Stephens R, Barker P
Ergonomics and Work Psychology Section, Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield, UK.
Occup Environ Med. 1998 Mar;55(3):210-4. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.3.210.
Psychological performance tests have been used since the mid-1960s in occupational and environmental health toxicology. The interpretation of significantly different test scores in neurobehavioural studies is not straightforward in the regulation of chemicals. This paper sets out some issues which emerged from discussions at an international workshop, organised by the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (HSE), to discuss differences in interpretation of human neurobehavioural test data in regulatory risk assessments. The difficulties encountered by regulators confronted with neurobehavioural studies seem to be twofold; some studies lack scientific rigor; other studies, although scientifically sound, are problematic because it is not clear what interpretation to place on the results. Issues relating to each of these points are discussed. Next, scenarios within which to consider the outcomes of neurobehavioural studies are presented. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for further work are put forward.
自20世纪60年代中期以来，心理性能测试已被用于职业和环境卫生毒理学领域。在化学品监管中，神经行为研究中显著不同的测试分数的解释并非易事。本文阐述了一些问题，这些问题源于英国健康与安全执行局（HSE）组织的一次国际研讨会的讨论，该研讨会旨在讨论监管风险评估中人类神经行为测试数据解释的差异。监管机构在面对神经行为研究时遇到的困难似乎有两方面；一些研究缺乏科学严谨性；其他研究虽然在科学上是合理的，但却存在问题，因为不清楚对结果应作何种解释。文中讨论了与上述各点相关的问题。接下来，介绍了考虑神经行为研究结果的各种情形。最后，提出了结论和进一步工作的建议。
