In patients pretreated with high-dose clopidogrel who were referred for primary PCI, treatment with heparin plus eptifibatide, when compared with heparin alone, did not improve clinical outcomes and was associated with more bleeding complications.

In the current work we investigate people's perception of their own body tilt in the pitch direction. In Experiment 1, we tilted people backward at 1 of 5 different randomly assigned angles using an inversion table. People significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward at angles from 8°to 45°. The slope of the plotted average overestimates had a gain of 1.46, fitting nicely with previously reported gains of verbal overestimates of visually perceived slant of natural outdoor geographically oriented slopes as well as man-made wooden slopes within and outside of reach in the laboratory. In Experiment 2, we showed participants a 45°line and asked them to indicate when they were positioned at that orientation. Participants again significantly overestimated the angle at which they were tilted backward. This extends work showing that a scale-expanded theory of visual space is multisensory, results in equivalent estimates for both verbal and nonverbal/nonnumeric methods, and can now be expanded to include the perceived orientation of one's own body. Keywords Slant perception . Spatial orientation . PitchFor the last two decades, a wealth of evidence shows that people overestimate the slant of both geographical and manmade slopes by between 5°and 25° (Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999;Bridgeman & Hoover, 2008;Creem & Proffitt, 1998; CreemRegehr, Gooch, Sahm, & Thompson, 2004;Durgin & Li, 2011;Durgin, Li, & Hajnal, 2010;Hajnal, Abdul-Malak, & Durgin, 2011;Proffitt, Bhalla, Gossweiler, & Midgett, 1995;Proffitt, Creem & Zosh, 2001;Shaffer & Flint, 2011;Shaffer & McManama, 2015;Stefanucci, Proffitt, Clore, & Parekh, 2008;Witt & Proffitt, 2007). Much less work has been performed on people's perception of their own body orientation in the pitch dimension, and the results of some of this work are difficult to interpret. For instance, Cohen and Larson (1974) had participants adjust the pitch of their own body every 15°from a supine position to a prone position while restrained in a motorized hospital bed. They found systematic errors of underestimation of body tilt. For instance, when asked to place themselves at 15°backward from a vertical position, they placed themselves at 29°back-ward, and when asked to place themselves at 15°forward, they placed themselves at 23°forward. These errors were consistent but smaller as they moved in either direction in 15°increments from 15°to 60°, at which point there was almost no error. Of the studies to investigate pitch perception, this seems to be the only one where people underestimate pitch. We feel there are at least two reasons for this. First, participants were moved backward in 15°increments until they were prone, and then forward in 15°increments until they were in a supine position. They did this back and forth a total of eight times (four backward, four forward). Carryover effects from each previous estimate likely affected their subsequent estimate. Second, they were giving estimates of, say, 15°backward when they were either erect (straight up and down) o...

People verbally overestimate the orientation of slanted surfaces, but accurately estimate or underestimate slanted surfaces using a palm board. We demonstrate a fundamental issue that explains why the two different values typically given for palm board and verbal/visual matching estimates express similar perceptual representations of slanted surfaces. The fundamental problem in studies measuring palm board and verbal estimates is that the Bmeasure^-either (1) reproducing a verbally given angle or the orientation of a slanted surface with an unseen hand or (2) verbally or visually estimating a visually perceived surface-has always been confounded with the Bsurface^-either using (1) a palm board or (2) a hill or ramp. Although reproduction has exclusively been used with palm boards in these studies, at the same time verbal estimation or visual matching has exclusively been used with hills/ramps. In three experiments, we showed that verbally estimating palm board orientations produces overestimates by a factor of 1.5, whereas reproducing the orientation of the surface of a ramp to verbally given angles produces gains of~0.6. These values are similar to those seen for verbal overestimates of slanted surfaces, and to palm board gains for near surfaces and the relative palm-board-to-verbal gains for outdoor hills, respectively. Eliminating this confound eliminated the difference previously seen across surfaces. We discuss how and why different measures should produce different results if we overestimate slant in general and perceptually represent slant in the same way, both haptically and visually.Keywords Slant perception . Spatial orientation . Pitch For the last two decades, people have verbally overestimated the slant of visually perceived geographical, virtual, and manmade hills by between 5°and