Fixing forensic patients: Psychiatric recommendations for treatment in pretrial settings

This article is concerned with psychiatric recommendations for treatment at the Metropolitan Toronto Forensic Service (METFORS), a clinical assessment agency providing both 1-day and 30-day evaluations of criminal defendants in Toronto, Canada. Analysis of both psychiatric reports and quantitative research instruments demonstrated the saliency of treatment as a central forensic issue at METFORS. Among a sample of 592 defendants, 134 were considered in need of outpatient care. Persons recommended for hospitalization were most likely to exhibit histories of mental health rather than criminal justice contacts; to be arrested for nonviolent offenses; to manifest psychotic behavior while at METFORS; to be found unfit for bail, incompetent to stand trial, in need of further assessment and dangerous to self; and to experience higher rates of hospitalization, but lower levels of criminalization during the two years following their initial forensic assessment. Psychiatric reports at METFORS tended to merge recommendations for treatment and assessment; to suggest prison or probation as means for securing clinical treatment; and to provide little written support for judgments about the need for intervention. Along with competency and dangerousness, treatment is a key issue in forensic practice, and warrants further attention in the psycholegal literature.     

Treatment recommendations for mentally disordered offenders: More than roulette?

Clinical judgments on the treatability and prognosis of mentally disordered offeenders (MDO) may strongly influence legal dispositions and the availability of treatment resources. This study examined 1,238 discharge summaries for MDOs referred for court assessments. Psychiatrists evidenced marked variability in how often they recommended treatment and how frequently they judged patients to have a poor prognosis. Two logit analyses suggested that diagnosis and consultation by other clinicians were associated with (a) treatment recommendations (i.e., Axis I diagnosis and social work consultations) and (b) prognosis (i.e., Axis II diagnosis and psychology consultations).     

Negative afterimages and the McCollough effect

Four experiments were conducted to test earlier claims about the relationship between the negative afterimage and the McCollough effect. The first claim (Hansel & Mahmud, 1978) is that long-lasting afterimages occur when induced by the same alternating-stimulus procedure as that used to induce the McCollough effect. The second claim (Murch & Hirsch, 1972) is that afterimages can themselves induce McCollough effects if they are induced and paired sequentially with grating patterns. In testing these claims, a reliable computer-controlled color-cancellation technique developed earlier was used to measure the apparent color of both afterimages and McCollough effects objectively. No support was found for the first claim following alternative presentation of two homogeneously colored regions for total periods of 5 min (Experiment 1) and 20 min (Experiment 2). The second claim was fully supported: After an induction period of 7.3 min, a McCollough effect occurred for a red-vertical pairing but not for a green-horizontal pairing (Experiment 3); but after an induction period of 20 min, McCollough effects occurred strongly for both pairings (Experiment 4). The theoretical implications of these outcomes are considered in the context of recent theories of color and pattern processing in the visual system.     

Fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance with and without signalled reinforcement

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similar to that maintained by fixed-interval limited-hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.     

The relationship between cognitive,motor-kinesthetic,and oculomotor adaptation

The literature concerning adaptation to prism indicates that several adaptive mechanisms may be important. The particular mechanism or mechanisms involved depends (at least in part) upon the type of adaptive exposure. In the present study. three adaptive mechanisms (cognitive. oculomotor, and motor-kinesthetic) were investigated. Ss were asked to point in the dark at an illuminated target. The target was seen displaced from its veridical position due to a wedge prism placed before S’s right eye. The left eye was occluded. Ss then viewed their visual target pointing errors through the displacing prism without seeing any part of their bodies. One group of Ss was instructed to ignore these prism-induced errors and to continue pointing at the target’s visual position. A second group of Ss was instructed to compensate fully for their errors and to at tempt to eliminate them on all future trials. For the latter group errors were completely eliminated, while for Ss instructed to ignore their errors, relatively small improvement in visual target settings occurred. This improvement was called cognitive adaptation, since it depended on the S’s conscious control. In addition. for both conditions. evidence was found that allowing Ss to view their prism-induced pointing errors resulted in some form of motor-kinesthetic adaptation. This adaptation was hypothesized to represent a change in the judged position of the pointing hand relative to its felt position. It was concluded that this motor-kinesthetic adaptation was dependent, in part, upon cognitive information concerning the effects of the prism and that it serves to reduce conflict between cognitive and visual cues, i.e., between what S believes and what he sees.     

Oculomotor adaptation to wedge prisms with no part of the body seen

When S looks at a visual target through prisms, adaptive shifts in reaching behavior occur even though he sees no part of his body through the prisms. These shifts are caused by a change in the judgment of the direction of gaze (oculomotor change), which in turn is caused by two secondary prismatic effects: (a) asymmetry of the visual display and (b) apparent rotation about a vertical axis of a panel or wall facing S. The “asymmetry” factor contributes 22% of the total oculomotor change, and the “rotation” effect contributes the remaining 78%. Oculomotor change is not facilitated by eye-movement activity. The adaptive oculomotor change induces a non-adaptive proprioception change about one-tenth as large as the oculomotor change. These findings are capable of accounting for the previously unexplained results reported by Wooster in 1923, and also for the current controversy about the role of reafferent stimulation in sensorymotor adaptation.     

Oculomotor adaptation to wedge prisms with no part of the body seen

When S looks at a visual target through prisms, adaptive shifts in reaching behavior occur even though he sees no part of his body through the prisms. These shifts are caused by a change in the judgment of the direction of gaze (oculomotor change), which in turn is caused by two secondary prismatic effects: (a) asymmetry of the visual display and (b) apparent rotation about a vertical axis of a panel or wall facing S. The “asymmetry” factor contributes 22% of the total oculomotor change, and the “rotation” effect contributes the remaining 78%. Oculomotor change is not facilitated by eye-movzment activity. The adaptive oculomotor change induces a non-adaptive proprioception change about one-tenth as large as the oculomotor change. These findings are capable of accounting for the previously unexplained results reported by Wooster in 1923, and also for the current controversy about the role of reafferent stimulation in sensorymotor adaptation.