_Page_035.txt
5fe5787a6ef225c7554a0ed57108499c
e8b961adb4500eaf934bd28393596ef42a8f8a82
62724 F20101207_AAAAQV belchior_p_Page_180.jpg
03deb48531907c1fd61077a16e63032b
73f821d3ba7d644c9e5ba02ea32c2cf5cdf7e94c
36065 F20101207_AAACAH belchior_p_Page_020.QC.jpg
4bf12693bf494f9da234477602eebf86
eeb1aefc7e7760f06b702162e1eb85bf9fc7b198
2035 F20101207_AAABVA belchior_p_Page_054.txt
e7040a0b854585a638c354f31a8a3a12
f33a9b71cc8df41d2f0b2f5b40d8941e89f18039
F20101207_AAABUM belchior_p_Page_031.txt
073b0afa9135b79c2b5725d5eb04688e
2f8f5b61a3f6c9aa1cc8f2fd4e30fc873e876c34
70499 F20101207_AAABTY belchior_p_Page_204.pro
d847ac3c270bf71b14ba08f9f8fac675
45cffe7bbbc157147576ee42f651fad1b43d85b1
17171 F20101207_AAAARK belchior_p_Page_173.QC.jpg
9814e456448f87bc23a2ac9d042df411
22a349c301298274ca20d02a857766c89d4a106e
8017 F20101207_AAAAQW belchior_p_Page_059thm.jpg
eadb80bd9ad56de989adfd3d22e98c26
aef9355c0a0f16345bfe981822be96b47d7445e0
7052 F20101207_AAACAI belchior_p_Page_006thm.jpg
09dc1d86699e0ea0f9c7541fd5b07ffa
35745c6ecd09df7b422562271828deb0f85f409d
2015 F20101207_AAABVB belchior_p_Page_061.txt
a9ff716715c04bd89d28b37419429177
9ce7e6bd3ebd0b6c0b604784a5a666945ed46978
2099 F20101207_AAABUN belchior_p_Page_033.txt
d9e62ab676a35d947fc47bcb2c9ba91c
ed7688b365051e20aa9d1ee4a9abfe83ca80fc93
71385 F20101207_AAABTZ belchior_p_Page_205.pro
dd9cd654143c9388c8c172cb1fce4867
b64b07d40581769f37eca94624dfa625bcfce05c
30979 F20101207_AAAARL belchior_p_Page_026.QC.jpg
1058df97fce3db9066ea0b3c117a43b9
eb743daf318f70a142b9e51fb2089fba2a049984
2096 F20101207_AAAAQX belchior_p_Page_110.txt
e427882ced78b4ba30b88f673e5682c4
ee9195d027fd20907500bd2b4365cec399f34811
36237 F20101207_AAACAJ belchior_p_Page_056.QC.jpg
d3cb489c2372242a7f4e5625fad0b0e5
1012c73827f4a0509cbe92fdf4e3dc20ece8ba5b
2040 F20101207_AAABVC belchior_p_Page_062.txt
0d2ab838c5f9376c8be8a0b3c60784f7
b5dd9ddd67650cfbf0fe2d322b99ed39e259e8ef
2146 F20101207_AAABUO belchior_p_Page_034.txt
dd930cad7640df73dd7f068b6d628d97
a428f3c846a325db1a0ae3d693d764791efce642
F20101207_AAAARM belchior_p_Page_090.tif
dd43c819e959513eea8c4b71a83dd5c6
3b5d12381af96d1b9e8e356319a1654afa4186af
355851 F20101207_AAAAQY belchior_p_Page_027.jp2
50eff8f05a3d658e065c596fa18f0c5c
7417414202b32983398c3b2c61d2ab719665e8e0
113786 F20101207_AAAASA belchior_p_Page_045.jp2
41589e041a33bf0df271572400da1236
91341132937c0ba712a14f1cc23d94a322af5fbc
2249 F20101207_AAABVD belchior_p_Page_066.txt
8f69d30cb2c5f87ad258100183fc4799
2740ce6a90e78f706897c2ba24189bdc9804d1b3
2283 F20101207_AAABUP belchior_p_Page_036.txt
94cc406dd5ba58879e08f13214ee4f09
63d49c7a1e2526bab7ea2ab4eac47518570ecbd1
F20101207_AAAARN belchior_p_Page_026.tif
b3a91a9bb836ff5e4778512ed81f1549
a383380422f94b29f8719963f064d09adf511496
105930 F20101207_AAAAQZ belchior_p_Page_057.jpg
eb2b91223b959994c6cc9aa7d130c772
86103a14f57438de120a1435e9cd663d3eb13592
114767 F20101207_AAAASB belchior_p_Page_047.jp2
74fa894a38d63fdb9442ff5faccdbec5
2eab120c6b62be62ff78920cc1ce42c5084e808d
2178 F20101207_AAACAK belchior_p_Page_169thm.jpg
16a02d1cae874e15d0f726541c248165
c0563ce9c239ea44cfb1b48342378a84d1ac1605
2217 F20101207_AAABVE belchior_p_Page_067.txt
bf453c0fdfee015d9b23698fdf785e6c
1e93d8ab2db9794e4af4a0be780838fc30dc78db
2201 F20101207_AAABUQ belchior_p_Page_038.txt
e5eea7f2fc14388f6572a60f47ec0d90
3b93732d4fb678ccd242bb0ebffab9774f568448
34712 F20101207_AAAARO belchior_p_Page_170.pro
e60b703984b6a30b9fe2671271d1fc23
87b0aa878ba80a5370efa69174b0cba7b0a5b753
2135 F20101207_AAAASC belchior_p_Page_032.txt
d3c3cf872263c49e6506eba5b777a1e9
0c4d827abb2d0d4d4e6ae7288bba6943922d12b3
36435 F20101207_AAACBA belchior_p_Page_078.QC.jpg
ecab5baddfe4dedbbea72a993305b29c
5a8f4a9620d00046daa755c8dd559626f95cde8c
8593 F20101207_AAACAL belchior_p_Page_047thm.jpg
2f48c76f404b22fae88d599ee4d73f79
80919a63377baa7b63146c98979d2e5899d71b60
2239 F20101207_AAABVF belchior_p_Page_068.txt
d1eda439a5fc5e290ade35e5cdcead30
b9edb42a768859e982da6c5626fc83ffd89b17b7
2136 F20101207_AAABUR belchior_p_Page_039.txt
9d6c9b37ba448cedca55b4e8e01a1b80
565edc0220f796ac2cd9f60d17268761b6be755c
55213 F20101207_AAAARP belchior_p_Page_044.pro
44d600a8d502a1a2d005d3ef78f1ad82
45a11dd23fe36a3855908c77d5bbec26293de6e7
2348 F20101207_AAAASD belchior_p_Page_148thm.jpg
aee413906a0bdbb1c32de2739044c5a2
8bdba7717db2f9b8a0369a016924cda86be36842
8867 F20101207_AAACBB belchior_p_Page_158thm.jpg
c7c68178573e37c710d1cad80e74589d
edf49c914cfd268b3625257e16859dfffa330a72
39645 F20101207_AAACAM belchior_p_Page_019.QC.jpg
3189c0ddc203898ac3db2e161fabbd0c
a9d554edb2224339d3cf41e8901f4ed20ac69486
2087 F20101207_AAABVG belchior_p_Page_071.txt
6c513ed26f3abdd14f6bfe7e0f3ba435
23412c6467c9a46a406dd40e3074465feee8406f
2138 F20101207_AAABUS belchior_p_Page_041.txt
39400fc09acb728501d31b3c0a8986dc
0cf2bc2111d63ab2c73e897c524327675a6feda4
23625 F20101207_AAAARQ belchior_p_Page_185.QC.jpg
2b7da3e928efe0c997875f1fd2b4339b
e2b999f38ee43a50c634fbf78777843c13efbae9
109344 F20101207_AAAASE belchior_p_Page_159.jpg
8eded1de892004763202a22219c68924
a68df15a421c2b9a500f0ec988445af9f682c66c
9215 F20101207_AAACBC belchior_p_Page_030thm.jpg
cb45e063c7041978fde3ebc334f562fd
e4b88b7a4b4b9a722694ec02c3e0a06b3fce0ab7
2666 F20101207_AAACAN belchior_p_Page_135thm.jpg
b7d28c535934948a04ee6756c2073c91
e5e9c51f0fd6d6e527eb8a1cd299ec9e8fd08418
2107 F20101207_AAABVH belchior_p_Page_072.txt
14d23c12f71f25affc781551fc6861ad
abcd22930e415caa64d05773fe09ffb33c08e6f3
2202 F20101207_AAABUT belchior_p_Page_043.txt
5f01f1034cf339c7a37b1b9807e7101f
67cb5bf6646333367cc3be99ed527372216b6e97
32448 F20101207_AAAARR belchior_p_Page_086.jp2
b49428afb5a1bca5c7ffc1719e56e21d
272d9df7e8b8e5eefffa2c6e91bed47248c2e2b9
32930 F20101207_AAAASF belchior_p_Page_164.QC.jpg
46b35df0d1d38c90ccf00a58cdf39140
bb4e6d67fe3c12d7e37a211d7ede9542983a8458
8602 F20101207_AAACBD belchior_p_Page_076thm.jpg
87b9f70d9410a59742f98d01e1b09d9a
3b6c1f29c33cebe882b23c44ccc27479c4e1fd77
8208 F20101207_AAACAO belchior_p_Page_140.QC.jpg
8261a5c71f27f8fa28d5d4e86bf08413
058aab0993ab612f68c25f59c12e0299ea892d46
2029 F20101207_AAABVI belchior_p_Page_073.txt
d16c97db9fd84b1164dcd925ab303caa
c4eb79e35b00ba130d4fcfb79f1c63c7d020838b
2216 F20101207_AAABUU belchior_p_Page_044.txt
69aaf81519bd8ec2de068a64d4cf446c
d2966fdcbdbdbd7613e52fd5d16a1c7c2f276122
F20101207_AAAARS belchior_p_Page_106.tif
a7a96a3c38e1d2840a8c5e521393f546
b945edbff385305d83ef3de00d3a076d6479333e
2828 F20101207_AAAASG belchior_p_Page_138thm.jpg
80f1d486d6c68e361a8758a1d40d4d73
ebe013d44a4cd980c6132297f539929c7b155863
13764 F20101207_AAACBE belchior_p_Page_083.QC.jpg
a9965b7eaa2f41b9b2ea830c3b8234bc
7082f4e7b9140b0e2600f6b4015333b46fb2f4c3
6271 F20101207_AAACAP belchior_p_Page_180thm.jpg
0b167d81255cbf7428b566801037dbb2
757f9c229c25497443b8ce173fdb58ebf966a4f1
2259 F20101207_AAABVJ belchior_p_Page_074.txt
aa883c8647c153ed2eb7efb7fca90508
99c19283703d88f3dd5558fce81778d597a67a39
2074 F20101207_AAABUV belchior_p_Page_045.txt
967f487fda6df4771f6522bb50b039cf
505315ff0fa7611d5e50e4601193fa851068b98a
108969 F20101207_AAAART belchior_p_Page_161.jpg
06ff4be7b1dadffaeb493aace83e30e3
4bc395eab024ef10941205ba96e1cf0a82cfaf5d
111775 F20101207_AAAASH belchior_p_Page_067.jpg
9450574b8b86a0c593e76396c7833be0
a99e5fe244012244e1e11ecaab4c11b98ec72da5
9052 F20101207_AAACBF belchior_p_Page_155thm.jpg
9030e58fd2b61a1b41d3e704480c62a3
f84c97bb2e78143d035b0e960ae7212620b482cb
19378 F20101207_AAACAQ belchior_p_Page_120.QC.jpg
2f08a0085967cb8f01c7e896393041f9
4fbe5c5782c2dd7722644501c79eb48deebcee3c
2100 F20101207_AAABVK belchior_p_Page_076.txt
c860909d678680ef278e1a9ef9539326
61739898dd20331fe70d28329aaa722bdcfd188e
2218 F20101207_AAABUW belchior_p_Page_046.txt
568b65a1d590a644b666b07c6a6f8ed9
4e3af6514395f7e0f13c9613699cacc4ebb59326
F20101207_AAAARU belchior_p_Page_147thm.jpg
416c9ebcd1f7b57d82e6c01908c272f6
13d9396156b8b8fc15dcac38fa319fc99fa23707
56524 F20101207_AAAASI belchior_p_Page_042.pro
d8e37265469e792c306ea1388d4037e3
4f5390b1dd4c3a96be317f87bbfbd20c5e6f7027
31033 F20101207_AAACBG belchior_p_Page_092.QC.jpg
64ea16b822029ee0ca94980bde19bbb7
fa95cb03ed0d1e95b8865441f7105942d44850f2
4346 F20101207_AAACAR belchior_p_Page_087thm.jpg
0ae73c4818241e7e9e27bf6c5d8a3fe9
a1517f337cc305199fb884d5599b9292a74213f5
2229 F20101207_AAABWA belchior_p_Page_112.txt
4e7a4a751b9e07e6e7a81df628c9ba0d
45120812413b06c7013ab8ad8d50948c50592d2a
2194 F20101207_AAABVL belchior_p_Page_078.txt
6bdc2e59a53ea3eb4f79e24930531bf9
37480acc3ccd33aa02f62e773b88f2e78255d179
2070 F20101207_AAABUX belchior_p_Page_047.txt
2c7c112508d0bcc6262a4857b39b9f3b
baa12d2351613a6ab8549d155f39f399b801e722
8995 F20101207_AAAARV belchior_p_Page_198.pro
90544331a3ab982f087a8f039fe42006
b7b139bd246914116288d47567b5ae9949561d79
8448 F20101207_AAAASJ belchior_p_Page_136.QC.jpg
f733ff2384d2a8fa465f086491070b2a
18efc4aec736494c08ed3b0a50dbd714ed641e4d
2519 F20101207_AAACBH belchior_p_Page_133thm.jpg
20a2a866ee4349046dcac9d86b1cde0b
44fac9d215822c9875d7a60a9f02352c4e351806
34810 F20101207_AAACAS belchior_p_Page_108.QC.jpg
7150ea0e5d72108f5c7bee16f8c8bd96
eb57774bae07c6fbc2ec4c30d46ed38983b98903
2186 F20101207_AAABVM belchior_p_Page_081.txt
bba280bfd59bced2c776a81659c7ed01
e56c2ef65c85ae534b7c1d6e9b257d5b1d313a60
578 F20101207_AAABUY belchior_p_Page_049.txt
12ac2859f4f2a7ec9baa821ec453b7ab
853628c1f188e6921c9e85a7ee593c7be2f5d338
F20101207_AAAARW belchior_p_Page_176.tif
057a564ca781930a6d973f464b256002
7fb3fb74578a2eaf93746c74d0ed3cdc63835227
36334 F20101207_AAAASK belchior_p_Page_037.QC.jpg
e1aad3dba6daaae1676cab047b897555
94458835760cba6473b1bf2e99b6d38b62dffd73
16560 F20101207_AAACBI belchior_p_Page_196.QC.jpg
ee341efdd2298d69983e42ccb9720380
66515a44954b1f0e42e72e32194b624c7b88fb17
28968 F20101207_AAACAT belchior_p_Page_091.QC.jpg
67d6eb07291c31b089b444d56dc384e3
8b64c2f6a6b3e2159aca95d8f90db1dfbbb896be
F20101207_AAABWB belchior_p_Page_113.txt
876dc904e70a59cc4e80c2c13c7f2181
905b5ceb2c4466f792eb2a8276e560097bacbeb0
149 F20101207_AAABVN belchior_p_Page_082.txt
ffe5f24b269fbf834807120ad2debe2e
34cfd6df225010fe21541be272e8169232bcd54f
F20101207_AAABUZ belchior_p_Page_052.txt
4d5e0d06e766be4bff5988521253782d
2c96002913b72ce8c5cbf5bcc8d7af58b5dbcfbd
54184 F20101207_AAAARX belchior_p_Page_173.jpg
820a97eaa909b5e0e9ab6580e022b3ce
c0e513658d5a7b81eb093ec45f664bd0d3611210
1051962 F20101207_AAAASL belchior_p_Page_094.jp2
0e64acba6d750002fa031cf41aa3ec7b
cc1110de7748cbf2bcb891259847559cef8d94ae
24891 F20101207_AAACBJ belchior_p_Page_188.QC.jpg
0c046ddff6bc4a10dceb20ca984fdbdf
ce4c680ae92201df42be12bcdc267d0af93a6cb5
7434 F20101207_AAACAU belchior_p_Page_193thm.jpg
7ec86ae4d0d80eaa75c6a9e7d695c643
88a6ea2ee2ed669da142185508bdcbd0be223f42
2123 F20101207_AAABWC belchior_p_Page_115.txt
d6e8b5054005789081780a59f826869b
df3e2ea172aa347f46e900ff532b595275b7fe4d
1843 F20101207_AAABVO belchior_p_Page_085.txt
b980af274d48aa04dd20d89d218db500
e45d803dc2ed22070b93928ee1586f1fec8fc2a0
2165 F20101207_AAAARY belchior_p_Page_075.txt
d8048a3ce7a7fdcfef09ba2be8622203
4530eaf332f8847d2c02f9c4d4172cbed7935fd8
110257 F20101207_AAAATA belchior_p_Page_073.jp2
b2256c4263cca80e7eaf57592e885d22
921e808aeb8949c27f3d3bf966845a635611b898
22555 F20101207_AAAASM belchior_p_Page_129.pro
d18b0a3b73fd8ba76b0d751049bc510f
cd51e74757f42271906d8af56274d63fa99f14c8
6273 F20101207_AAACBK belchior_p_Page_085thm.jpg
2c0e88f9174b1e850aa5ba2a5fc7a614
9cfeeb8012ad0a271c87f05d0b776e8fc935f32e
37039 F20101207_AAACAV belchior_p_Page_107.QC.jpg
b7e51fb9e2d7699ab0ecb1b4bbbca9b2
3f043a53067700f34a3defa85117e1b9288ff07d
1995 F20101207_AAABWD belchior_p_Page_117.txt
9623cd031eda29ec010a2ab13652d1e3
0aa1b79b52599289f83d72df0ef26096307dcb6e
436 F20101207_AAABVP belchior_p_Page_088.txt
f45f8306bd8555010c61f7d05e97eb11
35376a942303bd156bfa6fb1c6b2a70e64739261
56272 F20101207_AAAARZ belchior_p_Page_058.pro
222760f6aeb16ddecd171140412d25c1
f5c1c69777d63bdbb577974af01a717bc17b2ad0
1976 F20101207_AAAATB belchior_p_Page_055.txt
44606ebf17784f5a54adc8bf2180eebb
bdeae6daa69ca62a3fc6be728de5e654d6fc44cc
34584 F20101207_AAAASN belchior_p_Page_047.QC.jpg
c45b5053d88f83d61129e8f81c111b8e
9cf0f79948e5a140b426ff7d0847c19f24e855d4
8078 F20101207_AAACAW belchior_p_Page_164thm.jpg
3876910a0f8509a6641253a76a2bf63c
d7f57f923542aae2db6ed926479aa7c77d425aed
1532 F20101207_AAABWE belchior_p_Page_122.txt
0a64a7f4da35c722f48e4021311a35bf
967fc879e532d3f10cfdd90d89a512bc9c8ee626
F20101207_AAABVQ belchior_p_Page_089.txt
bcf9067275e7e587373bb0eacdf31e39
57a2a7cdc0a9bbad963ee1559a8220117c217ce3
51333 F20101207_AAAATC belchior_p_Page_054.pro
037aafff9e30ef8d3603afa618308dce
93b2f8d8b27f5425bbdb7f11e60431556a12e476
35405 F20101207_AAAASO belchior_p_Page_192.pro
a09ce4e9cc2f2cad50b5cd7b512ce100
fca5f58efc8fd879b9233cc674baf63c9dcc0761
8638 F20101207_AAACCA belchior_p_Page_109thm.jpg
616828b2c9c5f1683b535472583c77b9
80c6c38299ebb5df5f8fa093a06c97df8751ddf9
36826 F20101207_AAACBL belchior_p_Page_101.QC.jpg
079058722554f78b8362a8269ea2f4f4
8dd7d32cbe6fad700388f8995a15e3f201f8e378
35510 F20101207_AAACAX belchior_p_Page_016.QC.jpg
8f389a0129ff9c515d5b48702534a850
1a78a3b25ffe31dd238424aa01fa88c0d69ed658
F20101207_AAABWF belchior_p_Page_123.txt
f0fa4a6b5dcc984f67da8aca7a5dfc5b
719e868ca8b4cc4577141af036768a1c68e5644a
164 F20101207_AAABVR belchior_p_Page_091.txt
521855d8a9a62b0c11c731f48f9c2602
9d17324b5476b23ba39b68976d9f6c74eef0d680
105913 F20101207_AAAATD belchior_p_Page_064.jp2
f6132bd11b4e6ea386e81ab39068440f
cb2e0c160888e1d170b41ee27277798a6a1020ff
28632 F20101207_AAAASP belchior_p_Page_050.jpg
5ac04b2048fc00506ca5a6215a6bd4f9
201af5def9b4b12f203547f02336e9b2b71b4bd3
8796 F20101207_AAACCB belchior_p_Page_009thm.jpg
56973d948e72aa5c0d6a842983af2daf
a3afb559679f980ca17c335dca6a791e1e23537e
9393 F20101207_AAACBM belchior_p_Page_019thm.jpg
a93dafa2feecc964e9c1b13a8a3641c9
5d6a9ec0004cc5fd899e3b90043e886f011f468f
8868 F20101207_AAACAY belchior_p_Page_207thm.jpg
6d3ce5cd517afc891a75a17f1c46e63b
a80f29fae853816fe666c0fb0422e7cea11a591f
1803 F20101207_AAABWG belchior_p_Page_124.txt
279cd67ccf316034f0fa531a4c40ddbb
c03ca99bdab764592612431944c3ffcdef1f6180
159 F20101207_AAABVS belchior_p_Page_092.txt
68cf83e1531b45a101b3f040e4298c0d
a762dbd019ed86070dcf2811ff5de47a46487279
45027 F20101207_AAAATE belchior_p_Page_125.pro
a610b01bea7a8215f88b03fc329a6c8d
cc96010395746bc61481b91797ca355e569a72d2
52202 F20101207_AAAASQ belchior_p_Page_156.pro
250a0d49666b80bbc9fcefe06b2b531b
dcee33faac658b21bd46576c5dfd4a6294726399
3896 F20101207_AAACCC belchior_p_Page_010thm.jpg
e95054eeeeccdd2f82133f0aa5d90b8c
1b65f434ff65420033e5ff7a8e454bc99be0cbfa
8132 F20101207_AAACBN belchior_p_Page_148.QC.jpg
c791f28228fa2159c5c6ab0ef6cd837c
74270053ea95518b86658ed57d188f6b7acd8dd8
7529 F20101207_AAACAZ belchior_p_Page_144.QC.jpg
619484196965467cceb932471f261681
601c94c169d956c94c7c829474fcedc83e283088
1368 F20101207_AAABWH belchior_p_Page_126.txt
6ed0cc841138e549b43ade92111bc1bd
179cb625702efa12240655c6db9dcd326707c2c4
2187 F20101207_AAABVT belchior_p_Page_101.txt
a63669e23438cca792cd2b33db7acdbb
5758a1fc66f84840b9ece7bdbca33f6227e6f06e
120756 F20101207_AAAATF belchior_p_Page_019.jpg
54dbc7812ca30a8c4d4100bea9cd9f04
98cb8fce31d71d2dd78715abe6dce77089003734
122012 F20101207_AAAASR belchior_p_Page_029.jp2
08d78a5bd43a3f9b91910df99ce97689
fcd485dc68b0b9b464aea919eb7876264d6cb8c2
8967 F20101207_AAACCD belchior_p_Page_161thm.jpg
08eb00c56270515c6b664fc08422e17b
ec6a155817fe09bb5bb273de98245a2ac07c3af4
7594 F20101207_AAACBO belchior_p_Page_098thm.jpg
60e792aaa420251432721d2212a90021
33815b0fdb1cb7220ab72cff2f36ec46f5734b9f
F20101207_AAABWI belchior_p_Page_127.txt
839b62701066fff15af4e3605e895aaf
6ddfdfccfda4c0179096494f89e414f4de3d15dd
2257 F20101207_AAABVU belchior_p_Page_102.txt
188bd2c3ff31e8cbe0ae59be1954d6e7
2aa62d4468d7604f896f639677567a0323bcfd58
78775 F20101207_AAAATG belchior_p_Page_172.jp2
3ecb16e5e7d4f163a3e6ef6f3d1983d2
e63cf701725078bc684ea4588d3d0b799a7e1126
106278 F20101207_AAAASS belchior_p_Page_105.jpg
7a018fc16b726f9165a01eba8b4efdd2
d3585ce4e8f039ea0e5c048881dcc5c15d60fb6f
7927 F20101207_AAACCE belchior_p_Page_135.QC.jpg
3e3ee0fd6ca009e6e2bb63bb27d68c9d
bbf90c6702066494a1ca5e55eed7d03cf03df519
6435 F20101207_AAACBP belchior_p_Page_178thm.jpg
6b51db6998931cf21bce602b79ecb5ad
efb090497060ffac3b42c0c61e40805a10ea1667
847 F20101207_AAABWJ belchior_p_Page_131.txt
22ede48364a3600670fccbec5dc404e1
d7563a5b49a3bc3725e0a3da177b582fbf1bf59d
2129 F20101207_AAABVV belchior_p_Page_103.txt
a8f85537959be4f435db5560d8fda34e
fbbcab82763f873b8fb89d4b533aaad1176594a2
1089 F20101207_AAAATH belchior_p_Page_010.txt
9e7959e244ade9a8ef84bd0b47ff589d
f734972719ddf6508f4c3975341373b8d4790e21
118386 F20101207_AAAAST belchior_p_Page_106.jp2
f5a882aaa31382432c15dfa5fc7c811f
b61cac73a462bb1783c3d7468fbd3498c4639877
5180 F20101207_AAACCF belchior_p_Page_175thm.jpg
49aa3a5b5fa4c6ba74af37bb836e99f0
79c2dca02b3a0f4fdbe3dc64bfc85037adb37dd9
25438 F20101207_AAACBQ belchior_p_Page_123.QC.jpg
fbfd64a4c4df907ee889fe4eb6739041
1dc450df67955c6d5e2b13f45e7e109b1f369dae
397 F20101207_AAABWK belchior_p_Page_134.txt
71e8709f34fd235011261b864c80e5b8
d49225d0574f7ec1467c5d602f63da9657674049
2034 F20101207_AAABVW belchior_p_Page_104.txt
ba127f39353744383d767c72d375a00d
e34c2bdfe737b88cf521087a079e72d900f9bcfd
F20101207_AAAATI belchior_p_Page_156.tif
cfafb8e4fbabfde3780f048a173c2a5d
bba0be47900e6ac22bf384cd63d46546e747d6d8
36534 F20101207_AAAASU belchior_p_Page_043.QC.jpg
7b6bf74c5050fc61ea1adcb5f93730a8
8b7dfac932bed4a85d827bad1319ba8d71ac39e1
8732 F20101207_AAACCG belchior_p_Page_075thm.jpg
8fd4b4001dde9d451551fb8cd9420733
dec7b70645b140c83ef1c5e0a4a31191d91b2c24
8585 F20101207_AAACBR belchior_p_Page_072thm.jpg
5402aaeb3c3026a0d2780cb66bb3b0ee
15d213764e44c641fe956a5d9f96c6358a925728
2009 F20101207_AAABXA belchior_p_Page_163.txt
291637c71f2943471932796ad5e59829
4ec094df28eb279d201c4de68b174d5c3589957d
386 F20101207_AAABWL belchior_p_Page_135.txt
66f939e1f8856ba6457460b2f4f2fe20
60aa926f50b82ad85d73200603f7a02e1c417fce
2090 F20101207_AAABVX belchior_p_Page_105.txt
98a71548d7302f284414d1749c1428a8
b63eb8d695c27d2a60203ac0ba238e73abb278cb
40940 F20101207_AAAATJ belchior_p_Page_205.QC.jpg
3abe78a167ae4a99144753d55319b56c
178f5908e43678f0256c00baf3f3d1a8a92daca1
52904 F20101207_AAAASV belchior_p_Page_004.pro
1390cf61a78974a97c3b3bd0da6d242c
4dc95566c6a60ca2de9a00ed5e93e5bab7a79e2f
7174 F20101207_AAACCH belchior_p_Page_172thm.jpg
66083f52c51c1bd04df57826fb1e29e9
6f88fb253f73f0a44ee24217ec8d9b142a5d74a3
2933 F20101207_AAACBS belchior_p_Page_151thm.jpg
a36ae3a254d31798a7a85c43ab597415
3f76f9bdcd38bafc8594e0f370db36a1e2e93c1f
2010 F20101207_AAABXB belchior_p_Page_164.txt
9b1dbd5ea05e498318beaf8195b7a99e
512fca7b3ce63bd3d2df49ac698cb9efea3e6a8d
605 F20101207_AAABWM belchior_p_Page_137.txt
2e44eb62f7973ddbec6f2362afad93a8
ad915b45b1d799ab96d7922127eb1095618992b2
2145 F20101207_AAABVY belchior_p_Page_107.txt
9d09f2157c57ae8b46b8ca1faea0e741
cfa31bc68625526b18fbeb2ea61d73ca9a7bb733
67994 F20101207_AAAATK belchior_p_Page_119.jp2
07b6b4a98f3545343a9cb3f119eee2d8
7e2ced77533de3a3464e43ddb7ea6d41dccc40fb
91208 F20101207_AAAASW belchior_p_Page_091.jpg
4349f865e6492cd1f5459cee1445f3b6
1e3c9d29224b94c3f664f81b31874884a37b0043
9008 F20101207_AAACCI belchior_p_Page_113thm.jpg
627bf411726f9550aec6bd3fb97c4559
e121c1ae5fa64b8a316efa9b9518950a454de9c4
5343 F20101207_AAACBT belchior_p_Page_121thm.jpg
51fbd26dafbf72b264c2e576ef670851
c61ba0c03e65610f02b00d4500928a362b520e05
636 F20101207_AAABWN belchior_p_Page_138.txt
ea2688a040c72a954c7bcdadf29c6eed
81e25bb822b2f8d194d2c6480aeec706cf285e20
2104 F20101207_AAABVZ belchior_p_Page_108.txt
1a6a44616646e19386c8d9fb2dcefd25
696b8ed1ac9ddf256ce60259618f7dc01a3d47fd
126871 F20101207_AAAATL belchior_p_Page_208.jp2
e3344b002d31be67faea41adab085152
b4f97c953ed369b5ce1e07a371cfef3a096ae0d6
F20101207_AAAASX belchior_p_Page_084.tif
aa7608b3043a376f1fefe51710f8c8f6
c351103598a099b290a62edbbf2687ba55e31b5f
36636 F20101207_AAACCJ belchior_p_Page_038.QC.jpg
f0d7796828d4c7faf599121c69420c3a
bd42cf7fb5683f6628ebdb7e19ee8f948c798101
4623 F20101207_AAACBU belchior_p_Page_051thm.jpg
91176683d6b460b7d8dc79f2166ce03c
e1b966e7729a4e0d8b99a326d124211c7d700762
2085 F20101207_AAABXC belchior_p_Page_166.txt
afe2f4c14ab19acb09899eccb019dcf4
5f25b826d7c5b1dbcd290a99e1290eb323454386
718 F20101207_AAABWO belchior_p_Page_141.txt
b91cf1fd5c75681bcfdc466fe5da7ed9
e50cb54cd9e77d2eed904fbb14f68a5224b9e351
6934 F20101207_AAAAUA belchior_p_Page_146.pro
fa20ca901daa5dc185fb8348451fc355
1fad45bfb14023dd19ff25db82ee7c87460fb2b0
35030 F20101207_AAAATM belchior_p_Page_161.QC.jpg
377153db960baae5a21d8b1415aa1320
7a8a63c53afa715906d8d2ba55a3e39cf1ee7ea6
752 F20101207_AAAASY belchior_p_Page_198.txt
4c5302f4d842e3c0333500163e062405
7c5d12fb8688ac58b68115eaf16540b1bc5df136
8134 F20101207_AAACCK belchior_p_Page_028thm.jpg
73c7b9d1c83d839ddd75b046badde223
1ec3a1c8dc70055c233ee3de1a858450368bc65b
8772 F20101207_AAACBV belchior_p_Page_044thm.jpg
3b3b2b890a20adda02cba2c021b365d4
6e152edccfcdf0c7c64e6ee9bfe18841dc11a811
2004 F20101207_AAABXD belchior_p_Page_167.txt
e6417480842cd760f756fd701ff970a5
be479ef64ddf434c17991a9b421b58167b6d44d0
606 F20101207_AAABWP belchior_p_Page_142.txt
14b7aa8d6228ed83a92328497b466dae
d400871d5feeac4cf0454404c186e22b000b53a5
107803 F20101207_AAAAUB belchior_p_Page_166.jpg
7dbbf0183a73c9a79980a65eaee41d6a
724aa6a967dd6a0166e22de4bcbef8403e150540
617 F20101207_AAAATN belchior_p_Page_003thm.jpg
2e3b8fa91764b64f0ba9f951e6ed5a98
31ca45a661c47dee450f2f59c31cff07d5eb57d3
F20101207_AAAASZ belchior_p_Page_088.tif
814c5c389de692adc93468fb46a11730
3de0e519159c48b13acc4e0e013c89c5f4511e39
35853 F20101207_AAACCL belchior_p_Page_072.QC.jpg
0ce86b5197ae7c7c0e4a41f69df8c692
ac31d376198940a4d00cf25dd132465238cab523
9042 F20101207_AAACBW belchior_p_Page_159thm.jpg
fe98fc3ed558ba4cad04fb5f65ae3b6d
e676f067cde73301b457ef6d17825582b0104330
1405 F20101207_AAABXE belchior_p_Page_177.txt
fe0b4fea9ea11b28f7706fae66411a5d
dce10359177626c39b66b8680fcbc9ce2bac5cc0
604 F20101207_AAABWQ belchior_p_Page_143.txt
c6a41d509f7480b8e10c1558820d3735
cb85b2ec8a9a9a00b5be51a61398e9751749b84d
F20101207_AAAAUC belchior_p_Page_085.tif
5d14c1425a8fc936e4896ffc522063a8
a2f73ef0156fbdcaf8fb139a7d5bba8d2d0ff643
9515 F20101207_AAAATO belchior_p_Page_203thm.jpg
20dd9adccce3c15134216ebc0caa4d08
6c027e879ebececdc6d5fffad85c31b48a1fe19a
9001 F20101207_AAACDA belchior_p_Page_201thm.jpg
d3a524fb8f7d6b3add4e56d399dcd111
8506960d5af499f9fd3f5672eb61ce9a359d8b1f
8698 F20101207_AAACBX belchior_p_Page_110thm.jpg
28703ed5fa664a4ed8dbc185b12b4fc3
80b0deafd2f9a2a22f5be0b42283a3f5a09a6732
1241 F20101207_AAABXF belchior_p_Page_178.txt
4f686c26f526598b66506e417ba557f1
3f802bc681ef4704a837d3a13b38d24d245209de
670 F20101207_AAABWR belchior_p_Page_146.txt
acb3cf872d599cd0c882d25e2c740f28
bace462012bf3cfec85d0e48405e1949e02c1c5e
80706 F20101207_AAAAUD belchior_p_Page_192.jp2
35eb6ee9eafef0c3d31822f8b3651cec
5f761a4c655c4bc7f8997feaa3d7ce3c9f515c26
F20101207_AAAATP belchior_p_Page_076.tif
cb09f958a82c6d89a761983abf7af4c4
ddc750520faa7f9d893435f7b82a22758726590c
37646 F20101207_AAACDB belchior_p_Page_113.QC.jpg
515aaf36feaffa37b4bc7d870acbc078
47269258227d3941c65903f6f759a96fc3b30084
35895 F20101207_AAACCM belchior_p_Page_053.QC.jpg
fc7ed13e3d04c02332a04a4b148a3cbb
9906647e51b98b151640aea12e97ddc4df962532
8718 F20101207_AAACBY belchior_p_Page_166thm.jpg
5f887ecbf4c25afd1a94c1ffd1a4a02d
c24f192b2f601615f2852a38607702bb5295f28f
1139 F20101207_AAABXG belchior_p_Page_180.txt
efa534850054be122531913c722db2da
a1bf6afaf3414ceb44c02c16eb08fe9ab9b1a4a2
441 F20101207_AAABWS belchior_p_Page_149.txt
92baf60d9498788791acc79d80d279ae
912f1f961de565d7c134ea2ebb6b2c1fa0d99d8d
118123 F20101207_AAAAUE belchior_p_Page_032.jp2
9be376d6d12d939c8568b64c1e5a9f3a
5581198f8bc5f0666defacc6735f2dcaa75999c4
2927 F20101207_AAAATQ belchior_p_Page_136thm.jpg
3280eb1dd8e5f343b241a28490773f05
d53f45db4c928180583f3882c1466fbf3a93e1ca
2783 F20101207_AAACDC belchior_p_Page_049thm.jpg
afef8e846492f48fc14715e30ccea632
db02d5c692b2cc92e1080fd3523640825a4a6c35
9103 F20101207_AAACCN belchior_p_Page_102thm.jpg
00e4af4eb26bb59329019c00342bf8fe
e622efe5800895149750192aadf52b4267e28c4a
17153 F20101207_AAACBZ belchior_p_Page_175.QC.jpg
bd78dd521854e1e936ea87794b10cb6d
c998f45e3584b2548948a810197fafe452eca553
946 F20101207_AAABXH belchior_p_Page_182.txt
6cff01ff76f1e55bfe9b82901e450923
8a298d011a4474613dec26434913c75e1f9fc694
594 F20101207_AAABWT belchior_p_Page_151.txt
b0258a50d3f6d06b92c5a4bf74e401f8
c955b5664f6b1441f974a78612c3ed2398c4af6e
9145 F20101207_AAAAUF belchior_p_Page_066thm.jpg
7839d7113fe8e63371655a6fd2016958
96e5f6b0a9e148edb06ba2b76d28ca309ec32950
F20101207_AAAATR belchior_p_Page_155.tif
d2876bbc7c7dfd255ccf6f8a7d721ce9
6c44be3d122f4a13f44201e46c0213a91627215e
F20101207_AAABAA belchior_p_Page_113.tif
61d42010e7748cd5412d1c5f0f569b3c
69fa8725f9c03d89bba7ad76067c1d8b66ae21cc
7422 F20101207_AAACDD belchior_p_Page_149.QC.jpg
7957783c5baeee5dc16a1ffe8c26720b
3de2eade9985197ff5580d8dd4b41996c88dbd4d
13865 F20101207_AAACCO belchior_p_Page_209.QC.jpg
ace8830a6cfdf83adab630672d773547
a99cd8d4a9d0128b83ac062fd6be38f6c7977186
1769 F20101207_AAABXI belchior_p_Page_186.txt
c4680ae528c871329d00cbfaa7832cc3
77172d3342aaeac14aba7ce593c5b064d6b0c8be
450 F20101207_AAABWU belchior_p_Page_152.txt
d83eea7886c4ef31df4834a67746aaac
92fc27a982ac038b03a58d805bf628ffd58855e2
40354 F20101207_AAAAUG belchior_p_Page_008.jpg
228a133addf911df4880ccd9f69d9647
8e69806fbae90f89e0659ed48bca05cdd5440b7d
57547 F20101207_AAAATS belchior_p_Page_102.pro
3d66cc1befa52c8989492ce0bf6e938e
6e760aecdd618c3f69a0c2a6e0a58550ba90e6cb
2019 F20101207_AAABAB belchior_p_Page_069.txt
66e134dabd4694c4eca4cec38ee75337
d4a58b67f1dfbd91890801999886c1a7e048af6f
37294 F20101207_AAACDE belchior_p_Page_079.QC.jpg
d3875564a3402aa0cf0617c69ae0ae55
1f64d0579d00e8396efc294d226f7fca5980828b
36300 F20101207_AAACCP belchior_p_Page_106.QC.jpg
96aeff84c77bb25cb91cf1300f180930
4252a984f65d68f89ade6cad0e5fdbca3d828b75
1354 F20101207_AAABXJ belchior_p_Page_194.txt
b5d6d6611e7238a61b9e9a0be2ea1c6f
964999d204161a69867dc0ed1aaaa7f2f429e85b
1998 F20101207_AAABWV belchior_p_Page_153.txt
59fb9b713beb2e792e2dee50c5c3edfa
2de3f6ffd43c9d048681af649059cc90230fe0a3
8316 F20101207_AAAAUH belchior_p_Page_184.QC.jpg
252122cb24f32f651e9b00b9c142725a
6b1db3a938915757807e75c8a19cace3d0dc5be1
8600 F20101207_AAAATT belchior_p_Page_065thm.jpg
8688a2454c04bb8ed951c99f2f324fba
f1e517a32e3fd6c9c28e3506da1125dc19a33863
2803 F20101207_AAABAC belchior_p_Page_139thm.jpg
e875a738b6cb857f9fd26f2d346c29f6
1b54bfb073d87a3d8b81716cc797d3a19da9ee73
8308 F20101207_AAACDF belchior_p_Page_160thm.jpg
0f168e42355f5bdaf1204f4c028dbd36
b81f285e9c92ca8451591f980b339c45e9f2a37c
2144 F20101207_AAACCQ belchior_p_Page_174thm.jpg
43d3c4e3fabd5b19e3687aec9f07cf6a
37fa3fe34942f8af382be4be2d115f6a815f56c0
190 F20101207_AAABXK belchior_p_Page_196.txt
d1043197bb0eeed8063a6009b323fa68
4c4004788120a24afb10fae9ec9730f8105e8eac
2082 F20101207_AAABWW belchior_p_Page_156.txt
3d9c758540f47611906354f2d194936a
03c3583f9cd242d813c90f42097fa62c5485f496
23421 F20101207_AAAAUI belchior_p_Page_173.pro
6bb92a48c4ad6ea42c84d8c93d1ca49d
6e9d5f7dda13e272e75c8c725c0236b406fe16c7
F20101207_AAAATU belchior_p_Page_061.tif
faad58b7e49786c09f5eaaa73a07532d
34343152f7595066926f12fd0b860701ed97d8a5
2197 F20101207_AAABAD belchior_p_Page_025.txt
93d49ab9123603d53c1ca9c56a13371d
7603017f49891761575ffff25c27b791f5c8b07c
24511 F20101207_AAACDG belchior_p_Page_192.QC.jpg
d678dec77ac96c5f5120a825e2193e6f
801038de0eb0fb87c5bd87962f49e0f68ef944f1
7721 F20101207_AAACCR belchior_p_Page_169.QC.jpg
6d96f93924b2d0ef3e3b8d26d9bb3365
bac32e57494a12ee4a9a4d16d6cb4fdac8642014
17847 F20101207_AAABYA belchior_p_Page_096.QC.jpg
7f5bc6797b4331ab4f86339bd0c230ba
0f4bfdfdb5a847d5ab6f0caaa567bb1bfa73db02
1136 F20101207_AAABXL belchior_p_Page_197.txt
d4e0f6cac359f252d7ca819482e1d042
01eb43c59862ef3890441246461c2c5e311522d2
2097 F20101207_AAABWX belchior_p_Page_157.txt
c7fb7a02597fb3f64934208cb8427341
88e6f635fcd5ff86440830f0cd18c65f233627b0
2788 F20101207_AAAAUJ belchior_p_Page_140thm.jpg
412ebed70009ae09d509febcbed8f5ec
7769b7006ec4c85224edf3abf8eb9e9e1fb1f0d5
100656 F20101207_AAAATV belchior_p_Page_055.jpg
869257d61afe2d660d3c8673d04d98cf
d5c4b5c78d084d463161db18149cf36ebb5defc2
27870 F20101207_AAABAE belchior_p_Page_180.pro
56e73a850ca02ba914d58da6402f38ae
1a1f8c48460a733cb145057458838e571c07e317
7450 F20101207_AAACDH belchior_p_Page_171thm.jpg
b76dafbb33839e272648ec2ac771dd12
e5dfb9e08faba9172a8687a9f7b3a44b03870dad
36735 F20101207_AAACCS belchior_p_Page_168.QC.jpg
fc1df7d72c729e3f4af1baf2abdeff22
44ba5374c22abd152570d9ac9641c5bb79d30bed
34363 F20101207_AAABYB belchior_p_Page_104.QC.jpg
7f8a0efe48765e8443a0e9f180657096
e5f361d62f023b8a9da86e0b6c241c16decf23e2
2515 F20101207_AAABXM belchior_p_Page_199.txt
a72619ef2d8328e022fc300aefb60258
4f7b3be41e00c287e8251041b798531e8f662d71
2091 F20101207_AAABWY belchior_p_Page_158.txt
be538b1d4a37827aa5df111f16a1501e
bc68c1dbc79248ba55f3dc5e0a064ac934cc4675
4729 F20101207_AAAAUK belchior_p_Page_084thm.jpg
f16a5a1430813f298c792cbe4b6d57e5
dcdf634968d28298a1f88e47da96f9d2294f2764
29913 F20101207_AAAATW belchior_p_Page_116.QC.jpg
5696d2a8c18a1d4c95afedfe9312da5b
e51be240d55df0c93b94130e050c619df38d7333
54879 F20101207_AAABAF belchior_p_Page_014.pro
d9af35bb29aa30bd649c17a52046650b
3b39c2ed5d858b72efcdcdbda394e3eab436f297
37595 F20101207_AAACDI belchior_p_Page_042.QC.jpg
8198ae631e5cbed1a8c34fd0b63b9ab8
0f53a564e1e1bb5657a7e22a4ed5e01d5e8833fb
34997 F20101207_AAACCT belchior_p_Page_093.QC.jpg
4f5a1b1ff91b4a8de62fb3ef2c582049
d40fb573a8245a1a3d45c64b4e1f392508df3b14
3285 F20101207_AAABYC belchior_p_Page_141thm.jpg
d569ce2dd73980add7215f3369b17891
03ef5befa254b28fb6e3642f78814e56d4a1329f
2861 F20101207_AAABXN belchior_p_Page_200.txt
9954a00a3900add8b00622221b39c18d
b6aa9e1297a6dfe178cd66fbc939ce581804149d
2114 F20101207_AAABWZ belchior_p_Page_161.txt
7e354c90b4e3167c7bd8845cd16885f8
6301d4b51caee59243666eefe4607c67f446749c
34993 F20101207_AAAAUL belchior_p_Page_157.QC.jpg
e9c870b3459c6d4d20bc1fd35b77b11c
f6650b6537df7f4b4d25a679ca41bcac88d0b298
1469 F20101207_AAAATX belchior_p_Page_003.QC.jpg
d75e2908ce0a579d0df166cf55ab6178
ac99c64b5a683eb04c2ac7e96a0680e05da22092
2248 F20101207_AAABAG belchior_p_Page_001thm.jpg
e385b8256e73678892db27c8068e4365
3648faa0107ef820306a3d205a0da57927ff7e88
7599 F20101207_AAAAVA belchior_p_Page_186thm.jpg
7744bcebdd75ea8be578b94a0351208b
498c0133ba0b795adfbb607cc1c771457dc938e3
22654 F20101207_AAACDJ belchior_p_Page_124.QC.jpg
a539e010436f392fd6311cb82b3d9c9a
494dbecc33c6c9609dbb08770d5312820c04e6c5
13888 F20101207_AAACCU belchior_p_Page_195.QC.jpg
8e22037509663e26441d51561b39d871
c8b6d5107745538a525d49bb7e1a989780e583d7
2689 F20101207_AAABXO belchior_p_Page_201.txt
7ccf097dfca2fd369ec189adec72b0c9
520c0d2373e0f4688c3869e20d33f4553da40d79
51475 F20101207_AAAAUM belchior_p_Page_062.pro
12aa1da5185c69c2d76f2e5f9a3dcaac
5eb8f3b8f894b70641d0bbadb3d7508b0773b761
147246 F20101207_AAAATY belchior_p_Page_205.jpg
01058ed133f4056c457168889caccb46
6b27fbd81f9d5ef45d0fba3873931f00502d1cdf
54507 F20101207_AAABAH belchior_p_Page_056.pro
e6c5ddd217adc59da1245e2ed663de30
9c021703f175d904442c0a0f9b5b1f58f0e15a04
36281 F20101207_AAACDK belchior_p_Page_207.QC.jpg
069fbf0d1f9c3d95240f3971d43a6117
7c2297a82fef946d72c342e676a650fed51007b4
6483 F20101207_AAACCV belchior_p_Page_170thm.jpg
39d54c93ae9c89916afb9546db04c865
45860f978470cea2f6bc1fed7785c2d790d967fe
3802 F20101207_AAABYD belchior_p_Page_050thm.jpg
9ae6491edb763fa68a8df93f0ad52f5c
33c9a4d2adc633afbf82312380a550315038d43d
2823 F20101207_AAABXP belchior_p_Page_203.txt
d1c97125c4cfa6efe00a6180199451c5
9e90d91a4bfe9da76372d5250c96cd3fae1a4dff
20569 F20101207_AAAAUN belchior_p_Page_179.QC.jpg
31f0922a7dc939b3a8f1e70abf04c7c2
5161d60de77cc53d66807aa54e0e97b41eb8c838
F20101207_AAAATZ belchior_p_Page_167.tif
11109086575da4494d02743548e764a9
28fb4fc5b372a39ec0198a552a2ac5e834caf7b1
106624 F20101207_AAABAI belchior_p_Page_021.jpg
ec8da6e622d5170d3f759128d8e5d247
f7f527882101c42de4a371fbae05b32625f4775c
102069 F20101207_AAAAVB belchior_p_Page_026.jp2
babee541f8b16fe033a7f369d3ed8913
aedc4557106a6240661fc1a6b4951a502874de04
7554 F20101207_AAACDL belchior_p_Page_187thm.jpg
8d0e34e0c211bac7b46bd275d85a930c
4cc9cd135eccfc91c14249d8d2e78e9784a9dcc7
9003 F20101207_AAACCW belchior_p_Page_058thm.jpg
e6093b2285205ef8e5879affd31a3202
f5471a460ef566513c27a2cd9077f56eab3f8ac2
8637 F20101207_AAABYE belchior_p_Page_168thm.jpg
5afc28f5fc53431e241c50d97195f2ab
36de9b01b8594eeac542bfd57e6d24cb4f8c1b1a
2863 F20101207_AAABXQ belchior_p_Page_204.txt
f42c7e546d93bee7a0db19c80e078db7
b37695a820aca67eff43090e1907e833c6848807
111714 F20101207_AAAAUO belchior_p_Page_041.jpg
90ee633e752ee7445ca44d0a7ef9ec96
6cc478c49ac77bae72c3784aaa71495d858e949b
8608 F20101207_AAABAJ belchior_p_Page_105thm.jpg
919f2f3c4fadf745ef183c82d843c0d8
e88aced695d356dba2428e07fb96e0063c2b6e42
8940 F20101207_AAAAVC belchior_p_Page_048thm.jpg
16241cc55c26d865542bbbe502440f88
5a714334991180d42b5748c431d241070f76959f
9138 F20101207_AAACEA belchior_p_Page_090.QC.jpg
5ffa70d3261ea9501e22a105cd9c8aff
51de5ad48f109a944e490f5a37f438e68a6dd09a
3804 F20101207_AAACDM belchior_p_Page_005thm.jpg
df96c91d254ffdbd8a4214baf101e1b9
da2c525630a51f905faa2668718298b90a4d2209
6138 F20101207_AAACCX belchior_p_Page_126thm.jpg
21f4b6b0cca29f6bacae3f055d716efb
98daa9ea07cd0b10c2b1a9e40ffb38c7256731b1
F20101207_AAABYF belchior_p_Page_077thm.jpg
708cc2e2ae2f25ca9b1406195e8df816
9799be8f01e45920569d4ed815f2cd318ac8d7ed
2866 F20101207_AAABXR belchior_p_Page_205.txt
8676dba41f8b1e8de20c9f553fd4d6c4
838b13fdd6db7a1ca4b3c5ba7a63624756d866c9
119366 F20101207_AAAAUP belchior_p_Page_067.jp2
d102b0050cc975cdbfda6acc4751b870
003f4fbdc89ef5ca1a2f81d61675fe03db26e75f
47314 F20101207_AAABAK belchior_p_Page_028.pro
d95a6aeeb7d2881e9144c8f8f97b7e60
574ac633f19b332f4b29f3879178322deea42889
109485 F20101207_AAAAVD belchior_p_Page_056.jpg
7391a135ba18e6d2feeefb84b6d6932c
1e5ed16a75e7b5c42075071c8024cc58bb822ca3
8672 F20101207_AAACEB belchior_p_Page_091thm.jpg
c390ad5fcc00499ba1dd27dc4353e05b
5c3eea968b0f18115205bd1be190d222e8d7b2de
15153 F20101207_AAACCY belchior_p_Page_129.QC.jpg
52c5eec14b9f3f952b82ba9b4932e7f6
ea73814f349a5bb516072e982f969f71ab5c3916
39166 F20101207_AAABYG belchior_p_Page_102.QC.jpg
23efb8ca7ecd7bf9df4259eadbaf24ee
5da4ffaa5f62655f5e86f1791767d4f1458ea7a2
3074870 F20101207_AAABXS belchior_p.pdf
f5a748a73e70ea5d2a244c051dc0ace7
13134cf3541a966f28238fa375341c7cd75ab10d
108012 F20101207_AAAAUQ belchior_p_Page_020.jpg
081ea0f591c3448e0bc64faea59c50df
c13386e74b7926927ef9b5003957c3445ecc9ed9
105155 F20101207_AAAAVE belchior_p_Page_070.jpg
219dc0a9f1d1a20cd13888b57e4bc6a3
c903140d66a61f1952c1fc662168a20e2173a7e9
5726 F20101207_AAACEC belchior_p_Page_120thm.jpg
69c7fd5d5c87f33b270d8634e8751251
fa6b581176f633c9f59281279502d15ac3b142df
313860 F20101207_AAACDN UFE0021218_00001.xml FULL
590d932b59c586e418ea83fefb2b2a35
8b3f9b1651a274bab5131a118e9fb1b05fef0649
17959 F20101207_AAACCZ belchior_p_Page_197.QC.jpg
c7a5aa2daa0f1486f1472b3aff9c4749
33b8e823439edd55ea7a2572666ccb151dee8d50
33409 F20101207_AAABYH belchior_p_Page_077.QC.jpg
54d50013ff3ca92d2ea92e1b817751e7
f67e1eed1b438df44ef63f2bacc2dc229ef68e1b
7828 F20101207_AAABXT belchior_p_Page_013thm.jpg
5ddca42eceb500810a4917d8b6e39a07
79ae509c79a84a2f9079e86b20c2e5a32db3075d
52939 F20101207_AAABBA belchior_p_Page_110.pro
47a7954badb85e0c61b79af70dec6319
6b979b0d9be58a3b660de4e1885805415284d803
37188 F20101207_AAABAL belchior_p_Page_029.QC.jpg
0f7594744b5be62047678906df8d92bd
fb3191a339f7a5cc235b6d59085679ef1d9941bc
126038 F20101207_AAAAVF belchior_p_Page_019.jp2
2ee1232c29ff79cc7fcf8c4ce4078afe
79370760cb56125d15268dc0dad50771c0292942
34706 F20101207_AAAAUR belchior_p_Page_099.QC.jpg
7a7e42b2a05b69e0036ac3a9e9368c09
9980b5b0654896d9272dd5aa0d19c9e32b2b7a73
7066 F20101207_AAACED belchior_p_Page_122thm.jpg
65d0584db299f732eed200822ffd0f77
82453a921f6c775da113759c6b1054d899b9f42b
1309 F20101207_AAACDO belchior_p_Page_002.QC.jpg
b12e0b21cd9f58ce9a4290b302baf5f7
7c9de5b625b72a958e2e5da8e5c9104dd6d0e500
25475 F20101207_AAABYI belchior_p_Page_193.QC.jpg
347b718caefaab79fff71210eb4308a6
143c31ad6bc9fd8d3a07f85c46a1b0f0e84b2faa
8500 F20101207_AAABXU belchior_p_Page_061thm.jpg
856c64bfcb83465462101ccdf53c845c
1e15df161fb99868cd55ebb2f73b62e326fe9807
285 F20101207_AAABBB belchior_p_Page_094.txt
04a7a86e96130dd007eecf1c4a5db51a
303f9f41c2d494d3f0a453ddcac06a9651595dcd
23616 F20101207_AAABAM belchior_p_Page_122.QC.jpg
6af1667d212f120f957180e45686d0fc
9c5192f2051a28b31a43678e2c6b1be7d5052747
1978 F20101207_AAAAVG belchior_p_Page_154.txt
d5990c20e736204d0939dadf13b5467a
ef6c6ada0e4cea7d8ce2577e1ec55fe4edee33a8
4806 F20101207_AAAAUS belchior_p_Page_173thm.jpg
ee4a8ce3360ef43f8a3fc8770ea67da3
3f48359b706420771c4a0fea00cd39b6c717403c
8480 F20101207_AAACEE belchior_p_Page_125thm.jpg
ffdbdad61967a4761062c1231a311601
f2d9a38733205006e761d2fe3cb7e185a61752f8
9939 F20101207_AAACDP belchior_p_Page_008.QC.jpg
c67f1688790bd3ef970bd7838ff3a325
ed2e993dcfc83987aaabc239db93a4464c75a77e
6969 F20101207_AAABYJ belchior_p_Page_188thm.jpg
9b94556fdb0f0782f17a286239147569
51e119feff381a8cc18ea119994bfed5f231bffa
8839 F20101207_AAABXV belchior_p_Page_032thm.jpg
32119c6d253824a79d802437c2516f7b
a83327247a547b107181c91aa999bf45af5fd7a6
53897 F20101207_AAABBC belchior_p_Page_060.pro
27d1b386b669d5a04d25b334771f6b2c
c1b7bb6dba69c5f82ec8c8b4dafe293f13e141c8
21534 F20101207_AAABAN belchior_p_Page_181.pro
8cb557ca044a8c737e6654a5010a4a52
eb402d572a03a1c6015be093a561518ae5991cbd
100018 F20101207_AAAAVH belchior_p_Page_092.jpg
1c8c3b8eb328ce86cb5e1a81980597f7
13aef82244fede03b3ccc35ef1ecbfa1ec55dd5e
33350 F20101207_AAAAUT belchior_p_Page_167.QC.jpg
f8573d1680b2917699922ec4621a5e45
a1ad753203adf8eed44457c92667e003106ce89c
2820 F20101207_AAACEF belchior_p_Page_152thm.jpg
278df4f2cecc29f0d7c22b4e80f66f14
548f109d8f120ef42ed726637c9b28b18bea4d79
37183 F20101207_AAACDQ belchior_p_Page_017.QC.jpg
91eca6f5d8e240857969a567001a3d59
782c66ce1733bf24ca381c585fedd3c111a3a810
34437 F20101207_AAABYK belchior_p_Page_070.QC.jpg
fd48645b144aa753b3fb57ffa3684ce4
5d2de06b68c7771de61192f6763836d9a7a55473
36351 F20101207_AAABXW belchior_p_Page_018.QC.jpg
80b69a476ec3416f289b33d2f8475b08
2ebf17e17bdc3312ac86502d847c45dd8b8165bc
2697 F20101207_AAABBD belchior_p_Page_134thm.jpg
09937b2197c4b876666949bca1e5b6e8
c948745e8f7a68e1a61d41b877262143fe36a766
F20101207_AAABAO belchior_p_Page_170.tif
dc6700a373dc9ee3b05a84399482c9c2
3b63652b1092c63466b9aa7c936717942646d24f
55658 F20101207_AAAAVI belchior_p_Page_017.pro
f6a7a7904e80548d330645732c113a84
b6d491bf45f9e06046d7224e2807a81388327884
37976 F20101207_AAAAUU belchior_p_Page_204.QC.jpg
a2f77fe790e31f31042d5997a4986f2c
fe2fee301f9c9e46eaab42519a382be1d989eb20
18152 F20101207_AAACEG belchior_p_Page_181.QC.jpg
8d60ccd716543c6e6e80dffa9e4c7f5f
96e72b4bfff3bb3725dff77f289033e392b4095d
8800 F20101207_AAACDR belchior_p_Page_020thm.jpg
6083932bef621dd3c868274de02d6a3b
b7148915a00792d3ba0ab672b020298de50cd047
9049 F20101207_AAABZA belchior_p_Page_067thm.jpg
7a3a1dee696b00ee61c6973b4e126a3b
5c67209e6bbec3c85e0913bbd1e548f7ec66f56c
6685 F20101207_AAABYL belchior_p_Page_145.QC.jpg
c570ae630c8ed3b3eaf7fa9a5a4a2196
e4c676205435a4f9bd5c5e8d1b12fcad60efb62d
8815 F20101207_AAABXX belchior_p_Page_031thm.jpg
41064cc773d9aa0e38e33cdff14ac7b9
57a5b237d423c6e07ece99a4d3b85a525af54027
22603 F20101207_AAABBE belchior_p_Page_135.jpg
592fe0927b9dfe9708a6ddf76bcec8c4
3390ac94940e598470febbc0db595ce717126d1a
1782 F20101207_AAABAP belchior_p_Page_116.txt
a60db338fd3b897147df1c85b6702223
75119353d04d1cf466dc4e95b9eb06ecfda4d11e
F20101207_AAAAVJ belchior_p_Page_023.tif
19a4239be7bf9b112dcd4974024a705f
452e1a6c2b8f3b36fb50d54fd909317f439e0d41
130110 F20101207_AAAAUV belchior_p_Page_201.jpg
d1dc86e21959ba56acdbf10479bf021d
6cbc1117aa268025b400e9aefe95772c8a9ea87d
2427 F20101207_AAACEH belchior_p_Page_184thm.jpg
f7e841ea6ef58c81665dc0952f221f4e
1957f3e5cdf83fb945441fa85e42e278a9801564
7493 F20101207_AAACDS belchior_p_Page_026thm.jpg
9597344684565ea84770c09adfe85e2f
fce05a88932adf897e42edec51504424e4af96ea
8750 F20101207_AAABZB belchior_p_Page_165thm.jpg
c4d982fd987d6e724bfa5bae09ae0817
89307eeaab794b00324b528985b8b47d67410f77
2703 F20101207_AAABYM belchior_p_Page_008thm.jpg
069c2cda074db7b38f7ac63bf2987900
185e2ccb9d96fd312074edaf7e1732bee1e6fbb3
8846 F20101207_AAABXY belchior_p_Page_001.QC.jpg
49624b4a730f868b8038ef53cb0fa348
4fef5ba0c3b7514659c8b6f30196184fbf7306c4
5662 F20101207_AAABBF belchior_p_Page_181thm.jpg
0c89efdb5678876bc9327bc7e9eff99d
42a09e365205922a4d96b789efbe46558a1a8bb1
7011 F20101207_AAABAQ belchior_p_Page_143.QC.jpg
ed66f9aba7a0f4e63d72840b082a49c4
853a120305bf2ad741ce6339e41272b219c431b3
109814 F20101207_AAAAVK belchior_p_Page_039.jpg
c4a330080d68f75a0fff11e5e5f96d91
842a057d913740d5746d86ffdb2efa6a4b3db175
33965 F20101207_AAAAUW belchior_p_Page_160.QC.jpg
f73502381883b86dcf1598ddf0a9c52e
7b5d57cd33163e2818ca4aa548eb18975d507635
7690 F20101207_AAACEI belchior_p_Page_190thm.jpg
8f4d540d67e460a06930dbcaba4959a9
e3849fc559673d0d4baca3a787592aed35825ec8
12410 F20101207_AAACDT belchior_p_Page_027.QC.jpg
5c9fc501f069c381a36cc6695ecdb932
22e274918301ea8d7a80e0410e98a8927be5f8a6
8642 F20101207_AAABZC belchior_p_Page_108thm.jpg
356a81af688af48d385f85f945f83244
c4d85ec8821aa8d43f096a73b8b6713e0b076216
35488 F20101207_AAABYN belchior_p_Page_095.QC.jpg
de425bedaebfbeb673c7e6b0de00230e
f9adb5be686ea1f7d15e774d6337cb94ab793dfc
36238 F20101207_AAABXZ belchior_p_Page_032.QC.jpg
17e1979ac754c09017747c8a2bae91c9
e2e73fbe5024388ecc9f4217ea7fe3e08f1a3ad0
110940 F20101207_AAABBG belchior_p_Page_025.jpg
26cec3118702a8f5228d3ce4b798a06e
befbc063583a4beff9e216ded98b687522933df7
115447 F20101207_AAAAWA belchior_p_Page_075.jp2
fe41fe3f6bd16f3f4ca8e237853a90cf
27189fc6326595e385f459a7d8cc10b0ed0cc1ef
24349 F20101207_AAABAR belchior_p_Page_191.QC.jpg
b7293d12c73aa49ff3829dd3d197bf22
1ee9c129fdfd91e22c7f96dedf55f1c70de1bceb
2024 F20101207_AAAAVL belchior_p_Page_160.txt
eea0bdd29435bf0e180516182fa37dd3
9eefced4abb856c35a8e604b1e833990ff44bd9f
36620 F20101207_AAAAUX belchior_p_Page_206.QC.jpg
e334566a51635560bcf50d73de8e4d6c
219f63d2eeb368a64955f4415dfeb1a028c0bca4
7049 F20101207_AAACEJ belchior_p_Page_194thm.jpg
25e73fa429fade902187c7ea03866d74
bb5ed1782fca1f005a4080488b691119faefc3c3
8036 F20101207_AAACDU belchior_p_Page_052thm.jpg
3d5b220795dc8ed8947cc7f0db11deb8
468ef9fee4a09ca00801761c370b0d6b5b678e7c
27651 F20101207_AAABZD belchior_p_Page_186.QC.jpg
252651e62aab10372f9f30bdc483989f
360e10ee4a24419ba27438f9caaf3eb82a63170a
8886 F20101207_AAABYO belchior_p_Page_060thm.jpg
5005c041a3e055c7611ec266af8abb3e
723aaf204dfe6fcfd3a54ad4c21d6b40338ba2c8
108577 F20101207_AAABBH belchior_p_Page_024.jpg
d334c4f16fe772fe4dd8472ff3e63c22
a3af5657633b4b75e5369264af71300d44d12cd8
5094 F20101207_AAAAWB belchior_p_Page_096thm.jpg
edfcfa9c646c890639d75d57ae50565f
3a4d58c982306ba86502de4c5c9ab0dafca98ee5
9009 F20101207_AAABAS belchior_p_Page_078thm.jpg
aa4a48201450e48fe131052e1af08153
4fc67c1b406fc4b6c528d9939fcdd4884953f712
F20101207_AAAAVM belchior_p_Page_028.tif
e3709cbe88e4162c8d600f65446e1ec1
50ad757fb91b7078cdebcc5641a9b46794d9828e
274 F20101207_AAAAUY belchior_p_Page_095.txt
397ea8330aa09a74e8454f27da35ac19
b907cb4b236ac08db1c2519598a6d9a75d68db3c
24842 F20101207_AAACEK belchior_p_Page_194.QC.jpg
5f6c7ba044c0c65caff956a5e5f848a8
7b3a08f664f0e3ed7ef0ec86d26c9206b2908477
8207 F20101207_AAACDV belchior_p_Page_055thm.jpg
b64d5f507214977f9d47367a6c0ad7f6
300fcbc4ab31191b5bef8767dfb2a7cecfec4742
9354 F20101207_AAABYP belchior_p_Page_202thm.jpg
622e186246cdb52aee46d436e91dba2c
920182e668563354e5610c68ab9d577ba8d4a6f7
54935 F20101207_AAABBI belchior_p_Page_037.pro
9d33f85566fe17d81905899dce4f8dae
cb46e72253f94a2a5030a3e1dac0de4541f247df
2039 F20101207_AAABAT belchior_p_Page_013.txt
5e7fb28692b846bc8a120ebddde447c4
79f4701cede8fa477bf0d1458d7e68092eb15403
8162 F20101207_AAAAVN belchior_p_Page_163thm.jpg
5e13bdfcf0f7d79556e174eb11e9d840
7ffebd2600e1c6df2b51131dff518f401f0c981e
560 F20101207_AAAAUZ belchior_p_Page_002thm.jpg
9eb03b7cd923a4985345c14c49a2c49b
1f1c613a28159ac9971f05ad39d8a0b1464eda48
35022 F20101207_AAACEL belchior_p_Page_199.QC.jpg
ea1b4981d92eb6c5620f5af2de468236
6ba6ab95e3b95382c9677d9ec14c85871fafa67f
9526 F20101207_AAACDW belchior_p_Page_068thm.jpg
43102e07bbd47d5c28cdd7dd945b1b42
a0ad499aed48a864628d633591390f05c1b0234e
8779 F20101207_AAABZE belchior_p_Page_071thm.jpg
a55e11ddaaf9f8c19fd1a193f3bb410d
daf139aa48aff2439756967923bcf1ce1886f91d
7881 F20101207_AAABYQ belchior_p_Page_011thm.jpg
3bd1ccc1df54f1a2dcac5bc04948c8b6
1b6e795c8fefd35fa0b67cfcbd64637050e9fc6d
123904 F20101207_AAABBJ belchior_p_Page_114.jp2
40d3da35ece53df36796e15b0c3d1d8b
04619ea8fae9a9b53af83d372c5b6aaecf56845a
36499 F20101207_AAAAWC belchior_p_Page_100.QC.jpg
8f8712a1e4c7c911636e05f5d35edba1
03f3d340df6de0ddeb14185b5603e3c874594199
23950 F20101207_AAABAU belchior_p_Page_151.jp2
cec1da6cfa7b242708e0f505af38b3e0
f5aff739aeccc6085a8d83cc29f35a38ab3583b7
F20101207_AAAAVO belchior_p_Page_057.tif
e55bc2b839d5f538682413c4a6bf5d4d
f5421b3fe63a8baad3c8b4d21859e8fa215f4ba9
35517 F20101207_AAACDX belchior_p_Page_075.QC.jpg
14190784dd641ae82d33f7fa4abb971b
bbc804a8f6a7cc97609dc38633ea9affafeef73b
36462 F20101207_AAABZF belchior_p_Page_022.QC.jpg
f0e8283eee13829d8ab009d8bbc34c2b
21ef7c4607083568537110c7efdc8d6f0f8ca532
33498 F20101207_AAABYR belchior_p_Page_062.QC.jpg
bf4228af5cb7972511dc7fcd3b2e0264
1b1ea4a5757dc95beb39c7e716ad2f90168b2633
146985 F20101207_AAABBK belchior_p_Page_204.jp2
01c245dde0c986fe76ba80cc50970271
673bbc513f0fb33c945259f4a0eac5f1c087c3aa
F20101207_AAAAWD belchior_p_Page_089.tif
6d92ba54632a8ead2cbfe182c1f1782e
16adbec0012b824e5abab3383e2e657fc434ce1a
F20101207_AAABAV belchior_p_Page_184.tif
952fd7ad9560586a4b524e9826bac082
b84c96b3c778f84faade0f5578a547155a879b2f
101952 F20101207_AAAAVP belchior_p_Page_052.jpg
47d717c5a883bde7e5a16407edb53b6a
1b96a535ae1d72542c94ef94cf72bc2832dcaf38
3870 F20101207_AAACDY belchior_p_Page_083thm.jpg
b9625fd26673d4f43cef1b807997b057
f67934ef317fd9dab281622ecdaf58a5e32f9eea
33727 F20101207_AAABZG belchior_p_Page_033.QC.jpg
e39c5d64b9e08680a10a2ccfcc180451
e860b64e516d26096948423ba78363509cb1b53d
25965 F20101207_AAABYS belchior_p_Page_190.QC.jpg
1ce50470c4f1136b4df4765424575661
e43941509d0090d4d79a39580a36793c1075c759
9440 F20101207_AAABBL belchior_p_Page_200thm.jpg
a497b9577d02cba7ce0dbe38fd54b4e9
ea88758e64bd005457b784959572f7e927caacd6
27930 F20101207_AAAAWE belchior_p_Page_120.pro
44b2d0ec737c635e2378a3416bfc0e84
476883f33abe0e1ea37e26c6c989ce9a4ef17996
1051970 F20101207_AAABAW belchior_p_Page_091.jp2
cab3ef957440a237999758ef34e1b9c0
5b2f08838cbb39fb83f6f15ebfcf535b1e2ae54d
F20101207_AAAAVQ belchior_p_Page_154.tif
39bfe2bd1c0aeecb7dce925ef1dc0ec3
3d23a427f8f0b3499bbb8c428ddccf71304004cf
12296 F20101207_AAACDZ belchior_p_Page_086.QC.jpg
92c97668936895c9b7c0b6630d3115d5
a3b897d5a98f75c87a120db64c669ad7222ce0b4
9116 F20101207_AAABZH belchior_p_Page_018thm.jpg
65f496b1d184c647a579bf5b6157f2bf
77477cc4e9e397105356c2606b5106a5a91d26b7
8320 F20101207_AAABYT belchior_p_Page_167thm.jpg
19c44ae5c2dca3dd6be95318c6c6019e
fcf6d0db8507f9e71cf04bab6caaeb57279b1aa7
115862 F20101207_AAAAWF belchior_p_Page_060.jp2
6a492f986ce2fc89841719333796c3fb
56910f498a2816efc53e2d07a83b25f8f7af36a8
3201 F20101207_AAABAX belchior_p_Page_131thm.jpg
e72c2545659a1a379126ce58cdcd1ef6
4aa82f046f075b9d32403ae6a5712a9da834c97e
22393 F20101207_AAAAVR belchior_p_Page_151.jpg
c419a778ec6e138ccdd443f67d55f774
f6ce29ae698056d0d972bad0c5e21305d35e9eff
3369 F20101207_AAABCA belchior_p_Page_089.pro
e84df3136322eaec1d04e5c5ea036a6b
ee3ca831607f3531b76b0d37fc507578f5f204bc
22239 F20101207_AAABZI belchior_p_Page_170.QC.jpg
ea9a8547d5290fb02836fa4f95b47ce1
df0e5101a5717c164bd55d42331d0490ca5e1eb1
8069 F20101207_AAABYU belchior_p_Page_147.QC.jpg
1d6e7a1907aaf12155f985e42bec14d9
a384b675a605da3f52c64bbdee34310b84d3bd09
23277 F20101207_AAABBM belchior_p_Page_182.pro
e6581e71b8c3363ce064b52e596ca79c
70821638703ddfd300b12b0af0b5f27ecef10e5c
2143 F20101207_AAAAWG belchior_p_Page_159.txt
64596921ca00d84fcc4608c87807a14c
294ee9a78951b2c65600d57ab40e4ebd48de3aff
107129 F20101207_AAABAY belchior_p_Page_156.jpg
7618a702c138259fe002e22400db5647
fd8c9ba4b3fb61ec68f6e43945e37025cc033f58
24986 F20101207_AAAAVS belchior_p_Page_152.jpg
4b85dacd58fb0bb8f1d526dd7dfdd987
c94167b8b72687e8e73f0e67f2a3261572581cc6
983723 F20101207_AAABCB belchior_p_Page_096.jp2
7bc9418ed4471e4512b16646b467a23c
8e75ee6f9219b01a175ebbad4755dd8703e33db0
5988 F20101207_AAABZJ belchior_p_Page_183thm.jpg
a4dda2fe30fc61072c380de752839595
291778a32a646de721b943f54eedd7a0f04db590
36340 F20101207_AAABYV belchior_p_Page_044.QC.jpg
a659d66c5c5cb51c29e3d9bc63fb46d1
441c30b59c027e2f88e15cf6ff723cfe08b55871
443 F20101207_AAABBN belchior_p_Page_087.txt
43e1fdd7ff61dabcc45d2339868340fe
1f25360afec42db22bb961d2bfa2bbe71e67162f
28879 F20101207_AAAAWH belchior_p_Page_176.pro
5db6db801f7c6e1cb28a7ffa9faf5b97
a80ac0e0ae3c53dafc1a969d683c43dbef890f07
7186 F20101207_AAABAZ belchior_p_Page_142.QC.jpg
041d7223da340116da58e3ecaaaf6a54
a9594b0ff5233971564356b1389c1c9eafae4986
108591 F20101207_AAAAVT belchior_p_Page_062.jp2
c4cfb17cb162eb981381442b88b2f27f
35fb4817d0be238df33a0fa1977fc47a79a37371
112169 F20101207_AAABCC belchior_p_Page_017.jpg
134fafbd44cf6957066c16b9ce04df94
4fa4b838859711be0052cc6b050d64143816b02b
8755 F20101207_AAABZK belchior_p_Page_012.QC.jpg
ff94a3424be9ab28226b648756890233
473f9e5a1b0ad1335c899139b9c7ca730ad2999c
F20101207_AAABYW belchior_p_Page_101thm.jpg
fb8c829838bbab92d64eabb2823c507b
77cbdcc865cd2d08865a918dae9c08c8c9b15935
37138 F20101207_AAAAWI belchior_p_Page_081.QC.jpg
88a0fe4e8bbb750a3f76dfadaa53300a
e95b3bc546244b82054b825b7a9f04f540979e4c
9209 F20101207_AAAAVU belchior_p_Page_046thm.jpg
e17e4d2aed52d68f325ecc968e88857b
5978479deee3646644de57e2d12ecc90fe0ecc75
4608 F20101207_AAABCD belchior_p_Page_129thm.jpg
ff089194d10d1323e4b62cebff083fb6
802fed6e4e554f29481fe10a1685147f7a3e2cb9
2226 F20101207_AAABBO belchior_p_Page_018.txt
484f99ad5e460b203d491e85127cf905
155d780386f13cf5796112dd951d18ea14c90cd0
33756 F20101207_AAABZL belchior_p_Page_023.QC.jpg
7f0549f14057ae1a6159e32b215dad85
7cae94cd633f98c93a9f7b3e361dbb6fc4d9b3b3
38351 F20101207_AAABYX belchior_p_Page_036.QC.jpg
3718518eb4676cbed56b9e042cf02741
7bb77a4d77e4151fdf99b4acb0ff264714c82cfb
32689 F20101207_AAAAWJ belchior_p_Page_094.QC.jpg
65321086c85c1d61acb2ad89c9a03e30
7e31edae1eca9992020c762ee2a352bcbe1842e3
F20101207_AAAAVV belchior_p_Page_007.tif
4c6dd68836b993040cea7a9763f1c0ef
b86767ef06e07b147f23e869a339a775729a2d6a
F20101207_AAABCE belchior_p_Page_189.tif
054e008f69266bc91a9d237eaf297f9c
1a31e9e143137c2e9018e9cee08f80dd5f8c8257
2047 F20101207_AAABBP belchior_p_Page_099.txt
c601c703e8b1503cff5af958ae2f8e9a
b8baad192b664e92fa15a862c2e839a952beb1e7
5430 F20101207_AAABZM belchior_p_Page_089thm.jpg
72b590f6cedf083a5bcb0ac857f164db
7a6a35a3bc1992d9caecfe5fe677c42580fe22d1
31219 F20101207_AAABYY belchior_p_Page_098.QC.jpg
3e6f4932fb4237d4dd20e3d0e75c2492
222baed9d65fa36edc515f19e5972d609f036992
10024 F20101207_AAAAWK belchior_p_Page_087.pro
621cfc7690e2d1272368f78b1f405a2e
84784cd38491ed11639518011e1b917594542d2c
F20101207_AAAAVW belchior_p_Page_133.tif
696b2609756882ba718c26ac2521d9f0
2e6ba9a41d3a1d52e4506756796994b17a942354
111463 F20101207_AAABCF belchior_p_Page_106.jpg
65d34ac3e3df68d97f6abd26b367dc5f
63dbb0b2a40855522b24d5f6abf5a9f48fd244b1
98526 F20101207_AAABBQ belchior_p_Page_028.jpg
53ef74f3343c528b835af4f5d2f7a41e
5bd2c82bc7a74cd5d1670ba6a248b65887d482e4
8813 F20101207_AAABZN belchior_p_Page_024thm.jpg
505e62b9c7c4e8104c40d48681cfe3c6
eac0b00cac794db1fbc842e845d4a4ddeabc9506
34941 F20101207_AAABYZ belchior_p_Page_024.QC.jpg
ab413731588251a7822360779bef42dc
8b568346bdc8f43c572c5e393023c018743ffe09
23445 F20101207_AAAAWL belchior_p_Page_174.jpg
45ee179c529d2eafe1c7bbb9f91d9933
f940a15776c7ce51a7cc546c7b0bd746394814f0
53059 F20101207_AAAAVX belchior_p_Page_166.pro
72fcb6d23ccb9e6fdef37b9508d9e54c
b4ba7b28bfcf2ec1e2fb97c3f4cbd267f86ccfbf
F20101207_AAABCG belchior_p_Page_010.tif
e658ee4ae2d2101da546b53a33ff5d42
3ae3353a26f0ba00be73187a5f63c99f45ca4c0d
F20101207_AAAAXA belchior_p_Page_153.tif
f046a6fd46f4c5f8a171a17a265a4f8c
fe475f792b105a3d8dc23ca2d182b5e73d8207dd
2442 F20101207_AAABBR belchior_p_Page_149thm.jpg
0e504c19ce57a3ab49ff6c257020071e
08a215bc8a2a8ad3994f81a0c9e05c78bfcfbe03
13381 F20101207_AAABZO belchior_p_Page_127.QC.jpg
26a846ee2688552f3326623aa8030d87
7f2d3a7b91719fb48b64cbc6ada5d1c292aeddcf
F20101207_AAAAWM belchior_p_Page_133.QC.jpg
be0f0bd10ce2ba8ce124787ddfebd3ea
849f1d97c65a1f9330f67ee3345de85e579d2475
F20101207_AAAAVY belchior_p_Page_020.tif
fa4b1f165a21e2aa5b1e1fc971847783
746b782479d66865a3feac03637ecdb4755384ba
116265 F20101207_AAABCH belchior_p_Page_024.jp2
a5d6aa1f03a630e51129f2581e5b23d0
8db1ef12d302e2f6493b213f5d19aca6128c201d
F20101207_AAAAXB belchior_p_Page_112.tif
9ffe20015fb133ccc89710a63ed8037b
4fdfda4ede41f93b557f646a919ba61805559f69
118633 F20101207_AAABBS belchior_p_Page_039.jp2
3b74f157f545d3608f8f11f639dc9621
6bf48fab0f571996c30a27e3802e44f4723ad2b3
4203 F20101207_AAABZP belchior_p_Page_097thm.jpg
b957bc5bc27a0fccc2ac65c430cfa9ff
e6277c12f0199985003846583ddd264c8d1233cb
110117 F20101207_AAAAWN belchior_p_Page_060.jpg
9686c756f7233ad9deee644a5c7b02ca
00fb4204b3065f06606d30e15affc8c986c44c3a
1649 F20101207_AAAAVZ belchior_p_Page_187.txt
5a9ceaba728cfc558ee73e9a18d5a1c3
8c4753a0dad0a07f9347712d6371d5c35cdd24a2
38473 F20101207_AAABCI belchior_p_Page_114.QC.jpg
95aee25ca96adfdf05cabe524b8c9cee
4c6de4005354b59de4cd7f35ae04544b4665bb57
7354 F20101207_AAAAXC belchior_p_Page_191thm.jpg
03f5559f001c23d3c4fbe7f41751584b
e323fad0d3f975ec5fb62f1e0e7a4135019ae5b8
51111 F20101207_AAABBT belchior_p_Page_099.pro
2946f6a903266ccc489825f7c99a0765
01af7f63820e02f2099155548c31e0f8bf5df9e4
32926 F20101207_AAABZQ belchior_p_Page_055.QC.jpg
dd938bac8a08f6fb53fe8eb11637e915
0bfc322c96256a8b42d83d9cef4bba355d52a313
113472 F20101207_AAAAWO belchior_p_Page_038.jpg
eeaee10c19ad80ee5a84c381b8813cec
757eba90602a7ddf7769a158206be380402dc657
37599 F20101207_AAABCJ belchior_p_Page_063.QC.jpg
420335a83de07fe7f7ea524ecd575f16
20c1cd504f861c6e1435ad3978bce4eb75e59a97
F20101207_AAABBU belchior_p_Page_115.pro
3be8f052333930c1d3e573aea538ed60
70db3b5dc1ee199df298a71f60d69de5f814e750
8347 F20101207_AAABZR belchior_p_Page_099thm.jpg
34f0ff239580335c72a96ded2026898a
f5094582bbb2d3a9eff3c8269d2d9adabba58aba
2030 F20101207_AAAAWP belchior_p_Page_065.txt
7b61942a2663a8668ebf9c5715344e0b
b8d12c72f587f010e15422920e9fdf26e764fee7
98097 F20101207_AAABCK belchior_p_Page_153.jpg
69ba39397bd341bb60c565680da53ed3
7241d64fa9ba522dfd76788ab57e3f7a18f0587f
18741 F20101207_AAAAXD belchior_p_Page_121.QC.jpg
1da325f902d94ae4705cf3a939a93ea1
850b9e0a7f83f1ef8e52c229fd391705c0c11671
9219 F20101207_AAABBV belchior_p_Page_029thm.jpg
5a8d4e5d5406643128814000c026bdd1
e6194644399c74115f36df30109cf30d8c4f3f94
11933 F20101207_AAABZS belchior_p_Page_198.QC.jpg
01783a545c43be349eebc43ee0c362b9
0957ae8413a51998826621337232fac9a9ca780a
6325 F20101207_AAAAWQ belchior_p_Page_148.pro
503f12dfd3c28e01f5c15b431ff534d6
35536045e446477cf2cd21a6879d9722a7020cf6
F20101207_AAABCL belchior_p_Page_104thm.jpg
6cbd50d7c8cb9a0affc48d3e37beaddc
4f33135594856e82b6287007709918a26a81666b
F20101207_AAAAXE belchior_p_Page_104.tif
d8ceb0172c32474d4e416d653d857bfd
e6db41a237b35155e5a73a0d7678554501bfc786
53571 F20101207_AAABBW belchior_p_Page_023.pro
9babb3475dda2653fa505e63e58419d2
9680b338a93303803b0c4360bea071d35477018a
7329 F20101207_AAABZT belchior_p_Page_174.QC.jpg
34c4b139fd8e5b9d9b6327988190012d
2eac09ee560d9071acd31011f85e6bd0b38c4ab6
20040 F20101207_AAAAWR belchior_p_Page_176.QC.jpg
006978c679900508b5eb957037d8fe36
544bc417d5e9e082ce40ac599ba6f566c5fad889
14261 F20101207_AAABDA belchior_p_Page_005.QC.jpg
431601cd22f3e025e45924594c16fa26
0d46a5223075a35985419afa367c329864f86b73
43822 F20101207_AAABCM belchior_p_Page_116.pro
d6a9db50e6d86b2008c77053b0cef095
78bd6d7792049391611d4abea9600fdae6684563
5957 F20101207_AAAAXF belchior_p_Page_176thm.jpg
17c41bb4cac7eef6732af36d51c434e3
86dac5f0d78f4b664ad8c4e249e4edb1087ce268
F20101207_AAABBX belchior_p_Page_109.txt
d037e3b2934d5a9e4e1447bb491380e3
1c184ee7125ae7c60fcb27f24cda790a899f405d
F20101207_AAABZU belchior_p_Page_079thm.jpg
d7ba15dcbb0eb1a49e86432902ef132c
5059d020975ef17bb53817935aa82c74efd74b4a
73770 F20101207_AAAAWS belchior_p_Page_170.jpg
f9e7170d611f0ad7059f7fb97c1a2a85
6522a0844fd999aec220bf179c97236c06aeefab
4216 F20101207_AAABDB belchior_p_Page_195thm.jpg
9c4b141e54fd085be3f71c7faa319945
33be5c11062725d551cdefc1288801598f47ceeb
120335 F20101207_AAAAXG belchior_p_Page_043.jp2
a2c9f6a53e694a554594232fe99a16e3
39168ee55cba06f7734c13164c196769fcb629b4
10388 F20101207_AAABBY belchior_p_Page_141.QC.jpg
a8814e8bbff8e681dc535fa31532f0c6
475d97122381f29042e3fbef0847d0f5bd4afe45
35078 F20101207_AAABZV belchior_p_Page_004.QC.jpg
dfa144ec7150478b17db54ffb0bc634f
a494fc22fbb0c56fbaef9722961842cdbf86f7fa
50957 F20101207_AAAAWT belchior_p_Page_128.jpg
3e9454e24379581d4dcf8aa05ce19249
7dcf2c042595894bc40b5690aeb4c74e3a2bbba4
10234 F20101207_AAAAAA belchior_p_Page_050.QC.jpg
9d5b2e5e0e8a0d6785564b62b41b6e0d
123db9765d9af31929311c1bf4e4ee7f54e67f8b
1587 F20101207_AAABDC belchior_p_Page_129.txt
5d6427f1d2ba96492882a446659da61c
bf7817748855c7f51bc13615405e61c0ed101427
37594 F20101207_AAABCN belchior_p_Page_201.QC.jpg
f4647c1a02921bfce302f97f3395ff20
44ea5273ff660dd5d7f6d46448ac54bc59c36b5e
2764 F20101207_AAAAXH belchior_p_Page_150thm.jpg
55b5069b005a51cf9a722ad53101f235
e3ffb565b55c8f4cbf4d48b9e39a7682413a1495
15814 F20101207_AAABBZ belchior_p_Page_197.pro
395127d94f6440a7b57504be9f3e60df
851cb3dd3b2de477f9cb0d25c2b4445b7e45685e
F20101207_AAABZW belchior_p_Page_157thm.jpg
889f0bb8d01b7da61f0207d8d6c8b815
2d01287713b2e9990038b6efe7057ed419698f8f
103634 F20101207_AAAAWU belchior_p_Page_077.jpg
356912892d108e8e0b359649f7186532
35c5074872ef8583961388502bd584e558f11fe6
113523 F20101207_AAAAAB belchior_p_Page_048.jp2
e00fd08959eed494003fa01ba7a4832c
7c2fd9b3999f1f1f7239ce062c9dd421e8d33498
32280 F20101207_AAABDD belchior_p_Page_198.jpg
4b15bfef2a03f5eed7ba0e27711a9139
06ce56294088a6022e75fc05f4bfc73df0a3db6a
1212 F20101207_AAABCO belchior_p_Page_176.txt
9b78ef25212026f8a068de6c4932186b
d14b3f92bf7b54055eb8234f9f1a4656e57b530b
9069 F20101207_AAAAXI belchior_p_Page_039thm.jpg
39ce746880cc9fe0b84e84e5ff0b62dd
9c57886a28be01c95da12ed8f98bb3115ad2d5de
9028 F20101207_AAABZX belchior_p_Page_042thm.jpg
c9c68e0d09105e4cedd3e495563cadd8
383e3f8735bbcf52c12a7f6fae179a64586f3f65
F20101207_AAAAWV belchior_p_Page_159.tif
89891e680a822557b363e425cc3abfef
60c92ae9a178d76fa5a5a1d0c900f41283de9bba
468 F20101207_AAAAAC belchior_p_Page_136.txt
c40ff5592df3901c9222652ad91a95dc
6a421e3923c3ecf9e399884fb82768bb517b7fb1
F20101207_AAABDE belchior_p_Page_079.tif
d79ba329c81d2ef511103926fa7b1f71
7ebe78a546fa84cab7bdc9f8fb2f828cbf588c68
64839 F20101207_AAABCP belchior_p_Page_176.jp2
ca674b973435b87b2e16e80cf1bc8379
27852f299c576a965af5a5e09919df88ecc17e9f
9832 F20101207_AAAAXJ belchior_p_Page_174.pro
acc505967fd884a39f4eeb6909b53c71
578d67ddf1d5a80c80da04d50c115b9f0bc872d4
36073 F20101207_AAABZY belchior_p_Page_067.QC.jpg
2eeafab9c43d17130c8d3d0f082e06d5
4cfd86b85486aea9bfd0a979e5e59c87eda70f75
34733 F20101207_AAAAWW belchior_p_Page_208.QC.jpg
88356d37a0d59087e7728b7d57f728eb
1d23859b760b0e44e1a3332ff0b7627e5decd41b
108362 F20101207_AAAAAD belchior_p_Page_031.jpg
1d97b83ceade4c8c35ebc31a629fe524
36b43d71e97762bb688552f7af05937d7facc259
94124 F20101207_AAABDF belchior_p_Page_059.jpg
aa925bc41a57882aff7c564f6b10407d
7578fad9659d28e07fb5dcba3abb0e012368642f
57455 F20101207_AAABCQ belchior_p_Page_175.jp2
0de3d5f19c34cbd5a4c475404ed4777f
58b3385dd3339cc97067f9ab85e33b6c5c06ad2d
F20101207_AAAAXK belchior_p_Page_038.tif
4c26c426e7b2d9f4416b4d0be6fb0d67
6113fc0c905b94f76b30adc4e398518b6fae9995
37925 F20101207_AAABZZ belchior_p_Page_112.QC.jpg
164b0811f9650a6f4c35bccc7d3ad928
200642528564795d6fea5bc93547497881dfbc28
94881 F20101207_AAAAWX belchior_p_Page_026.jpg
f717fcc93b5792e16ad8bbf0bf399679
367166fcfb7ca1b923751321b4d35ce7b49b4abd
110623 F20101207_AAAAAE belchior_p_Page_070.jp2
4e3a264456c02db3ce468f4647f12825
c7feaca47f47ced7219272697d3e0d0a9a7cef94
39976 F20101207_AAABDG belchior_p_Page_203.QC.jpg
102e3d27e1b43c416b2a1e75f13de06b
257fb653e3b0b8a50e758c5e0cebd5077ebdbb9e
8675 F20101207_AAAAYA belchior_p_Page_054thm.jpg
1d617ef37ad306420c5a3efee30c23d4
1a46c06a6b4ee29f9f6cabd575421c7b3fd53605
F20101207_AAABCR belchior_p_Page_018.tif
9b7bbc2772c8ed47b0c5c9bbd5da1c54
489a8c77df1f3a36b6b25f51fdba6eb95dfa3069
22189 F20101207_AAAAXL belchior_p_Page_144.jp2
e9a6625b4a94e578862d53e31f3cffc7
24c59c80ccd392b6032af4dbdb0ba405547adb12
15596 F20101207_AAAAWY belchior_p_Page_010.QC.jpg
5c79e971bf43f2a89198d39b8dc78679
44616220f2fde3419d1040c8d9f2a6b24ab30b28
76556 F20101207_AAAAAF belchior_p_Page_170.jp2
d34a5198f980851f56eed95923b9839c
034c2bcb4846ac7ac293efcf22d443592b2372fa
F20101207_AAABDH belchior_p_Page_141.tif
0ac37bb0d7786822d1bd6d9e905a8e07
a40a2b37269d2abf18c465a252f4cb2ac119cb6d
10979 F20101207_AAAAYB belchior_p_Page_118.pro
4572269f6f5464b3a667652f2cf34750
cd70a8af50ae0fc8cd35c6aec77a3d31836a9a8a
F20101207_AAABCS belchior_p_Page_201.tif
02a2c0e00463a0a56ef6321ad71ac891
3a7e2c16d896aae1bff0a5f48b30edf887064689
1411 F20101207_AAAAXM belchior_p_Page_128.txt
1bae1ff09deac18c1a2b8ac36e1a9587
f0aa98640220db2068f98215845932d9c977cc33
115657 F20101207_AAAAWZ belchior_p_Page_029.jpg
55d4b3c90f924538680f13feec114c44
a39eeb138e7d6f27b26f6688de9daf93104f9ee2
111755 F20101207_AAAAAG belchior_p_Page_063.jpg
d7252527bfad99326b7bf55bea381df8
7309de6bc836220504ffa30650a7e0d9cc3b6026
F20101207_AAABDI belchior_p_Page_115.tif
25e99d9c298440aa0f05790e6a14f689
48ae5e4a5cc036daa979a0cac34256ed031ef1b7
6114 F20101207_AAAAYC belchior_p_Page_119thm.jpg
42a6be28d824b8353abc9e0c24d41051
99b09bf8bc289f501ba7491dc547de68eff55bc2
2231 F20101207_AAABCT belchior_p_Page_118thm.jpg
f99b5f0c87e21e8e45f5b5437edbf191
9bb56f6c4974d061b5cabf5d75fdd5802673ba5a
103240 F20101207_AAAAXN belchior_p_Page_073.jpg
f47e069c4cbb85b05e9e170b8100702a
5dd7cc0667da86c1972a491c112344cd223e5d83
8942 F20101207_AAAAAH belchior_p_Page_156thm.jpg
df8f0bae0e490eebdb06b25abf83a157
8d2f172dd14ca9a82c7d1063e1d42c9a8b0bc148
F20101207_AAABDJ belchior_p_Page_081.tif
40391e4f64c7ec916a5d5cc49bc04337
44f678d4e9f330dc7e02851bfc031d3c072f4b0a
8721 F20101207_AAAAYD belchior_p_Page_199thm.jpg
b1e7ff9f889ffe17ec9a0a1e4ae31dcb
e6df1694bc8a5a5e994fe2f855aef35551bdeba8
26922 F20101207_AAABCU belchior_p_Page_001.jp2
3975dd3cc1674166c28ff6b3a9d18ef0
f396ad6652ecb137648a4d16e65e474ee83f9055
1766 F20101207_AAAAXO belchior_p_Page_051.pro
6cba9ee14184b7699d1bab7851293fb8
924cd608a7a88dac16a9300e57322fe430383567
34960 F20101207_AAAAAI belchior_p_Page_049.jp2
f02a94668524ede33c3591509bf7ce9e
1e005c54da08f6a32f34c992e3cca46d14ad0a80
29799 F20101207_AAABDK belchior_p_Page_012.jpg
1b62e5d4bbde08b18cfcdd571f3d8ae0
369c585a0a631703876f1a17de23bda1cc832d5c
8431 F20101207_AAABCV belchior_p_Page_154thm.jpg
0979429b92cdc45e3e58b12ceb942286
ed80d9c7564782e509d9dcdbc54f06aa22a3d3f1
3500 F20101207_AAAAXP belchior_p_Page_198thm.jpg
2255d782192c638d580ce86d27a306b5
696e6dd03e1d3adee6411433ebaa6b0dea3bd95c
34325 F20101207_AAAAAJ belchior_p_Page_045.QC.jpg
9e7ea8855ed6b327cc1bdbe2a5812bc5
8a7c921215055b4b5f83d00a0d331547b8773555
410 F20101207_AAABDL belchior_p_Page_169.txt
a9165793954025bf1f6d8fef496a4a8d
836743be5346b5700253c2788bbe29ce049ca1b9
35878 F20101207_AAAAYE belchior_p_Page_014.QC.jpg
ac940d820856430efdd59e7f45a6eda6
4e9337bdb94e35a0a5c317af0e83a39754d96fc1
6874 F20101207_AAABCW belchior_p_Page_088thm.jpg
da745baf3ca75ae844fbbe1647e567c2
47777c101f1cde53dd5fc8ab3b775503d444135f
10582 F20101207_AAAAXQ belchior_p_Page_027.pro
d55f6df3ccf235df14b2dd5937e0bb30
18d2c4b9220b1081d27f766cbd8410d17235ef9f
54543 F20101207_AAAAAK belchior_p_Page_111.pro
7b6d4ac01e436df64f269a34281a90bd
0cca8bead44597602c98fee932539d8298e89944
1429 F20101207_AAABDM belchior_p_Page_172.txt
b19b1f9e5df999a9d3aa0cf1180811d3
83482a9ee056dcc855bfeeedadbb27ab738e1a7d
46117 F20101207_AAAAYF belchior_p_Page_083.jp2
5f5a874cb793765632a6aeb98268c410
777cea5dff39cd1a9f1e0b671835ee1ddcf4e6f0
72303 F20101207_AAABCX belchior_p_Page_124.jpg
f7edfbb2b4269b8bcd0304f1629815bd
a8becf0080cbcb9c4c2149ac1ef649ba0d762b44
115127 F20101207_AAAAXR belchior_p_Page_158.jp2
612ed2aa6f484828687b9647cf8d5ca1
ebf558e3b171dcaa6de00c7b2ea3f214efe9a800
26271 F20101207_AAABEA belchior_p_Page_184.jp2
40f509728a38e93c5f89b6e8ddd90886
3b925e34bdb4c23c3d60897155325d7cb96e3108
12685 F20101207_AAAAAL belchior_p_Page_131.QC.jpg
adaca7d5fd394621c99336d27ad76466
f9f1a245ca86fcd02e2981b0d7b2e909a1375dd5
F20101207_AAABDN belchior_p_Page_046.tif
1c3db7ca6ee351be268f9b6e758655bd
35d5200694acac9e854591b296d254ce9a802284
F20101207_AAAAYG belchior_p_Page_152.QC.jpg
a5306e22e856cd45f7342b2af3ca4d29
5de8f438957bf43839f4dc607a50eb37c946c8c3
19706 F20101207_AAABCY belchior_p_Page_089.QC.jpg
dd103668f2d26b461d8945556e0fa6f5
9a5a866b35d2b2c76089d38aa14c5620bca49d66
6888 F20101207_AAAAXS belchior_p_Page_185thm.jpg
ba79f8d178a1384c1e693c4281b452b4
fa686af5771f3eb3f0d5b5d6620010b1d0c7e238
2002 F20101207_AAABEB belchior_p_Page_140.pro
f702757d382f43641513e239978ca42b
487afddebf10384939188a998568e38e23cd10f6
48753 F20101207_AAAAYH belchior_p_Page_064.pro
1baefaca16c605eca14f78d31683285a
743ac792e82416ea024e96b78187e4322e6268ef
38353 F20101207_AAABCZ belchior_p_Page_046.QC.jpg
dd37b071f8ca3dcbe68c7267925ae554
c029840d92d72d0030cfcc8297fbbbb4e233bde9
23430 F20101207_AAAAXT belchior_p_Page_133.jpg
b0f85a4299d7a4298e4472aa954060e4
cc6e57c12403ca56b4d50775f74623801049b0cb
120402 F20101207_AAAABA belchior_p_Page_162.jp2
900a867513e8ec46e78144a0693ddba1
08303690b340990cc16df297b1702cefac18ef06
112413 F20101207_AAABEC belchior_p_Page_078.jpg
c9d985ff8373d5173091eb24db7533c4
d19ee1991f142eb14e33e7271e7a10c1b8ec677e
35561 F20101207_AAAAAM belchior_p_Page_110.QC.jpg
1d5cf4756bcdf7a6f5446ce9df329dae
a19e9631a670dcabed00fa9a941b926d96c0a255
574 F20101207_AAABDO belchior_p_Page_139.txt
5058c47a3df8d25b6ce508b269d127f4
44865b8e59d57dfd46a66dffc7fa262afcd7434a
108930 F20101207_AAAAYI belchior_p_Page_075.jpg
5221bcc529dc43a44e5a3d2934260d8f
f18a7d1f6a2f339c35cec4e09c2b61ad4188a479
120503 F20101207_AAAAXU belchior_p_Page_101.jp2
3431b48c258f71b7523bdc5b596cf8d6
0ee31bc8cd804a2ab55d6d63f9401211b98a56eb
F20101207_AAAABB belchior_p_Page_203.tif
d59cf0afb196d53da74cb22c42eed29f
d20b5383927cfdd71daefb38e43bfbb3e5b41918
F20101207_AAABED belchior_p_Page_139.QC.jpg
b62ce86ffae81b391516cdb18e073907
d933dd24cfb68f118aeaaffafd965517f46819ab
31775 F20101207_AAAAAN belchior_p_Page_049.jpg
dbebd5306c60b3ef17551a02edcf51d5
50ffc49e219bd98837a8e976345244d8db30a6be
F20101207_AAABDP belchior_p_Page_022.tif
430fb737e91e29d52f2f17ab895aba55
e20e8e2b587bc9545938fb632b185137f2a6e994
3658 F20101207_AAAAYJ belchior_p_Page_027thm.jpg
6ca3064cd81eb179c967b669f94b4cec
1f830cd9c759bff734d3b8d6e462d7775491185f
105938 F20101207_AAAAXV belchior_p_Page_108.jpg
c7ad9a3a105ba319dfaee1537b0cc616
10c668548d0346b5ae374ca9d477012e56557a55
52777 F20101207_AAAABC belchior_p_Page_128.jp2
4e2bba47e09ba415356231babc093ae3
f65ce9b719c08ec8e533f3dc5e4dbe4499406a87
F20101207_AAABEE belchior_p_Page_040.tif
4c58214844ad50e1eebbb1a8c5c81843
68851c9d8f0df928027d2cb4b8b881820481865c
8127 F20101207_AAAAAO belchior_p_Page_064thm.jpg
ce26042721d9a86bfae2e1bb64cb818a
be17b8fec64cab9c4fa5baccd788fbeb17782737
F20101207_AAABDQ belchior_p_Page_077.tif
0132e2eae0e6690a385147b92d02ecb9
2f159149780a01536bf8f53c8e6b4fe75f7b3a32
5805 F20101207_AAAAYK belchior_p_Page_182thm.jpg
81ee3ebb7fb953a177b7a1e60e1bd1f0
11e2c5fb94b99e2037d10f2809387c874520a001
25528 F20101207_AAAAXW belchior_p_Page_088.QC.jpg
841dc8a4ef78bcf44545ae32e6f6d0e4
33546fe7966ebf5ee81260f369087fb58afe39cc
117675 F20101207_AAAABD belchior_p_Page_102.jpg
408f3952bfd87c6e46c930f3e990a549
8760f59c99f1e017d1082fbccf9270c02a992416
2193 F20101207_AAABEF belchior_p_Page_015.txt
8a6812b0c8dc3ed4fcced690afc1dda8
c21ed81e62c8f20342b3541e45106928c742b96b
F20101207_AAABEG belchior_p_Page_139.jp2
7831258e0dcebf295525a7e596f02741
84b98f5426966c157e521beb2715fc37d3acfb23
64318 F20101207_AAAAAP belchior_p_Page_089.jpg
ea974ef55c06c3a7cd929ca1c208eb79
6285e7845bc2d40acaa1be286d6d3b28e753428c
118776 F20101207_AAAAZA belchior_p_Page_165.jp2
bcf06773aea65149772bdfba5501337c
e46e5b47fb2337bc7ffefc9c6492cbc892ee6fab
8679 F20101207_AAABDR belchior_p_Page_037thm.jpg
f17c78048bca94b565fde92e045967e8
62bff9bd16c121f83efc4400456ed4a3ab40161e
24060 F20101207_AAAAYL belchior_p_Page_136.jp2
6abdc89759a3191531efc78db9786429
1844b5bcf9863dc08813bd45971374f3a7e02b6b
56476 F20101207_AAAAXX belchior_p_Page_155.pro
ee1d1f1c0be6394f0148f28e821a3c94
5e94aa86cea5a1f027b71912331348c0422bd42e
56322 F20101207_AAAABE belchior_p_Page_096.jpg
58d11191710483de99dcba53885f49e3
db58626548e315a3c2bcca91d79a905bce3d1335
F20101207_AAABEH belchior_p_Page_099.tif
ba054b1f53227ea7659575689d47b2cc
35168a936549c05bd5384a67c31f86b08068f78e
F20101207_AAAAAQ belchior_p_Page_129.tif
82e1f65b125182aa07966b2a2939004c
b1c08e284b0ee6a7ed9a90bc1a6f9b54ee0dbfce
F20101207_AAAAZB belchior_p_Page_137.tif
3b7355208d34b3ddf933c0619966069e
bb625be15f420d6491ecb8e1fd80991d922cbc91
F20101207_AAABDS belchior_p_Page_148.tif
a0a6c557f44ea4bf9b5f7e4ee7851cde
3c2565aa25eb38590232ddecfdfb985b9f59c2fa
113186 F20101207_AAAAYM belchior_p_Page_093.jpg
fdeebb2a95db201ac3a902367dd594e1
dac01b3d7cbde458fe499c513813ef9ebcf37dfd
49887 F20101207_AAAAXY belchior_p_Page_069.pro
2477d30c977859e15dddcefcaf2a501b
d3cc2fb781ed3baaf3ed59732bb0cffe6f297331
2195 F20101207_AAAABF belchior_p_Page_037.txt
897e1aebc2f3e7cbd829a7ea1324eb82
d6f19a3e67b643a6f37aacbbde0a81d5a0fd7a1e
21773 F20101207_AAABEI belchior_p_Page_178.QC.jpg
1af39d07a5156e68bea617bda338bd22
9ccef432894652473b070fb49bf921429585ee53
587 F20101207_AAAAAR belchior_p_Page_144.txt
cf4bb487673878995a100753aaefd9c1
70788aaed4bc0808cad62f2544c78779ff7b0437
1190 F20101207_AAAAZC belchior_p_Page_121.txt
9855d46f05919bbfa69362446526f7ce
86a78efa8b5f27b3a4584063c6b005f0cfd6602a
F20101207_AAABDT belchior_p_Page_200.tif
a09d6c3b27c3b7c07698bb1de24d952a
fb531f856530ae1b426133aa02094954da7160ad
1618 F20101207_AAAAYN belchior_p_Page_190.txt
cbb0300aa94b9667bf1863960e73f3bc
81a1f99f37a8a75dc46dec750653b180e7ae1670
134 F20101207_AAAAXZ belchior_p_Page_050.txt
04176875fcd0a5b5872484b07e5105ff
69ee4e51f8a9cc5d3f229ed0e3fbbae1dbdd6edd
1929 F20101207_AAAABG belchior_p_Page_064.txt
5985fb07808f6cf42c5851a2e7e168fb
ddbe2e17a045334ad76eac7174b12481881ebc58
33286 F20101207_AAABEJ belchior_p_Page_154.QC.jpg
1139049a9935205fef8ba3fb7859d319
7f0f0901b9ae7951af150be20734a4ffdf29ffc3
19333 F20101207_AAAAAS belchior_p_Page_195.pro
e1f03c05ce0b667e7340c1de9c17b7b2
f728fd8a586fc754b9438c55c26cfe11b0b563ee
121211 F20101207_AAAAZD belchior_p_Page_081.jp2
84d8772bf7c6c1e573a152982d755856
1ceb9eddc520dde6a4c3cac303c4cd3fafc7fe26
F20101207_AAABDU belchior_p_Page_209.tif
d87ea37c21e534824686bd71bb031e2b
1d036452ea4158f6b3d49fee2996303e4ec502d3
81928 F20101207_AAAAYO belchior_p_Page_189.jpg
dbcfdc6859450ae8310771283aed679a
17293d54d04bf02adb7c1ff672418cb2f2454fc7
35278 F20101207_AAAABH belchior_p_Page_048.QC.jpg
df45da9df097579c694ceedccadf7394
85864b1371e3e013d53f1bce9d8a3ef8684c536d
F20101207_AAABEK belchior_p_Page_050.tif
10c100ddce2bd14bac9fb23dd4c6a808
eb02806d6f4fcdb2a9dd0c23c5d47db6d1004e04
113345 F20101207_AAAAAT belchior_p_Page_105.jp2
8ac2e2e9987fb1f08d2f3655a92ec1e8
166130604acff6338c82890b53b250889490606f
14337 F20101207_AAAAZE belchior_p_Page_049.pro
bdbff0a2fd0e768fdbc7ca4f2cac25b3
ad9a2b83001f7cb1efe5653f6fbe407dcd58f741
104205 F20101207_AAABDV belchior_p_Page_053.jpg
e21ef6a2bbd7c8aa1b22d528c426f095
862833636f4415d0293b22b7ad062b1076c98fbe
43754 F20101207_AAAAYP belchior_p_Page_195.jpg
1e530917e5ebe108ce60dce7a3cc733c
e9e8f222ce4b15bd24db2e3e7ace0416561321d9
8533 F20101207_AAAABI belchior_p_Page_021thm.jpg
ba3873a9b24eeb7e6215b619909fad23
21309394aa2ccb62bd1169a88c8d64648e70c962
24674 F20101207_AAABEL belchior_p_Page_177.QC.jpg
ea920882edabab4a5200b91b47510c3d
a6adf52b23fe2a9593aaadaa789a7a64f0b6126a
2204 F20101207_AAAAAU belchior_p_Page_079.txt
e50fb1aaa8969bd778a3643e082c498e
01bb6d1b3358af1462c5c85ca4ff29ba54f7d138
793 F20101207_AAABDW belchior_p_Page_005.txt
cf9d8f3b7f480493f93d421e1829d249
c23dee4aa1f1be3f27cc6e3bf0259eafcce0e4f7
F20101207_AAAAYQ belchior_p_Page_008.tif
140f3ca480217daad226db6e27eb016a
b927596ba7e7d3578feef2150d404d2141a9d6ce
52531 F20101207_AAAABJ belchior_p_Page_015.pro
931ff4713886fdfb951ecc613eec63a7
1921fd21a5bd1a9d3b1b0e73fae393e331cb1c4b
F20101207_AAABFA belchior_p_Page_168.tif
e85244ccc835b712a6e166a9253e9bf3
6dd1626fa248887147c59103350a0fe529832649
8538 F20101207_AAABEM belchior_p_Page_057thm.jpg
e96506a4259fa343030f4a8705500381
6e2bac58cd9f89824e4c01cec6828be3f837cdb8
52262 F20101207_AAAAAV belchior_p_Page_045.pro
1c9ab1868d5b6cda388abcc3c965acb9
105d94a4615e2e64c29488f7a37959ad252e7b75
2270 F20101207_AAAAZF belchior_p_Page_114.txt
0f6b95ddef7ae8eb2d8526a149d21018
ae0093ff092eeb5567d0849c1b8d53f9f37e469c
F20101207_AAABDX belchior_p_Page_069.tif
b4544aa71b91964ee0b78330c4935170
4077b5f3653940f1696cd3f1199278629cf66554
F20101207_AAAAYR belchior_p_Page_193.tif
a701c8401cfded0153c4def2e67b9748
982a7fb8158932339903add271f84493b6ed0b91
55850 F20101207_AAAABK belchior_p_Page_182.jp2
fe5f7bfa57d4939caa60f4bc1e515031
5eca54245101d2b0e74b8a7bfba981721758e0bc
2413 F20101207_AAABFB belchior_p_Page_143thm.jpg
e8290a6519702b5a662c8e6ab26f47fe
466756415f7a999df4e5f4b31792179597634605
37079 F20101207_AAABEN belchior_p_Page_080.QC.jpg
d17306184ae5af958f8d1c4163ce4653
a9ade9e7486833a9356e583e3ea3b6557c92d073
30241 F20101207_AAAAAW belchior_p_Page_013.QC.jpg
199211b2ec016163c108c56d9387e164
897f445c08e0274f4ca9ea89a6ca69127d7eee3a
116942 F20101207_AAAAZG belchior_p_Page_036.jpg
62ee30133688d27b051f9431907e5e0a
0185d1d982e77e93d1e96e01d146fe538e6968b3
53737 F20101207_AAABDY belchior_p_Page_109.pro
22e71247ec3813a99b8dae37d5fec48d
1359ab110b735bbc09025c025701bfc429c612dc
113696 F20101207_AAAAYS belchior_p_Page_021.jp2
5b5466fd42d67bf27aa6f8c4d848ed58
969ec987885d5786b7ccf5bfc556e6ce7e7e46d4
F20101207_AAAABL belchior_p_Page_068.tif
d842f6fc65ce7b2380026a2234a1f9d6
6677432e05f4b89b46a2bbe58f2cbccbbf9cc1b3
F20101207_AAABFC belchior_p_Page_186.tif
70f8a63ed7105c7b263118de19891080
80fc03864035059938164e506c7b421d8f807d5a
2931 F20101207_AAABEO belchior_p_Page_137thm.jpg
6000e5a1343bb6cfaff5338a95149889
e8941d759ad6928a5db39cfd1f3468b547a74a28
2031 F20101207_AAAAAX belchior_p_Page_070.txt
caecf47f14144f2757263a460e131b10
7b21e98e2372bd320f550452eab32228032d38ba
463 F20101207_AAAAZH belchior_p_Page_148.txt
e89e30ca3939d2b13644a0e523fb6401
5921aa8ac97be290fae123846a34d6838032b5a0
9128 F20101207_AAABDZ belchior_p_Page_162thm.jpg
b091f90f277d2eb1b797a962e11b2285
f34b3c14443f92e7f467ee97d59d17a0312c0195
34160 F20101207_AAAAYT belchior_p_Page_141.jp2
30498fb835ba559dd12ad0c5d42bf4a5
176304f1beca1c40076cc1aae49e7f78e8625801
35214 F20101207_AAAACA belchior_p_Page_035.QC.jpg
55821d27fcee5ad4527dffaa84a7c692
08be26997149760f5ba785c6fc7e44fa64e6a115
97497 F20101207_AAAABM belchior_p_Page_116.jp2
fd5418806149420fdd50f0ec365783e1
8975dc76c50e73e668b1f7105c6664cce171c397
241922 F20101207_AAABFD UFE0021218_00001.mets
6e0c679944809533819611cb91f3120c
cce2678cbf8624d3af6018acc52158122f666c9d
38035 F20101207_AAAAAY belchior_p_Page_202.QC.jpg
c21785917d9704d9196bee4d51e95aaa
cdf571f2d436af60c471b3399bb0e4c35cc60d90
26864 F20101207_AAAAZI belchior_p_Page_085.QC.jpg
49e074d7580162a5fb27968e44c6fb2e
17756e57db3d7996716cdb5ddea4641e339e2f5f
15951 F20101207_AAAAYU belchior_p_Page_128.QC.jpg
39f311455fdeb32ad6bbdaafcd468250
015da59727665d3d6a1bf78c948673dc881a4cac
107115 F20101207_AAAACB belchior_p_Page_069.jp2
ef155be493b52dd45520a2163b6cb7e3
cc605fbf417fa7487b20ed33d0b8e79d3563e04b
24683 F20101207_AAABEP belchior_p_Page_183.pro
ea174ee793a40aa59deaf4f3a8c88ea7
31c5cc6be2f937599ad0a7c92d591cc73ace739c
8183 F20101207_AAAAAZ belchior_p_Page_117thm.jpg
a57a26aac6099406a188e618974fc46f
03772cec500d47935b3faaaaccccf6553305f6d0
F20101207_AAAAZJ belchior_p_Page_094.tif
858a7cb32ef5a0a5772e8b752890bab6
3c0de2d8f04233ac47b490cbfa9e00fa13b25a34
114178 F20101207_AAAAYV belchior_p_Page_108.jp2
f0d9d2809d82a5d29a8d1606db7d9427
bda728af685beefd903255bef1def386c28059b6
F20101207_AAAACC belchior_p_Page_111.tif
03b7b75abb4d4ece2a51699907492d6b
e18381e8f6145fc954e95462fb0a509ecdd997bd
6001 F20101207_AAAABN belchior_p_Page_002.jp2
0b4de867ce4c82f496945708eca3e9fc
7f44dcbb0d290b485780dca3ebde00976104e700
8826 F20101207_AAABEQ belchior_p_Page_014thm.jpg
fe867875587c83335e4aabec4571b306
15962c9a6711607ee08cd0d53c6164bfb12df096
F20101207_AAAAZK belchior_p_Page_073.tif
7fc74507f69fce2348e44cc290c0e305
567fd260351bab0723c183606de49eb5ab6dc10a
10199 F20101207_AAAAYW belchior_p_Page_169.pro
8996cacbc753abe51d44a54b0c42d413
eaf4096ee272d575f57121ba0d4ecbbb36727acb
24584 F20101207_AAAACD belchior_p_Page_137.jp2
b26ca4bcbe499728637370f26aab8ad6
69a107a193e031b9bb6eb1e7d86466abb4b3cf48
119743 F20101207_AAAABO belchior_p_Page_040.jp2
7e9e1ebb6959a6128fbd05ec307b9e40
550e3f36e24c10d3ff7bce2df896025e536cbc32
4628 F20101207_AAABFG belchior_p_Page_002.jpg
9c2e1714c7642ea9c2428abea5549633
36d6828c0470e1a5d7ca723861fe436b0ecd1e78
F20101207_AAABER belchior_p_Page_116.tif
775fab5ff6d0742f17af3d8d2f58150d
bca82092a82ad0033d1c1d6f88c96f6c72b6e47b
56525 F20101207_AAAAZL belchior_p_Page_046.pro
31cb1d27d970ef7bbde78b4f31dfd22c
e5ac4602eb9dc63ff3b4384e387616f0582782ac
7701 F20101207_AAAAYX belchior_p_Page_116thm.jpg
8ac0f3e14ac1e6d6a8b2671c1b9e0a18
ae9fa86bd23d6f740d80c877791bb17dee48c95b
35696 F20101207_AAAACE belchior_p_Page_115.QC.jpg
490d12bd83e05031248a48e137106e80
b116bb9d7dce2d4e4510db0a9063e5d6b975d395
34016 F20101207_AAAABP belchior_p_Page_064.QC.jpg
f047646cdb2c7cb8f801ccdbcd5a8f10
93d2ea3b248e2f0335932e913e279816051267b5
5471 F20101207_AAABFH belchior_p_Page_003.jpg
4928b87399d4d4b86728a7f2aad17492
c1acf52f415d39d20bd3a132b3e2d8e7d58d1782
105295 F20101207_AAABES belchior_p_Page_061.jpg
4000fb52d6cd10de27bc7a4bb9a385cd
b392b8a512c15c65fe94a7755c8b3b01d3fe52f3
3747 F20101207_AAAAZM belchior_p_Page_127thm.jpg
c820e9000dca7b1ce320c17cdfee9fc9
407bfff207809cf9af86ddbde3640e26e7052a40
1486 F20101207_AAAAYY belchior_p_Page_192.txt
73c56dab6b3f76e2fa670d7fae0e9c47
84e9ce916f100eb2d5fb6f519104fbba6be1da46
25919 F20101207_AAAACF belchior_p_Page_189.QC.jpg
28da7a61312babbc369e74412faad425
f8b39c644f3b49a92a530182538935265bccf7ce
116022 F20101207_AAAABQ belchior_p_Page_020.jp2
3b0a572033f5ed0bc1828e4574e2c7af
12a51390d77eb1ca42a2f9188b8c0903a182ee0a
107450 F20101207_AAABFI belchior_p_Page_004.jpg
ce8666366d716aa67f1d3640525d446f
24e902de17b8c5ba6cd9983cf7bdb91069a3a983
59469 F20101207_AAABET belchior_p_Page_208.pro
8ba1398a85c4c7056761ed642b22a04c
21a83cce4fe1576e33f9d73d79410d32537a0425
5205 F20101207_AAAAZN belchior_p_Page_197thm.jpg
6fe375bd9914bdad883bc7e5722b638e
6fd3ae6095f5165e7c003edf122434bd0cc1da0e
56534 F20101207_AAAAYZ belchior_p_Page_067.pro
824fd2687f71727a03841329a0189304
c1d38c0c61b33656ff776b341309c0dbc5d77f2c
59152 F20101207_AAAACG belchior_p_Page_120.jpg
0c4f2af3090042c3aa711bad83560e59
7bb0fbf72d3b0046758c28fc6bf9aac67caf9b0b
96532 F20101207_AAAABR belchior_p_Page_125.jpg
8d76369ea468f22cb7a377533ed35625
b53930ecd51eae2e06b752201f82fde6c510b4fa
42506 F20101207_AAABFJ belchior_p_Page_005.jpg
0f1ee6662a6f7385ddd4b6c792158059
94daa5d8a800eb8909b2424168de872bc073b0ef
F20101207_AAABEU belchior_p_Page_060.tif
9ba643f05f69f2005bd53044f597b17f
3db2ea22c43322e83255964f9a73a7d8fd751ab0
F20101207_AAAACH belchior_p_Page_139.tif
3a33207d167a68c9187662b71a766a70
a58ac3f18a757586498424ad788d631ab59b883b
2233 F20101207_AAAABS belchior_p_Page_042.txt
c527a49cf3871ee65dde184ef74815c3
b1ada36edd0bf14ad0653be9066958e2ed6c92dd
34602 F20101207_AAAAZO belchior_p_Page_166.QC.jpg
657ce42f792d9d3fb30beae878a158d6
8e68c053297d37cc13f55992f63c817ac388ebb1
124692 F20101207_AAABFK belchior_p_Page_006.jpg
7da9c3e18aeab3f030e29473709129bb
026e7ddd765fbe5993dd7a0dce4dd3950c36a228
8900 F20101207_AAABEV belchior_p_Page_100thm.jpg
e15c45acdf4d9166403f423672111760
9424238075d4278c2152d74313f20c98b7794430
3671 F20101207_AAAACI belchior_p_Page_209thm.jpg
2094060b47e3926b9b87f7143de7453e
4afb0f5cd1896cfe3a1ea435ed3bd421cb5cb2ac
108937 F20101207_AAAABT belchior_p_Page_167.jp2
9268dfc26987ff3d8cf20b7bdac42e87
93824d0b9b0a1768b754bf040dbe9b7f31a459a9
438 F20101207_AAAAZP belchior_p_Page_118.txt
c17b2625c278e6ea1fc78e91defcd5bf
1fab03ba4e92b45d236692b4627da4ce3f596785
157751 F20101207_AAABFL belchior_p_Page_007.jpg
eeec653cfcf3e07cc59e39e386207b5d
2ed9fcba90bbc81835a4ea52ca7759fd43ddde84
F20101207_AAABEW belchior_p_Page_082.tif
f0e8f162a5f9b9756ad933569b53fac9
556ac03366e93e0c94de21457f17453d392d8c6c
4846 F20101207_AAAACJ belchior_p_Page_128thm.jpg
242fdb1650619e8b30e23ed32585be8a
b74be583d3634dea58e8e9fd09d83bf38421e5e0
2159 F20101207_AAAABU belchior_p_Page_014.txt
c505c36455f6f950b185987c617f1eae
fdf47561a4bfe1a6f46c99749a68a3bbfe8c20e1
100786 F20101207_AAAAZQ belchior_p_Page_125.jp2
eb01132a15545fc40cb739acd983d90f
565df1f4d5c64905e6dc8fedca7fb69512c8d4e4
110357 F20101207_AAABGA belchior_p_Page_044.jpg
cc09d85ef9d5346b01bf9ccbc54ceb7c
e64b14cc6064b45884a72f061e7ca461227afece
134282 F20101207_AAABFM belchior_p_Page_009.jpg
8db30a7a2d16bd8732d624beb3db8f58
55ec071079cd98d3b5f26319982a001bf8761839
474 F20101207_AAABEX belchior_p_Page_133.txt
26fb7ead573ab15126d1171fee5ea0bc
fb4eaca79726aa923e3bbd8016b7d7f8d6730ceb
F20101207_AAAACK belchior_p_Page_029.txt
35a688183854e955a3870ba9786a57a1
b167272e1f2f57390e351fffceb5fbe6f890dc39
F20101207_AAAABV belchior_p_Page_045.tif
06f0326f9eaefa7ac614a952d5c27276
6ec8f9cb05e1ed124671f5973c1fa1e30d1fc206
F20101207_AAAAZR belchior_p_Page_074.tif
abe4148c7a113e67ce2b5f7b32179b2b
4a68f472cca0c937a218f27fae92aa7fdd56ed41
115930 F20101207_AAABGB belchior_p_Page_046.jpg
91b2cb91d36d1f42c1cee4fd62a2797b
f8505eefdab13f0be42731e386d6ff1285155c46
54006 F20101207_AAABFN belchior_p_Page_010.jpg
9505f3b99528f5db32cc23b1fe703d7c
709cde99c7505a2e918b43c18bd7bc4d3f0c0ad5
1205 F20101207_AAABEY belchior_p_Page_083.txt
1e9fbec836515fbd87a18bcc62825470
4428235e86f9fa8673db344046abc0b768036bd8
F20101207_AAAACL belchior_p_Page_073.QC.jpg
1ab767407c9f18d07ea7937d5d148543
e9747b425d7e340d2f416783c61ebf03cd7aab43
1901 F20101207_AAAABW belchior_p_Page_026.txt
233ae00b094f80ece52413cf42880957
6a4961fc07f97e6b4568e22d2909472efb6d9687
91340 F20101207_AAAAZS belchior_p_Page_187.jp2
09f48d50a6707639472cebace331f1f8
5686c08a5b9a5f92a5157862e0ebe6e74210954b
105566 F20101207_AAABGC belchior_p_Page_047.jpg
3547bac9baa0553d7878da9ea5d95020
38f2837bca83dd48eb8abf6ecac61c26e1cc2273
98706 F20101207_AAABFO belchior_p_Page_013.jpg
47781beada3b65e49b4bc20f554849a2
262a7999535c2bebbcb64c1fc5886b3341fa6fa0
8135 F20101207_AAABEZ belchior_p_Page_062thm.jpg
bc515e7ca68ab5a0943afb20472eaa64
d54e464713c8d1e17d2eee7c0cba4dbad59c7cc2
2188 F20101207_AAAADA belchior_p_Page_063.txt
c5f719b7e58d496c94bfa60eb20cea7c
3a1d4bb8d8407c1f9e1c980fcd774a0665cf31be
F20101207_AAAACM belchior_p_Page_004thm.jpg
94ed3ab8cb20173e227b225f57dd3757
f818dc6efdf8761319411be6f95a444207b48810
2356 F20101207_AAAABX belchior_p_Page_019.txt
fee0521eadf74272e84de9d7f1a547e0
96e0d3e1265d78ed7aca752de86e17d74ce1baed
8646 F20101207_AAAAZT belchior_p_Page_070thm.jpg
a72ece2e0cffc5cc36f066791ab4d54c
fa6859437cab1ca4801c79ed5a02d0fb8720526a
107012 F20101207_AAABGD belchior_p_Page_048.jpg
7ed0352520c155f7fc2387980d8ac4e6
8ddd260c14f6bb03497e44e25d7d9885445cd7a6
111458 F20101207_AAABFP belchior_p_Page_014.jpg
0eb449b103288ffe1b767c19a7542978
a3e962260d21a730097871808d1e21e855ee2c21
39457 F20101207_AAAACN belchior_p_Page_200.QC.jpg
ef9c71474c2f0f7dc488e713150a620d
084ad210c06470f582fab28a1de80c20a6c0e5b0
F20101207_AAAABY belchior_p_Page_016thm.jpg
2cd41ef5cc3d8cb61445d87443e93ca8
8cb0586df28656e0ddd35f7ba576861873b8f5cb
F20101207_AAAAZU belchior_p_Page_117.tif
2971bbd95588003f9deb4a126c539dcf
2f35e9bd07ccf8be97ad22a081d9d15d306e44b3
111281 F20101207_AAAADB belchior_p_Page_040.jpg
ebeb18b29b23600c006a538fa98964fa
419984d8f8c2971d9960b2d7f545ae87f42af670
38155 F20101207_AAABGE belchior_p_Page_051.jpg
a915764032d6d55139e75798510c8904
33560a9b8dc0d99625bc285f2a165a0ec0e33e70
23456 F20101207_AAAABZ belchior_p_Page_150.jpg
e167dc0ce391304013c4afcb50f26e68
f1cf5a04e262d16c437dec3b78fc5740c1358ace
9530 F20101207_AAAAZV belchior_p_Page_184.pro
8654f00501fa2e9fa3b3dd113b38c3b0
6f8fb0a775442f016f245087d2fc68516932599a
48981 F20101207_AAAADC belchior_p_Page_055.pro
4aa87c2c61f2d150219a98e556ae418e
1272db98d979626cefcbd31168c6b526d3743e05
104249 F20101207_AAABGF belchior_p_Page_054.jpg
5e173611c2035350d3c9497809716a9c
7023b89f7befe794218ede0fa03174a7033e9d15
106677 F20101207_AAABFQ belchior_p_Page_015.jpg
da4af8d45b7e543ce2083601c2b02fa8
ad9bfd01bdee2574da2119d345d471a9fa061589
2932 F20101207_AAAACO belchior_p_Page_132thm.jpg
c1ac1c2e09fb5ffc6ab916f5e071ef14
3db2771b968087c1e4be9afdbdb6e6c04e9dd68e
109091 F20101207_AAAAZW belchior_p_Page_109.jpg
957c65eaeab3e5c7588508e2e5e6e61d
0b44515d9b4f4dbaf77e0f0f1b9482d9ebf8aa7a
688 F20101207_AAAADD belchior_p_Page_132.txt
ff55e37679e516a9bd8ca27e28be89d4
ed167a452c84ce8ad551fa78b1c504544313151c
113975 F20101207_AAABGG belchior_p_Page_066.jpg
43488a174f253b121fafd0ec8d210861
4c1c7497fb92c486b1f43a34a13f0e35c041402f
109232 F20101207_AAABFR belchior_p_Page_016.jpg
0d4f85450a1ff062562d90134743a179
ff881f2e45b1388ba55626c7a437e2773feba978
43197 F20101207_AAAACP belchior_p_Page_131.jpg
5e96e9199bccadb25c02f152cbf5de83
e0f88dec56a71ddc46c9cb354a6b12bcd9ab116a
35138 F20101207_AAAAZX belchior_p_Page_105.QC.jpg
2ce4fa55bf7d05c88cae48be79fcbe4d
27b1beab5681d07cf7b841205547c28d9d3815fb
82048 F20101207_AAAADE belchior_p_Page_123.jp2
b0ee1d178f36fdc658cb589498cee806
96fde7a4d8ef0467c88760b4bada7f0b352b0f25
115123 F20101207_AAABGH belchior_p_Page_068.jpg
e23f20da2cceb028d90a432b7d43c955
212314426e0eebf7ca27ff4fccd920d81b7cc2d0
112758 F20101207_AAABFS belchior_p_Page_018.jpg
d88c2b2374982da84e9cea0cdd6296dc
da49f6fe81981c9575cded9b90d88666d8e05594
27153 F20101207_AAAACQ belchior_p_Page_118.jp2
ead2119be05c4681960485f2586a504a
7824b1f6ff27691a547f7b778f9c219fe0117fd1
1685 F20101207_AAAAZY belchior_p_Page_188.txt
7d48432db0ca689d880aefda4ff0d8fa
5fbdcfbca0e59f689731abf1f79bca702037609b
26444 F20101207_AAAADF belchior_p_Page_174.jp2
0e979db1c09a395adc8be0af64cee8b8
7fb5bae07d90b328cda6f0e50ec0e78ac50b172a
100471 F20101207_AAABGI belchior_p_Page_069.jpg
b81a0c209de1a3451194f8af71d25417
69bc2b1a707d400aa78ccf39c9fa077c41cfa234
112208 F20101207_AAABFT belchior_p_Page_022.jpg
022487159851aa44e44eed878afc4d3a
6b7a9124e5f874364d4f57eccd7037123ba3271d
44021 F20101207_AAAACR belchior_p_Page_209.jpg
1a05348c25a09ec14aa615b13a38df6b
cdffc20e1e888d19dd6d9fdf762c55b2b380e5f1
F20101207_AAAAZZ belchior_p_Page_052.tif
8bceee0cd86ac6b835110ec7a2ee57b7
73a95476f05a7b2c92f9f9754c76661b9c099e8c
2132 F20101207_AAAADG belchior_p_Page_080.txt
09ea7b9f77336aefd006864c9677c8d7
78dfe3466bef080ddb1a63b6cce4bdf86d07cb78
105770 F20101207_AAABGJ belchior_p_Page_071.jpg
2772d50375818b9bffcd712a69caf0c4
45d309700d544c36eb862979162bb8beba4e2dc0
105534 F20101207_AAABFU belchior_p_Page_023.jpg
e484f0e469f1500f419bc159f8aaf5bd
5e8847cfc8b500c22c739a3bfab7d582fec0db42
52501 F20101207_AAAACS belchior_p_Page_047.pro
bc18a2787636c391253800de0414af33
4b5ee3656dca83972b991ad0635185e4e44c09f5
827 F20101207_AAAADH belchior_p_Page_130.txt
b551cbfc68dbf7b0403105ad068dd1f4
5bf32eb96bb70991662dc86fd7383fc16143ee07
107537 F20101207_AAABGK belchior_p_Page_072.jpg
b571595a392d35aff0fe555e079ed23a
b258efd2a4baca523457875514f8ff5e0d9023e5
111074 F20101207_AAABFV belchior_p_Page_030.jpg
30458fb8a7fed753f96730181a63acb6
e1e4cbde6dac7a7586e7f7e9c6cf2dec86e75dc5
F20101207_AAAACT belchior_p_Page_171.tif
72f2d59ab07595beb15fab7ce983bcbc
3b53af2921b431e63c331aa9da8778a8f296b5d3
55961 F20101207_AAAADI belchior_p_Page_162.pro
171024db3ff3891e26576e8825e60ecb
9b63fdb795f80739627ef50d9b216ed26c5660ce
105740 F20101207_AAABGL belchior_p_Page_076.jpg
bda8d5fb15aea4e6e8f885b77112f962
a44dea5816e84f86d2f4bf48c9c589f9d8bd7d4f
104040 F20101207_AAABFW belchior_p_Page_033.jpg
c87509cd107f6a6b1f511c91802176ae
3ec3613b43257d08ea439743e1803d631762b8dd
36742 F20101207_AAAACU belchior_p_Page_030.QC.jpg
f04f0495095cfe4b2cdbc25bdbd2f3e9
8cd83c5fbda00d64dee69a70cf537a3b30f62a58
1378 F20101207_AAAADJ belchior_p_Page_120.txt
b31d9f8f057f0e3b6ff9a64b02e3a022
2484df8f97f92a6df9beb52cbd1a6e549e0fd033
110512 F20101207_AAABHA belchior_p_Page_107.jpg
41b80c2609d609bd68bcff6ba1d034d5
ededaf0d57959268fa1451a331ff80bcac3a116c
111492 F20101207_AAABGM belchior_p_Page_079.jpg
4a27165dab0fa7b8ac668f7d60e7c5f2
f71709521835e371b9e0d8ad91b8d69581182686
109182 F20101207_AAABFX belchior_p_Page_035.jpg
e7744fdb32839c9c053660d42270ae89
f1c7b503cfd2f221f44e0fb60573539649b9050b
31556 F20101207_AAAACV belchior_p_Page_059.QC.jpg
8d453e95030e3721b945f96fe32975c5
e9f21431ee7fd22d0670c2a0763a84a7cb6e3de1
70663 F20101207_AAAADK belchior_p_Page_178.jpg
d3c009a49030f876256ea6bab7ad3be1
65ff386397874ed4279f7fce50e3699fcb2eaf53
107675 F20101207_AAABHB belchior_p_Page_110.jpg
510f10c14d00a241ac1f3b1580b9f246
6418c1a4efa6e6a1684056906cfb15c58576efc3
110323 F20101207_AAABGN belchior_p_Page_080.jpg
bfaef13e56c6fe57cf0ab4ef0c65672e
77d878668284d8acf3010572210960a2a31012f6
111083 F20101207_AAABFY belchior_p_Page_037.jpg
9d3a3399691df12526c8220333ccf96c
8b81c89316b6fd6743e4e420c5c2bcb2eea6cbd9
F20101207_AAAACW belchior_p_Page_109.tif
fa96e155fb95391f9902b40736a327a0
b1250b266daf6a75e905691928253b4ebd91612c
50747 F20101207_AAAADL belchior_p_Page_129.jpg
859a591c6d6f70ad0c4f095f3b27acb5
e8abd6736e7c7073f229823c922f52e7bb8e7815
115136 F20101207_AAABHC belchior_p_Page_112.jpg
d710db2bd0775ab4228f5c16f32ca3d2
bc07c7d31a3477f65685eadeadd60c7af355c35b
112369 F20101207_AAABGO belchior_p_Page_081.jpg
ceb403ac2af174c193ddfce698664d74
74dbdcd4092bbd2205f20f4b0201b20cd27fb3cd
113966 F20101207_AAABFZ belchior_p_Page_042.jpg
0a1bf0338414308cf41ade93722b9064
3e335a4689bf6f39c4aea89439e36b07d8e07ce7
38286 F20101207_AAAACX belchior_p_Page_198.jp2
75a85cc8543725e5ae4f21f55dceceb9
e4dcdb0e4dba867b6f23fa55d066b67c68ae5260
23757 F20101207_AAAAEA belchior_p_Page_137.jpg
7901fe561dd3e3135df54006671a2e19
1a8ac64eba090c82061d06073e6f387f016917f1
120935 F20101207_AAAADM belchior_p_Page_018.jp2
bb5585b8a66a6c5b86a07dc96a166fdf
e02fb2c1a6ec2e516d865c0cd11eea340f2d59fc
110935 F20101207_AAABHD belchior_p_Page_113.jpg
e998da7ffd2334da084277734b698b04
02fd619903dd96ddd755fbbe34e97e7b45c38e88
9741 F20101207_AAABGP belchior_p_Page_082.jpg
039fc561c9f6e3dbc1db2f95ac98b4d9
aab5072d7429d08323e6655676ca720b9b5016fe
8232 F20101207_AAAACY belchior_p_Page_069thm.jpg
98c8f83ef295e945e91b5522aadeab38
fd56800670f9fbdbf78a41d868d4c59e9ea0d4ac
9344 F20101207_AAAAEB belchior_p_Page_094thm.jpg
836d8822624f4b289b86b9a8428ad240
530c75d793ea4ecfd7f5eb524bad658cf10610ba
F20101207_AAAADN belchior_p_Page_122.tif
15d8516ac9b72c548046eb473d3816e1
30a7d730b996e7438dc125a779d8b447dce4063c
108787 F20101207_AAABHE belchior_p_Page_115.jpg
734178ff59c81a0cb501d77e2ba0a63d
c2b3e193b03cca9bd1485626b787ac51599fb60e
44353 F20101207_AAABGQ belchior_p_Page_083.jpg
8a085396abc1ac8858c4b958375bc9e8
959edd4d8d0a6f218c6db2c71e111dcbbd6bc71f
F20101207_AAAACZ belchior_p_Page_192.tif
c5abc642fdd8bff42f9d2e679fb6da3e
3cdd2484f1ad406abf399cb66164e55e7e5e5423
58442 F20101207_AAAAEC belchior_p_Page_183.jp2
814afd264d152b77a29bb7d99f6075c5
ff3ba9574a40402c4e6e75e165881924366de66e
446708 F20101207_AAAADO belchior_p_Page_051.jp2
27522dd66676a07f7abe750b131cd4e9
9390f1a4623d30ffa8c91dc31360e3bffbbb7e35
90414 F20101207_AAABHF belchior_p_Page_116.jpg
d3fca123e33d8a4d3df9161886deb21c
5ddbf78012412ae4ac8c649bfe42584b19279f46
F20101207_AAAAED belchior_p_Page_189thm.jpg
28c63cd7ab67d7239babcac6aac8ecef
53fbf8b610f0796546914cbc0f872b42ee5e95c6
96939 F20101207_AAABHG belchior_p_Page_117.jpg
f30044eb40f1f257d00e983a4ec2f6fb
c78064b8481f2dbf383464eb511fc7476ee01be2
55079 F20101207_AAABGR belchior_p_Page_084.jpg
805b3650ef1fa892a1bcddc7e22cd8db
5b212fdb72385f3e7234e174bd0888db48a96e8b
35816 F20101207_AAAAEE belchior_p_Page_159.QC.jpg
91ca0d59b9392afce1eb69abac0adc5a
c48d293e5186f3eb1ce386bff48cf7d710812380
2171 F20101207_AAAADP belchior_p_Page_106.txt
95ae224e5552439bb3a0dcc6883e74d0
6bcd1c09c1ba0fa7ae047f0b82679c53b1afcba2
25537 F20101207_AAABHH belchior_p_Page_118.jpg
74159314c094e81a804c9808aceae420
b0b81153d6fe804ee46f0fcd1b1a737ddc61374a
98681 F20101207_AAABGS belchior_p_Page_085.jpg
19c992dd5c652440b123090f01bd48f6
c478c7e101dace709fee334d0544c7e150350a44
30939 F20101207_AAAAEF belchior_p_Page_141.jpg
fa9343b66c21b3970dcabdbb3b5717b9
9ae18b5fa02b7d1ab54b74c2d04bc43484130e66
77943 F20101207_AAAADQ belchior_p_Page_191.jp2
9a586010519b96b2afe404a6ddbcbd33
99b856e7b37fd6377a9577275da68159c579bc10
65034 F20101207_AAABHI belchior_p_Page_119.jpg
412eb0bb8ca1b4c26ba5fab02affa3d7
bcfa8dc7ae6ca21e53403328b6cad82952c7ce9c
33467 F20101207_AAABGT belchior_p_Page_086.jpg
1816827f4bc0871552747e659bf1767f
d7a0bbcf1716e8b17515e9ef14d0929d35af36d4
2655 F20101207_AAAAEG belchior_p_Page_206.txt
90b9e5a4f7b0d73adc536e1ae99b5b34
7228296ea7c8fff8262deabaab1ad59217adfa35
35060 F20101207_AAAADR belchior_p_Page_015.QC.jpg
c0078fdfc5415474e58b3da8a1b72b5a
40d5f01bab909142e8e70a5653b2a47a9c55cd48
62179 F20101207_AAABHJ belchior_p_Page_121.jpg
d0e3aacb848773f9afe68087028b6e2c
5cff6485bc44d8e024b5876a0dc9ac4d6f76bd7f
44347 F20101207_AAABGU belchior_p_Page_087.jpg
93688958903cb7491522be48ac344d9d
caf90e68b2fc93f7e7bfe2c83cc42a21357e41c9
1031049 F20101207_AAAAEH belchior_p_Page_089.jp2
a8099ed3c0b0ba2549c91ceea277ee6f
97240b0a880ccbd167b3f90382325e6b716bed1a
23328 F20101207_AAAADS belchior_p_Page_133.jp2
4b976ab839053ef1a58d397419874c00
89dabb79cfbced233a359220c2604799df9d8790
73324 F20101207_AAABHK belchior_p_Page_122.jpg
b91f9fc8657e9a6ad6903b546d7c05f1
6483a889c9e22dc33e246657537765ff14f26c07
104019 F20101207_AAABGV belchior_p_Page_094.jpg
7291815836915510f6d5bd59083c4c9d
14dcc4f11a5160256a87ef8d83f2693f4fd4063f
F20101207_AAAAEI belchior_p_Page_078.tif
61baa3aa6bbc5d7281497eb353d6ae63
4734f99c9149ade485a67deeb2f9e8c9d7f9de10
115675 F20101207_AAAADT belchior_p_Page_016.jp2
ad84554c80386e56bd657980557503f4
d4e53f3d18107a3bca5a23c4fe5c832b2169e2e5
79676 F20101207_AAABHL belchior_p_Page_123.jpg
a17101eb7229b02d07434eef96d83e75
f5b0dfc02023214b51c361df90405f87d13e35bb
114881 F20101207_AAABGW belchior_p_Page_095.jpg
da1f0c9435fdaae51e26e4d50566b7bd
055c2d1365414267d57a94795e97400ad798dfa8
62634 F20101207_AAAAEJ belchior_p_Page_121.jp2
131dda2b712a103d79786beab9a1adf5
50b44ebe4ea7c69ba2b590faa1978c49983acb4b
2063 F20101207_AAAADU belchior_p_Page_077.txt
02fe9a3f4af3ab8f13c120d1db142460
5ec8e4611133411c206bab0f4991994fe484182c
104576 F20101207_AAABIA belchior_p_Page_160.jpg
3136e8379a159b8128c09cdf8643f504
8204557a11e149080e20a97c22a3835a02f142f0
70489 F20101207_AAABHM belchior_p_Page_126.jpg
ce38800d998a0ac905d62a4fdea967a5
fbc631e74bc732ceff46bbfa7c33da2843ce6f7f
42769 F20101207_AAABGX belchior_p_Page_097.jpg
76cc19a5e01d38e8810e604841f7431e
6e218b8c689bffe7913033f77d361fe9cad11ded
35977 F20101207_AAAAEK belchior_p_Page_041.QC.jpg
333a1aa061ad2e18bb839a5ab52147df
3c4165a712ddc0b8cfca287523e6b3cc0c9dd83b
F20101207_AAAADV belchior_p_Page_098.tif
a802691190b93bb04293bbbbc1bb5ba8
5aee9471e4d4e9ac42b25f60ac56c9105923132f
113540 F20101207_AAABIB belchior_p_Page_162.jpg
2bdfd3b75c071d90dcb91f6ee14dc6f2
5899569aced3f85a922f925129ade6e2faa6508b
42926 F20101207_AAABHN belchior_p_Page_127.jpg
e4c3d58b259b8612afc93ff9050413fc
404c99c164b979544a463711781349a62bcd08b3
97876 F20101207_AAABGY belchior_p_Page_098.jpg
b8bbdff037caf89cbb3b0c9c6c1c6c87
766890216f1182c855093be645b926ae26f1d74c
57376 F20101207_AAAAEL belchior_p_Page_022.pro
f2b68314a231d100c2678b1a9c4daa81
cf6917a83366f79db50e04449f1c9ed768a8367e
111065 F20101207_AAAADW belchior_p_Page_076.jp2
10bdde86f3f3da9f10238b0d289c60f3
3417cb0bc936e66d67e6cf69dbb706ab61df5482
111328 F20101207_AAABIC belchior_p_Page_165.jpg
5426867cac423f6718e80669467bb0e0
6336e933fc9b766a09c9321dca64ccdba4382eed
33117 F20101207_AAABHO belchior_p_Page_132.jpg
b3fddbf4415c539e0271d5f7e7cb0e70
9fc219c4c4e7ede3546185af2ee90a823c5a47d6
108762 F20101207_AAABGZ belchior_p_Page_103.jpg
44c7e6451d7781ace4a4c6f0e7c49bc8
95a3e0756dc7a0d9fbf19a7cd300ba552c6572aa
112240 F20101207_AAAAFA belchior_p_Page_032.jpg
c79025f14ce78171fa21daa2d10a83cf
aaca40f40c3759a47419e8f9fb480426ed7488c7
2947 F20101207_AAAAEM belchior_p_Page_091.pro
87577d32f494a6189a20a80f16421206
95e9c3508c39f199522aa5ee2bcb161d42d942e0
36154 F20101207_AAAADX belchior_p_Page_040.QC.jpg
5839a07d0d1bc8ec02fba1221da6fc84
598c948f587d46c14c212868a42c56f58baa2223
112927 F20101207_AAABID belchior_p_Page_168.jpg
10d846637886ed21ed278b2c3da2f88b
8f3c44a7a6eee306158975b58a948f9895c6ad3b
21585 F20101207_AAABHP belchior_p_Page_134.jpg
a12cefa4aa4cb189100d89c07c16cf56
e4d818b7c0c9ee1db286600d8e25a2934f943fbc
104 F20101207_AAAAFB belchior_p_Page_002.txt
f9908951c1abab9d90845a039efb4733
b4b621139c23d1c95ce2c48cec6e86084cfab3a6
11216 F20101207_AAAAEN belchior_p_Page_097.pro
a9c982fcea2336f72d0f0a8c0a7e18b3
b55c9a4f58f09216f51a8681c0d760e4fdf61133
86015 F20101207_AAAADY belchior_p_Page_088.jpg
68a3565e898b56e6c1833888eef4a1cb
df4aec0c4430883a539087c061a4044207f0c81b
85439 F20101207_AAABIE belchior_p_Page_171.jpg
4d590e85913c5f219b8cd3426ed23b2f
11a4bd7e1a9bf3ad94558cfab8710559cfb83649
23442 F20101207_AAABHQ belchior_p_Page_136.jpg
03c0de73e958ad32534fc59bf78862ac
814dc73f0ac19dd2e5701f8e06ca8b4f20991ad7
22386 F20101207_AAAAFC belchior_p_Page_134.jp2
575fcff82439dc0aa91c4b51bbba0f77
a5db16420a2a98f831807497c908da5f334b3f52
9784 F20101207_AAAAEO belchior_p_Page_095thm.jpg
f7f23fcc4b615744169c95e558289742
feeb5542430b85c200b8a6bd1c97fa6f17d1d091
54077 F20101207_AAAADZ belchior_p_Page_175.jpg
2272f7acab65275b5f03c7fa89707dc0
174c3de597a0fd2957051d4942595ea166a3fcff
81482 F20101207_AAABIF belchior_p_Page_172.jpg
46b21ea104239b55e9326bd1f0f0e806
dfba140dabf82660903b9ed714088cfe9aa46cc0
23286 F20101207_AAABHR belchior_p_Page_138.jpg
3f461f1d6bb64b6b67fcddfb9f631c22
1f1b97272fd7ba274d22536dd4aacd4f79a5760c
112 F20101207_AAAAFD belchior_p_Page_051.txt
b9a8bb161b14c463cc91c4ba04906d4f
b10f85905ded878ee0ecdc6b92793ffab528db00
36058 F20101207_AAAAEP belchior_p_Page_109.QC.jpg
921475f6d4ae216c45f9a35ace12461f
7b7bda322777f83513f7a3c8919baa0b41b99cca
64480 F20101207_AAABIG belchior_p_Page_176.jpg
28300e31f74c567b22da9fa44452ab81
553fb266defc4f97407af36634a8c5cdf6ace8a4
F20101207_AAAAFE belchior_p_Page_025thm.jpg
5e326c3d75934000bddd0b8611892668
ea590e58f666b67eab05cae6a8c702a680769a5a
60491 F20101207_AAABIH belchior_p_Page_179.jpg
2498cc3e840ac1ef38890160cdfec711
c11844a3447279c0e9eea11b175d116b584b11a1
22620 F20101207_AAABHS belchior_p_Page_139.jpg
064631963a52a9b6ec6c7c872244a5f5
71eea5db3a139b134b27ebd421b770da3fdac05e
F20101207_AAAAFF belchior_p_Page_062.tif
f75ce73d2d467c53e5d35a668bcc26d4
99397f6add605d4f95511e332c086dba7f726a5b
F20101207_AAAAEQ belchior_p_Page_032.tif
eb1bf777343eed87b16be4690baa4e0a
50edadb19096d43588b01636d256633480c784e1
54901 F20101207_AAABII belchior_p_Page_181.jpg
0569bb280a56d938fce91df7fad4fbdd
a3bf7730a86f7e5630e8816c8ad744133a73be46
22088 F20101207_AAABHT belchior_p_Page_140.jpg
2d9d21dfc7b8a40d05e38962ff0ad89a
301d994e3eb06ca796e96e4441ee26a4f550d3f0
8745 F20101207_AAAAFG belchior_p_Page_034thm.jpg
b3e338eed9558b22d6d06dd5695610a3
4d8235d807f2c2e5ead8c5b76cf0b2959b652c67
37197 F20101207_AAAAER belchior_p_Page_074.QC.jpg
1d3291dddfb821a0d79af2cc22d5aa6f
acc6e2c70de863842b3e5d03da359f9e55108d17
56666 F20101207_AAABIJ belchior_p_Page_182.jpg
d90b163ca116de834dd40b8ab225d4ee
351a5341ef3bce836b0ee8014a06be0698daf3f6
21489 F20101207_AAABHU belchior_p_Page_144.jpg
cbbaf00790f17ab68a6ee3669f1ba8bb
8b397d64603ce48acd0a740739b79d756c32b1fc
34620 F20101207_AAAAFH belchior_p_Page_061.QC.jpg
e5954e99768ebfde48514b63d819b3dc
2c99be8ec2cf30cd13804e0127cda8e2a63dc835
F20101207_AAAAES belchior_p_Page_100.txt
c44432b91cb562f9a18110498a279350
fee938798d2f9c12506ab2899c40c59c989a7d11
58933 F20101207_AAABIK belchior_p_Page_183.jpg
1494820cea0dbbe7de8c432c9d0d8d68
a4ac14bfe8ed7684a0bc2d835b398b0666b4ff54
20147 F20101207_AAABHV belchior_p_Page_145.jpg
387d27c785933e1cb6bafe681ee2b328
08d927f6ab6560690521ef0ad1f6aacdf3dd8e3f
120 F20101207_AAAAFI belchior_p_Page_096.txt
73e8e42808813a4596329f7d211b16f1
537d9d87c36a85367e57ecbce9d5d9049b35b787
51018 F20101207_AAAAET belchior_p_Page_160.pro
8e1ee9eb5e2580989a969ddf17683608
1958b967b1a8da0dd57ddac06339ea6a65a90d73
79920 F20101207_AAABIL belchior_p_Page_188.jpg
a48504e13329fe4bdd46ac9910fd7dd3
a3fa21bb1d34147f5a3c01fbe7e31538404c6a34
21844 F20101207_AAABHW belchior_p_Page_147.jpg
5fc002307b189e67fc1439600d78a6ba
dff8a91a3df32bbadcb96848481794f4d6fd3440
111305 F20101207_AAAAFJ belchior_p_Page_033.jp2
2f5b64fe0ecf35feaf5f9c7b063372df
ab6fe5dea823a25d5e1c42c684a19e6b488d4f8c
36265 F20101207_AAAAEU belchior_p_Page_034.QC.jpg
f9c75798a5a14e6689c64a87598075af
ebe3a37c295b0e6fbb603e37963a51293770308a
1051942 F20101207_AAABJA belchior_p_Page_007.jp2
dddf1d3b20b111651ad378245d06333e
a2679ea23a204497204fb4ac7e10bf25977abbf0
83644 F20101207_AAABIM belchior_p_Page_190.jpg
4d50b9c943fb2174a29a5de89138d921
05259f2ec4973e54b43902fcf3c559ec6463bdc0
21475 F20101207_AAABHX belchior_p_Page_149.jpg
68ef22cd7725860c90f5f93c4192a7ff
31b21aaa8307c87b399e4a283e6281d405aac5c3
26051 F20101207_AAAAFK belchior_p_Page_090.jpg
016aa9ebf6422c6aa8528443700285fc
9307526b2d891de8dea53feef93862d5b4a49f49
25004 F20101207_AAAAEV belchior_p_Page_184.jpg
7f6fe0f8ba710adcab4b0bc464db7401
ae23b99afb7a4ccd31e2094e17676e358d454cb3
675810 F20101207_AAABJB belchior_p_Page_008.jp2
4b617b301418d3bd465ce0dabc20c393
44d2cb484071c84ec882ad7ff07e5383b6216efa
77419 F20101207_AAABIN belchior_p_Page_191.jpg
12b48232810313ae9656885bd0b329c2
ee33349bcb9003ef7e644f6722fb5b5ee6bec682
103340 F20101207_AAABHY belchior_p_Page_154.jpg
042cfa3e12bfde2e0279d5a39d347bab
10b7f3e0fb6e809a9567d7cf6bff905a0d32f0a9
34847 F20101207_AAAAFL belchior_p_Page_031.QC.jpg
47b0ab43fabd8f44fb919b4e38f969c9
46d73c98d83a18010ae5beffd7654bccf2d1c936
105083 F20101207_AAAAEW belchior_p_Page_045.jpg
7283b87dbc1b02382f9e6113393d7f68
b6b47fcdb344c44a2bd58e896f5b5cef8151a7d7
1051917 F20101207_AAABJC belchior_p_Page_009.jp2
3de58ccc3390447d36e9b463c7528f7f
1b22b979f056021742920d5ff15d84fb5e755652
77009 F20101207_AAABIO belchior_p_Page_192.jpg
8afe0cd70208b0a1a346c86703adaa4f
5f5bd6bdf79d2cd3da7ee26717d40acbf8aed2b6
113801 F20101207_AAABHZ belchior_p_Page_155.jpg
2f819101d5ca6a6e5410e78eb8238606
e23c49524061798f6f24c254196ddfe82d9c8ac8
812 F20101207_AAAAFM belchior_p_Page_195.txt
9eafb6a912fe79c0993a8eeed65bef60
8cf2a12ecbb52aa8a9fd1cd82b44b3c9b618a59b
114776 F20101207_AAAAEX belchior_p_Page_157.jp2
b845dbeeafe0c75f591d0a7c1e00ab85
5dc8ba3ee74093214eb22d188ab8533f4fd31962
4936 F20101207_AAAAGA belchior_p_Page_130thm.jpg
5939771a86421351e55ecbd951edb3d5
f06a7044d538368567b55fc61baa9d09493b8622
1050369 F20101207_AAABJD belchior_p_Page_010.jp2
e97f9cc46639421791086e72a5ecc6a3
0b9239b95c4b4f86c0efccbbfd60e23e1dc1a511
75556 F20101207_AAABIP belchior_p_Page_194.jpg
35f64a9321df193afdf9c79e6f1354f3
be432bf1a16ceda7d100d6e3cffdce24afab478c
163 F20101207_AAAAFN belchior_p_Page_140.txt
c7a1c75a36c182db0462bf2ece4ab605
bb1239c1c02c500cbb7b25d1680b57e59809a9b7
933 F20101207_AAAAEY belchior_p_Page_084.txt
8601586a59e4369c34261169ccc2c241
c48c910373e760d5200aa490419fff3e467e2ae2
34895 F20101207_AAAAGB belchior_p_Page_021.QC.jpg
f4c7ed19b3e9eeef42316644fd5a4a0d
c3404b423d2dc0c2474cad76ed537b680324e0cb
1051974 F20101207_AAABJE belchior_p_Page_011.jp2
cb289d200fd8d7c7bd5801918a24ca37
b6e268697fce7602e3eae2956e35e7f75389a481
49399 F20101207_AAABIQ belchior_p_Page_197.jpg
65f63f1d5f06bd66afcb6159a105b4e2
ee09500b51a4af260671924303fe4d2734e5eecc
112316 F20101207_AAAAFO belchior_p_Page_011.jpg
889a6ecc34c6501651e92f80a1108b88
9e1447d18f3bd5592e8c9ce57948bc6191d791ec
8761 F20101207_AAAAEZ belchior_p_Page_206thm.jpg
6dd4e07778c9152ce145de54bca49076
cc7cefa7f3beb859f2058e89c7f014ef133d93b5
F20101207_AAAAGC belchior_p_Page_119.tif
74f1a6b6ca4837c837c5a5776e82a757
5accf5c891f38ba7fa275044ebe0a89951535453
102190 F20101207_AAABJF belchior_p_Page_013.jp2
531b7634c261f5174afe63a43c1db06a
8b3b23dab5b074d40f3c1f24d6b550a5ae7a186f
122093 F20101207_AAABIR belchior_p_Page_199.jpg
92691ff47b6627c123508c315dadcc6f
27504ce9fcc4435af0c089bef7d2d15acb52e033
F20101207_AAAAFP belchior_p_Page_206.tif
8a0e0c4d1ab99c4984f38a58777e0cee
59e073c61019c88640649e05f7a836fa77a9ddcf
46778 F20101207_AAAAGD belchior_p_Page_085.pro
3420a0318272eac618d2eee4515d1f20
f858117aeb7eb2962e40aa8bdf6f2e67f4a3dd2a
118075 F20101207_AAABJG belchior_p_Page_014.jp2
4fe18ea833a9b86cf9d0033f78561c35
f5b2f942a9f05aca0bf639314f44723788d8ebdd
139972 F20101207_AAABIS belchior_p_Page_200.jpg
455a2b2ffd6f1ee821a3926af2920cbf
d4ab6435794866514c77761ac02176b1256b6e10
2125 F20101207_AAAAFQ belchior_p_Page_020.txt
fc5a3ee83a39bfa07e95df0dde2619bd
d89baad7148bf8e19cc2124535e215b5e1729f4e
F20101207_AAAAGE belchior_p_Page_205.tif
66958e391d6df67eb5c410315b2eaa0e
43f7beae40f1b868d00950ce337b92933167104a
118421 F20101207_AAABJH belchior_p_Page_017.jp2
896373e3eaae2968fd56255830cf4b48
7d7f8686141c6f131a6b1dbd65994a19a145a307
F20101207_AAAAGF belchior_p_Page_111.txt
dfc2b44fa2fd19f7d5c4457bdf6ec727
443172744ea0e97ab5b72839473fe26d6ac61cf8
114328 F20101207_AAABJI belchior_p_Page_023.jp2
3685835cda4217e320c387fb4c2a07a9
88a798c1e7ffe523d5abd208334f6d2109b22380
133935 F20101207_AAABIT belchior_p_Page_202.jpg
3292d7ffea65912830f9b4e1cf3bf77c
46c0c57aaa91c8d5227b3c56c760dc70bc321bf6
118889 F20101207_AAAAFR belchior_p_Page_113.jp2
27fb8d4c7cd61dd87185748a86343e2d
d99e2bf32f8ee9bd209e5abfedcc39da3bf6f8d0
19644 F20101207_AAAAGG belchior_p_Page_005.pro
61e2680a2a67ef1671af85e57434df16
bba61ead1e4a87f559492a47387eecbdf7922eff
105073 F20101207_AAABJJ belchior_p_Page_028.jp2
560e799ab14b7f8543cb961cadebe172
f52cfe42d3ec0cd357136c4df5711f021524c8bb
143305 F20101207_AAABIU belchior_p_Page_203.jpg
4661f2a04df82c98020af76c8517e93a
5f295e3e294538fb0944eb9495d167791aaa7467
46731 F20101207_AAAAFS belchior_p_Page_026.pro
c41b30b743d4182380abbfe781d6cd25
f0de7dd4019d493fd508c55681e35cbb78bdcd34
20893 F20101207_AAAAGH belchior_p_Page_143.jpg
e67ba0196791cf52ab0a4ebcd7ac09df
530efe0b03fc038e5115e33b4775b53fd2297f83
118926 F20101207_AAABJK belchior_p_Page_030.jp2
266bad568526698a5d1184f108829037
883c77813960d9dd610dd00a53b0bc04b1be43e8
136051 F20101207_AAABIV belchior_p_Page_204.jpg
b94f1b9cf97a974d29170c5906d22678
f3d574bbbfec3ed36c88d921bb631d9f90b70ad0
79350 F20101207_AAAAFT belchior_p_Page_193.jp2
e969c2c9b9aebd99365bee4d51c78711
a92f772190950b069dd9074cb56f65589729e4ab
498837 F20101207_AAAAGI belchior_p_Page_012.jp2
d0ba4fe310e76c490bb1b1615a0fef94
8d261023e0295ca5cbeeb7867b17a2fc9f1e5179
114668 F20101207_AAABJL belchior_p_Page_031.jp2
bbdfccb823355cbb4e38980a6dea7305
3cf3c712c9f4d2c7a00efe5695261017c839e8c4
125786 F20101207_AAABIW belchior_p_Page_206.jpg
0fb10c1ef3f4e7bdd842894442da95ba
c1eda6a678f20b3b867e2689d0e7e329e6755a17
1935 F20101207_AAAAFU belchior_p_Page_125.txt
54562d01834a8509c84380fc0428fe73
9a2c981628630b33abadf2c60f8207144a12fc1d
14248 F20101207_AAAAGJ belchior_p_Page_087.QC.jpg
823fc26139f87caba496c2775ee8ab49
65444ab2acb701bad7e99e867c600b6a7c41aef7
116175 F20101207_AAABKA belchior_p_Page_063.jp2
cc9cb2f7c9eafb64dc9c67a4b3c88e8f
6ae319a6d24a842f53fe8a8ea5ad02f003cf2342
115363 F20101207_AAABJM belchior_p_Page_034.jp2
ff4a039866976f23395a7b0857c6b267
61d239eb1c4b4cbd616b92ae3c07e40058455134
122060 F20101207_AAABIX belchior_p_Page_208.jpg
db87d2dda0f0d02d06925112b9188cc9
457f064bfa20bf3ccd2642641b8cdc2d77cb5d79
148523 F20101207_AAAAFV belchior_p_Page_200.jp2
16105ccdd5ec859a8d9a4de59b0984c2
a0f04f76c662e60cebf9bb0c7cb88e5a3448b470
2131 F20101207_AAAAGK belchior_p_Page_048.txt
8cf44d1d77bdf28df8db5da94038a006
1046891b476a491ef71b3db718488f230607ce8e
110864 F20101207_AAABKB belchior_p_Page_065.jp2
c47a993473f485ba36fb7f7ba266e3c0
c999499f5665ee82acf48cb1c9618ae87b9e7f75
124308 F20101207_AAABJN belchior_p_Page_036.jp2
231837947bea1c7ce477a888f935ebb4
6b3301997edffe2620f8e1982225c19fdc0976fc
6568 F20101207_AAABIY belchior_p_Page_003.jp2
71b27bad0e9ea5bca81718319918029b
d165c1a1431da9900185e318ac9ed69db01eb0e1
14033 F20101207_AAAAFW belchior_p_Page_132.pro
c9891248b900ecf81efba61f05577f41
f677232bb2545d8e1b2ba68740911f7b357c5c6b
2225 F20101207_AAAAGL belchior_p_Page_155.txt
57b6d6e99aaea3eb1d1fd6646dcf1e24
44a40791b84f738a10bb1638b194d1f040150d44
113991 F20101207_AAABKC belchior_p_Page_071.jp2
b95f8b8785019241595b2fd324e9d6e0
ec6a3e3d8717344a91da3a93d3becea43753cc23
116559 F20101207_AAABJO belchior_p_Page_037.jp2
ae17fd2c1f6e89d78a72c557b90c4774
907aef602743b788dca73615254a1ca9a03ca3da
43918 F20101207_AAABIZ belchior_p_Page_005.jp2
e79eaebb5beabdf60f2c3126203023eb
ad938a9e62efe587e5e2a61c84dcac3b73b29ced
116506 F20101207_AAAAFX belchior_p_Page_114.jpg
b83fa8fae84a0dbe2a2cdbb39a20742d
f7d2dc7feb33cb942e0e746947df768e56afc133
34497 F20101207_AAAAHA belchior_p_Page_158.QC.jpg
9495276b02aa89768819c03f2d1f6729
5da44c774fee3eb17b9b18739dc80e3d00b8bdf0
23023 F20101207_AAAAGM belchior_p_Page_149.jp2
b8d4a7e833057b23b6e465fc27b9d293
30f343aca2a76db11f2729cdc47cedd00748fd49
112857 F20101207_AAABKD belchior_p_Page_072.jp2
98747fc30e418af406abbe795fa59e21
844f50d629c9a2a3057ba40274bbad297ba92f77
120556 F20101207_AAABJP belchior_p_Page_038.jp2
411a91cd925532957391067995cec96c
862bde8f6a47bb64cccd483a19f3669350e8a435
66594 F20101207_AAAAFY belchior_p_Page_201.pro
6c284c17f0c4d85816ff0a8abda1d9bf
f9d93f6382da34a6c64e68945d79a973d0317526
401 F20101207_AAAAHB belchior_p_Page_184.txt
b19d534b871dd6808cacf71ad12d36b7
ef9ab41d103c116b15ec84fb9fb7297c8e87fe27
19542 F20101207_AAAAGN belchior_p_Page_131.pro
8472e1ddb367698a8a010bf4bf16d099
2e5295ea4d373865a83adb109adc2d20da2b36f4
110689 F20101207_AAABKE belchior_p_Page_077.jp2
4d86e8ff80f1e400525bf4e02aded34d
0a1110625f74600778ae4e38f28663580d382119
117724 F20101207_AAABJQ belchior_p_Page_041.jp2
2acf68569b30a01bc4f1ad7258613a67
8442e090e5bd1f3c341580c9aeb5d88d281f88a5
35036 F20101207_AAAAHC belchior_p_Page_071.QC.jpg
47ca70272d987fe1a68281a24ec110b5
f909759c989672e22a879142c007d4b946c95e66
8495 F20101207_AAAAGO belchior_p_Page_150.QC.jpg
44c079c459461ba693b2275840c9e204
ca0b9fdc9b579ea4a531c26ad898df5aa689d044
21558 F20101207_AAAAFZ belchior_p_Page_180.QC.jpg
1c2be3018c334f52a23373ba4d0b6dee
c3df4266b491303a9db143a756749846e2c86fa7
118226 F20101207_AAABKF belchior_p_Page_079.jp2
7760d4ed2a21f4874dff9cc0afc2d5b7
f1958ae7c898a0efa3b2e07232085548a10d1962
121788 F20101207_AAABJR belchior_p_Page_042.jp2
80f897a30f82f942f38337cb5625f0ca
c63d658865e9f1e0cefbce09f1622e8c3c56e7dc
36829 F20101207_AAAAHD belchior_p_Page_025.QC.jpg
d85ea96621105e702b62bc45d6e9b332
f3a111a41a940dc5e71fa36d6826dfee7ba937a8
F20101207_AAAAGP belchior_p_Page_017.tif
61135ebcdb8f1a2a0b416ff7f4620452
c2565de90ed12a86918990a1fee614e2e2c8d7fa
117484 F20101207_AAABKG belchior_p_Page_080.jp2
84c49fb94413e9c3adb2fb8a7ca6425d
d211e31ce966d0b394cb8afdc2ad830876399dad
118479 F20101207_AAABJS belchior_p_Page_044.jp2
01e4cd2406f28ebb5a66f2246c6dd2dc
4eee710f5759a82b891b0c832a79827df0346fd3
72300 F20101207_AAAAHE belchior_p_Page_124.jp2
69c2a5a95c10074062893f8f6c9a4b9c
118507409fff430dba72e0816a92ef2f94796d4d
3700 F20101207_AAAAGQ belchior_p_Page_086thm.jpg
a5394be4edf43d345c09148203d051b0
119cb641e4a532dc90aeb8867386d92ca9c7ad47
11078 F20101207_AAABKH belchior_p_Page_082.jp2
1cca2ab9dc057123594ca2519d3f3092
8c5228301fc87622360a0cf80e306b1e802c1973
367473 F20101207_AAABJT belchior_p_Page_050.jp2
7e8da65873ff25aaa7946eb1792c897a
ba94047180787936bfeb0b984085597a793cc817
489 F20101207_AAAAHF belchior_p_Page_150.txt
7f5efec984eeb0f25be0899f48c08b37
8b51898aa066867b6cbb4a20e99287e0520e734f
F20101207_AAAAGR belchior_p_Page_056.tif
e84dc430b100a23481464244fae165c7
0051575e48507126aed110140f88655a54410765
57166 F20101207_AAABKI belchior_p_Page_084.jp2
50e14a285c24b2753f59f7284516c08b
8a5f0f3d480c3082f06d586a7f791ad6cd8e82b8
8491 F20101207_AAAAHG belchior_p_Page_208thm.jpg
a70d43282d32d1dc4556d75c99db21d6
d31d4e2341b6139e2a39139aa22a6de18c26a3ad
98584 F20101207_AAABKJ belchior_p_Page_085.jp2
95cd53e0dea6168e6d79c58db71c8176
ae7aab1a0921936f1575db2806d22532fbe0deca
108210 F20101207_AAABJU belchior_p_Page_052.jp2
5c22a4f377aaec0c53d332f9d297b7f2
3f6199725cd4498677b5ff3010bf4338dcb34246
F20101207_AAAAHH belchior_p_Page_138.QC.jpg
54777e6d617372c7cbc93f517fd5745c
b0d5d886e61a4f862eebe13d259809f41ec9f497
400 F20101207_AAAAGS belchior_p_Page_174.txt
21824dac99e2b6c103c8fc75436c323e
6ee8f8c7a28a3f973604775fe03e287a66ef6156
440425 F20101207_AAABKK belchior_p_Page_087.jp2
56512845b7c312b33a61cb16c6547c21
60acd9421daae785b1af263af9f798b7b22fc7d9
109728 F20101207_AAABJV belchior_p_Page_053.jp2
0d80eb0fa78d953bd20bc825dff3f64d
184da29b6937f930ac98c28980d9d2782908a03d
F20101207_AAAAHI belchior_p_Page_027.tif
a40119c4fd9f643530db68828aeeb876
fc8872a09299227c454ac91c7eb52c8eff1022bf
28605 F20101207_AAAAGT belchior_p_Page_006.QC.jpg
7430142ebfa3e52e9e435c9c96362b5b
9b5441a2e89178ba50bf2f0d81245296742a6774
1051939 F20101207_AAABKL belchior_p_Page_088.jp2
b135f7592de6e040a13beafb7aeade84
1cc77939759079193400988185fb242e1cf2be27
105967 F20101207_AAABJW belchior_p_Page_055.jp2
40e447ec4947130e32499cf1b5fe2e6c
e759e213288c1d4a5c9ab1ca8403ff443bd17ec1
9121 F20101207_AAAAHJ belchior_p_Page_040thm.jpg
a0946cd46e10f43fbe290ef016e2030d
0950778ab31cc7fd26ee8c957e85f8fef7df4c05
112732 F20101207_AAAAGU belchior_p_Page_043.jpg
ac5578b451306c653bb582f88b617542
a36d6b2c237287fb4dd42cc8c07858c7eac78b7b
49451 F20101207_AAABLA belchior_p_Page_130.jp2
0cdf6ab93eb6092a5519fe5d0fceb404
0f2898b62986a3764bbcbc030d3036904e6f7305
1051968 F20101207_AAABKM belchior_p_Page_093.jp2
470a13d782a6092db84f3a4721f1e3b1
cbdb4af8219c298201c00a61feabdd03ec2a4984
114225 F20101207_AAABJX belchior_p_Page_057.jp2
beef93e2c8c6802c43d09a3f7dea4a14
9a415f731d4401a8ebdf9f579c9ecbe67459497a
1474 F20101207_AAAAHK belchior_p_Page_119.txt
8915ba1c474e65935aad499a5daa11a2
0f8f54b2924fce673453e8a441f4947156a6db83
8778 F20101207_AAAAGV belchior_p_Page_146.QC.jpg
3912a2cb0b87ad5af1552f27f1d2ecf7
dad8cea6114159aaeec19e7aae1e6ff1a7d31655
44293 F20101207_AAABLB belchior_p_Page_131.jp2
35252cd879cc52772c212939b1288f0f
48eafca5062e7d50bcf47cba8cf68e2cb1f99007
1051872 F20101207_AAABKN belchior_p_Page_095.jp2
a48ed716ab61b940f933aab7c6541511
734c54c1a722f202712cbbdb48f2809ca9c40077
102309 F20101207_AAABJY belchior_p_Page_059.jp2
0d32acb0255cb2151173f129b87d45c0
4a0440b0fe4ecfceca56bfc613b383c7ff482137
46671 F20101207_AAAAHL belchior_p_Page_153.pro
d05e3784fc4e4a3efb9bb137148c53a8
0c932c0b62bf27bffd8b0a3b70c6a08c038fdc93
74409 F20101207_AAAAGW belchior_p_Page_185.jpg
ee8acabca4d5d8cee6588216979fa81d
6c99ce2a843d87d6d029d37057799779c271ba07
23516 F20101207_AAABLC belchior_p_Page_135.jp2
007199921d6be1b053d58ca068a451c9
74c9ff98592ee39c8b7efad70b395bec1137acff
110967 F20101207_AAABKO belchior_p_Page_099.jp2
1e1cd0c901e5fcca132a16df1e3d44f7
109d10583a98cad6094250fdbc8cdde3307de0c1
109543 F20101207_AAABJZ belchior_p_Page_061.jp2
d16f7ebad7729a4169687b689ff6a8b7
aff6aa453b600d1bf1b814d4584e0ac690fe56c1
120905 F20101207_AAAAHM belchior_p_Page_066.jp2
ee022237a0e2ea6fb4bf2728336bbc45
700da3fc125f0c52f59275d339861a82e7d38671
8591 F20101207_AAAAGX belchior_p_Page_023thm.jpg
9ab9a18a064db455f427bc2f64719fe8
4c89c2a21de0deb78185ec3f72c8491e55dbaeec
6970 F20101207_AAAAIA belchior_p_Page_192thm.jpg
07ad13e48aae8cbe8ce0d15a46b06e2f
c6f39dc24746410b82e8662518bda9a8aa8afc65
21695 F20101207_AAABLD belchior_p_Page_140.jp2
aa0eef1452ac7e497ced1a1a1e812a43
c9af1b9e8f7369f0b1a11891d6fe81c2e3b91667
117116 F20101207_AAABKP belchior_p_Page_100.jp2
08fa9f257ec955fdb8577ec6ff4721e8
f52e40efbb3418f660f161550f3d387a18f27473
150182 F20101207_AAAAHN belchior_p_Page_205.jp2
c4826883878551cc4d81258a50b89939
921e21a0cea3856a2c8565888dd15006d0379095
9109 F20101207_AAAAGY belchior_p_Page_036thm.jpg
dcabe7fabfe03a3641c7dfdd7a241a56
7f4498be922d78f878d6076066bd539d58703b51
114299 F20101207_AAAAIB belchior_p_Page_074.jpg
226fd9d38afc9c2a08ef01a73c72aa6a
d84ca9bea071d4c553d1a091f0c5327edfcee128
21492 F20101207_AAABLE belchior_p_Page_142.jp2
4e15d38c6e92e42320032f067cf28130
40a6accc501e11298f483f537eccaf8606e9d5dc
124621 F20101207_AAABKQ belchior_p_Page_102.jp2
e21ae37c08adf3bebf54773e549e240e
33b0716001b5acd8110d99f1228135922dd86acd
F20101207_AAAAHO belchior_p_Page_134.QC.jpg
40a5e929e5a02ac536671da209295a90
af1dbce7a894ddee28f37bda5d55d4fb3755ed38
8786 F20101207_AAAAGZ belchior_p_Page_111thm.jpg
9883035762276d902a7eeee5d0b696b6
3636484d46b339627dd704a8ad6b23a9b6ee25f1
99983 F20101207_AAAAIC belchior_p_Page_064.jpg
f2a8acfcba563b3abe61142e42444bc7
f8be8af9dc3f47d6f2a3201968cb7a61c186e2ef
22368 F20101207_AAABLF belchior_p_Page_143.jp2
d1b5ac4dd89736c344df23ad7b46243a
5c0788240286e37144eb78d52730c8e205543eae
116180 F20101207_AAABKR belchior_p_Page_103.jp2
84a8cb8db20ca3b6374e94d53cddd85b
2e9e21f67b0e4c52bb7642c3d8aab9874b1c59b8
1042 F20101207_AAAAHP belchior_p_Page_183.txt
29b84df32f6a6309edb22bd23a380ff5
80f7a25e99f133e6c861c7ed26fb17de07da4178
486 F20101207_AAAAID belchior_p_Page_147.txt
c7cb914c1d4327a17be92d27dc3298d4
41c7a2e62ad0dadd9e521eaed5fc0814a8091442
21401 F20101207_AAABLG belchior_p_Page_145.jp2
ee8982f7351b09cf9fde977a1be5b9ea
7089e4e0c0a9dff2ce6265f6cda319b9e66c5493
115904 F20101207_AAABKS belchior_p_Page_107.jp2
6c001b13aab6b1019e1f19da0683c885
5fc7ef0481e718271a6c6b1eff6bcc8a49ad09f7
1423 F20101207_AAAAHQ belchior_p_Page_185.txt
c60ec9345568399b870f50ec8d762ef4
395d76549c5a4745cb3394131a779b8c65e5e228
2219 F20101207_AAAAIE belchior_p_Page_165.txt
f80762799908b44fecbbe23fcf81acd2
0922a5b3409f173c6efb4fcfb4acc1eda405a590
23390 F20101207_AAABLH belchior_p_Page_146.jp2
f8b3d60efa4d63c3fe77d0dc71d6af9e
c47a3dd099eaafafe44837fc914b4c5baa537ebb
119947 F20101207_AAABKT belchior_p_Page_112.jp2
5d28a27fb29d4502b32261c849be2ea8
2053b24f6df5f71cdc9f5e2c4e2203f0ffffe264
24220 F20101207_AAAAHR belchior_p_Page_138.jp2
becf021b62acdcf1abde0da40ce8c767
f3bdc7188bcdba62edb32c6762b2799ba023edc9
109957 F20101207_AAAAIF belchior_p_Page_154.jp2
098f6f62c895116beaef986b21713ddd
37dc9b48e0b6d6d01f1a8543e1a34ea07d3154a0
21990 F20101207_AAABLI belchior_p_Page_147.jp2
542d2af76e44f1f3e7d43d097c8eb948
8d5e9d7b803eb5de63b6b4a451ee700c99bf983f
117621 F20101207_AAABKU belchior_p_Page_115.jp2
1f8e86ed47377b670c68a808395f6571
242e2af07ccf2de1826f1c74ed4579729f289793
9578 F20101207_AAAAHS belchior_p_Page_205thm.jpg
0842b4cfd0c13759a800e6467e23ad9d
6c937d17bd0968ea25833ac510e0bbc24fe376f2
F20101207_AAAAIG belchior_p_Page_162.txt
943c803e90d0e146b7133461e533e919
426cd8716dacb3c4c7f1d4aaffdd6ebf968882eb
22572 F20101207_AAABLJ belchior_p_Page_148.jp2
b40ad39d359e7e3e5dae33ae1d6b5053
49b0edf94cb2f88a6c3533d6e2d00b973e2f3766
26130 F20101207_AAAAIH belchior_p_Page_171.QC.jpg
e9da9c8c7f37f9aa9c19025054c21abd
ac7ab9ce0c2635faebff621034442d9c1f304a4e
24847 F20101207_AAABLK belchior_p_Page_150.jp2
3b673d3294827ce9c827855c88bccc96
c243d788618fdfc74e6caf986dd9b2d9defadb91
104073 F20101207_AAABKV belchior_p_Page_117.jp2
bfad93751c07b78b68e684cd9e911f65
36c43b2f1de1ddcebd9486e825fd30df6b6fdf39
120810 F20101207_AAAAHT belchior_p_Page_058.jp2
e806e9f59130730a33559baf6b4e35d6
960f8f2b4635ce69dfb3f1b41054405982038017
54503 F20101207_AAAAII belchior_p_Page_041.pro
f7172a37999d0416a45697394034bcad
2c4d46abc0b7e6cbc07e7845b8897ce47d43956e
25791 F20101207_AAABLL belchior_p_Page_152.jp2
a99a02f606a786ebe7ae0c63db8497a9
5cc8769d71edb0dbca9e8d294c563e501f176efc
78006 F20101207_AAABKW belchior_p_Page_122.jp2
e8b96b94c73e4de1b57ec8575499bdba
8c244927ae24a4f379b44e5a9588bd8fff20ecac
7810 F20101207_AAAAHU belchior_p_Page_153thm.jpg
f9908b073ef69ac80417e49b84cbcf7b
c79a351e6231323b403511fc00ee6e714f98f8bc
103826 F20101207_AAAAIJ belchior_p_Page_104.jpg
c5418d7b6534d55939ec1ccc3b5801a0
60216f5de5b3681fb31f0c8f9f7feb942dbbd26b
68251 F20101207_AAABMA belchior_p_Page_178.jp2
7ba0607d8c8efa34790d7a4179237e7a
16fcc0e60b99bdb26009de753472b3a84e2d01eb
102424 F20101207_AAABLM belchior_p_Page_153.jp2
abdd36f19ed09f5611e0f9b08f29b77e
b524987a6415fc59625de8ebffd1da07c46e74dd
67852 F20101207_AAABKX belchior_p_Page_126.jp2
041f49c448ccdc0b58062fce351af216
6dfe61ce85359735054bdc6b93dbbab08282e41b
33956 F20101207_AAAAHV belchior_p_Page_076.QC.jpg
373d802c2de9c2a01a0551ce8ca4f738
1d4d2713fa83b58592509d9b97704451af2ec869
103356 F20101207_AAAAIK belchior_p_Page_164.jpg
aba04c24c27a8c5c1416f2b6c4053cc9
4bb83cbc12c7d3b7282b35037a6f10ccbbe6e892
63249 F20101207_AAABMB belchior_p_Page_180.jp2
27ac1a129a445d6f582aefc5b28ab6a9
892aa441bfb73b35887542ce0f8b693f70d93a23
121009 F20101207_AAABLN belchior_p_Page_155.jp2
eb944c04e99d531e882270af0e549022
c4ef1a2e577597e2ccf1829361e323d5565e478c
43459 F20101207_AAABKY belchior_p_Page_127.jp2
7824cf1cb0a71f2b40311d1028fa1251
25f3c68836bbe4c47559fb9b84cfaad9cf86f2d5
F20101207_AAAAHW belchior_p_Page_202.txt
e2f5fad577444167efb9416c87294b34
cd6ace5eaf5a6234b8b457096626c9f03531ced3
49931 F20101207_AAAAIL belchior_p_Page_052.pro
4f47bd08d811633d68737547c92a620d
b1014d4d74c66221f28c427f7d1358fa6347aee0
51878 F20101207_AAABMC belchior_p_Page_181.jp2
caf70ea340b0b627b2ee0cb91eb6c8ba
de2fe856bdc807f457cf74661d82e3fbb8a8add7
113220 F20101207_AAABLO belchior_p_Page_156.jp2
f0d225117587bdd6ddd0591613fe3315
abf9c4e0ea61015bf1f0a465b495c8c9ba288bf9
51021 F20101207_AAABKZ belchior_p_Page_129.jp2
6668a9b623de9e190fbd98c4ab6024b3
80ffdb3f72ce3db835da857b5b8b7893243ac97e
F20101207_AAAAHX belchior_p_Page_025.tif
69cceed923ec49625350231844f200a5
ea6d84f303983b177a0179165db2d4c6a3b10f2a
887 F20101207_AAAAJA belchior_p_Page_181.txt
5ec144b60421671210313bd3eb140618
20bf3eacde52a741fc021bc8d83029c3185a4d91
12220 F20101207_AAAAIM belchior_p_Page_012.pro
1fef91f7e7183246394084ca82faf907
456b98c4559e7b4a0e3a3de7f19b72c1d68edb0f
76542 F20101207_AAABMD belchior_p_Page_185.jp2
89a2337f78a65a7dbaac9207944299bf
e4098d0085c79766962677509d80e74372bb0d6f
116858 F20101207_AAABLP belchior_p_Page_159.jp2
8e14f093f4a1e94094f20fd8722e4470
ac6eac6495dbf73b32fb22d98c724aa7f4b9cee4
120773 F20101207_AAAAHY belchior_p_Page_068.jp2
6bf0e3aea2c012c3d0ec43f6e53926e2
8aabf69998f4b569504c7eee923caeaf798ed8c3
3004 F20101207_AAAAJB belchior_p_Page_090thm.jpg
f88b5d8d44ac34c8a0774366a710b376
625b8040c9373a7857ae90957bd28d8e0aa4ec5d
249 F20101207_AAAAIN belchior_p_Page_086.txt
15c1100fe43668363f936110743337ad
f315482e39ff05b1f04fb0ef59b1f5d7a16b1d99
96425 F20101207_AAABME belchior_p_Page_186.jp2
c18aca6a908cfe21a0254abcf26658a7
7a4a760adf7be0a61626c37996d4e4a33c3caf73
110784 F20101207_AAABLQ belchior_p_Page_160.jp2
70e56a13d3532aee2d8d30e518e539c0
7a06a6df40ce4219dbfe419733c8156c64941f38
F20101207_AAAAHZ belchior_p_Page_130.tif
20802a330e3990b62f37c2106ae8e146
78814bbdbc164a0c9180c4ea5b0df9079258a774
105440 F20101207_AAAAJC belchior_p_Page_099.jpg
72055f3f0a69ebc4e3435c3619bceb40
09477dc4611c8210c27fc01e3a0654b4349287a4
F20101207_AAAAIO belchior_p_Page_080thm.jpg
a5a2a55ddd249a690c13a56b2f691dfc
f9470688031ad5084643d05eabe778ba066c969f
87688 F20101207_AAABMF belchior_p_Page_188.jp2
546c54cc80e012ea7a50895943c4216f
017f4e96c45c22e8374e4f6d988cbc489ad9b2e4
115234 F20101207_AAABLR belchior_p_Page_161.jp2
7c965b666bb5a17ec2f6ff7ab29baa29
ef10ec5475432ecb518aed2e603ca8cd337842cf
F20101207_AAAAJD belchior_p_Page_021.tif
dd80a5299ee5064e68bf413f48b039d1
bd70c9f08c6b661908ae27b9d109ecace43b34b8
13462 F20101207_AAAAIP belchior_p_Page_051.QC.jpg
f4be14af016b932351bc119670045520
c719ffcb877f27778f62a3a4bca229e18ec851e4