BackgroundBehavioral approaches are central to the preventive treatment of migraine but empirical evidence regarding efficacy and effectiveness is still sparse. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed migraine-specific, integrative cognitive-behavioral therapy program (miCBT) combining several approaches (trigger and stress management, coping with fear of attacks, relaxation training) by comparing it with a single behavioral approach (relaxation training, RLX) as an active control group and a waiting-list control group (WLC).MethodsIn a three-armed open-label randomized controlled trial, 121 adults with migraine were assigned to either miCBT, RLX or WLC. The outpatient group therapy (miCBT or RLX) consisted of seven sessions each 90 min. Participants who completed the WLC were subsequently randomized to one of the two treatment groups. Primary outcomes were headache days, headache-related disability, emotional distress, and self-efficacy. The baseline was compared to post-treatment, and followed by assessments 4- and 12-months post-treatment to compare miCBT and RLX.ResultsMixed-model analyses (intention-to-treat sample, 106 participants) showed significantly stronger pre-post improvements in self-efficacy (assessed by the Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale, HMSE-G-SF) in both treatment groups compared to the WLC (mean difference at post; miCBT: 4.67 [0.55–8.78], p = 0.027; RLX: 4.42 [0.38 to 8.46], p = 0.032), whereas no other significant between-group differences were observed. The follow-up analyses revealed significant within-group improvements from baseline to 12-month follow-up in all four primary outcomes for both treatments. However, between-group effects (miCBT vs. RLX) were not significant at follow-up.ConclusionThe miCBT has no better treatment effects compared to RLX in migraine-prophylaxis. Both treatments effectively increase patients' self-efficacy.Trial RegistrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de; DRKS-ID: DRKS00011111).

The vista paradox is the illusion in which an object seen through a window appears to shrink in apparent size (and appears farther away) as the observer approaches the window. Paradoxically, the distal object appears smaller as its visual angle increases. We investigated the effect in four experiments varying object size, distance, point of fixation, and texture of the frame and of the object. In the first experiment, we tried to confirm the illusion and to test the robustness of the phenomenon. In the second experiment, we manipulated where subjects fixated (on the frame or on the object) as well as the texture of the object and the frame. Fixation was essential for the illusion: fixating the frame led to an apparent shrinking of the object, whereas fixation on the object did not. Texture of the frame intensified the apparent shrinking of the object. In a third experiment, we separated the point of fixation from the frame in a between-subjects design. Finally, in Experiment 4, we showed that the paradox does not require a frame, but it requires a fixation on a location different from the object. That is, the window or frame is dispensable for the vista paradox, but fixation is critical.

With regard to impending object-object collisions, observers may use different sources of information to judge time to contact (tC). We introduced changes of the observer's vantage point to test among three sets of hypotheses: (1) Observers may use a distance-divided-by-velocity algorithm or, alternatively, elaborated τ-formulae, all of which give exact tC information; (2) observers may use simple τ-formulae (i.e., formulae of the type: visual angle divided by its own first temporal derivative); (3) observers may capitalize on non-τ variables. Hypotheses (2) and (3) imply specific patterns of errors. We presented animated, impending collisions between a moving object and a stationary pole to naïve observers. The moving object either was a square tile or a small dot of fixed size. Participants viewed these events in a prediction-motion paradigm from different vantage points, covering a full circle around the setting. As accuracy of responses varied sinusoidally with viewing angle, irrespective of the type of object used, we conclude that observers mainly responded to the perspective view of the gap between object and pole, and less to the object's changing visual angle, or τ. Results are discussed with regard to evolutionary demands and issues of generalization.

No abstract

No abstract