Citation

Kroll MW, Ritter MB, Perkins PE, Shams L, Andrews CJ. J. Emerg. Med. 2019; 56(5): e71-e79.

Affiliation

University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.01.013

PMID

30826083

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An electrical accident victim's recollection is often distorted by Bayesian inference in multisensory integration. For example, hearing the sound and seeing the bright flash of an electrical arc can create the false impression that someone had experienced an electrical shock. These subjects will often present to an emergency department seeking either treatment or reassurance. CASE REPORTS: We present seven cases in which the subjects were startled by an electrical shock (real or perceived) and injury was reported. Calculations of the current and path were used to allocate causality between the shock and a history of chronic disease or previous trauma. In all seven cases, our analysis suggests that no current was passed through the body. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Symptomology seen as corroborating may actually be confounding. Witness and survivor descriptions of electrical shocks are fraught with subjectivity and misunderstanding. Available current is usually irrelevant and overemphasized, such as stress on a 100-ampere welding source, which is orders of magnitude beyond lethal limits. History can also be biased for a number of reasons. Bayesian inference in multisensory perception can lead to a subject sincerely believing they had experienced an electrical shock. Determination of the current pathway and calculations of the amplitude and duration of the shock can be critical for understanding the limits and potential causation of electrical injury.

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Bayesian inference; electrical injury; electrical shock; low-voltage