8,136 research outputs found
Does the brain model Newton's laws?
No full textSupport was provided by the French space agency CNES, the Italian space agency ASI and the Italian Ministry of Health. We thank the NASA Flight Research Management Branch, the Lockheed Martin Space Operations Company, the Kinélite development team, the STS-90 astronauts (S. Altman, J. Buckey, A. Dunlap, K. Hire, R. Linnehan, C. Mukai, J. Pawelczyk, R. Searfoss, D. Williams) and M. Venet, A. Lee, D. McMahon, B. Marchiel, M. Pias, and F. Silvagnoli for development of the flight experiment; D. Angelini, M. Ehrette, P. Leboucher, P. Prévost and M. Zaoui for technical assistance; L. Amadio, M. Buderer, A. Guëll, O. Marsal and S. McCollum for program support; and D. Alais, M. Amorim, M. Carrozzo, J. Droulez, R. Grasso, Y. Ivanenko, J. Sanes, P. Senot and I. Viaud-Delmon for comments on the manuscript.Peer reviewe
General Correspondence; Mc, 1887-1896
No full textLetters to and from John M. Whitaker: people with surnames beginning with "Mc," (D. M. McAllister; Charles R. McBride; McIntyre, W. J.; Neil Macdonald; James McShields), 1887 - 189
Anticipating the effects of gravity when intercepting moving objects: Differentiating up and down based on nonvisual cues
No full textSenot, Patrice, Myrka Zago, Francesco Lacquaniti, and Joseph McIntyre. Anticipating the effects of gravity when intercepting moving objects: differentiating up and down based on nonvisual cues. J Neurophysiol 94:4471-4480,2005. First published August 24, 2005; doi:10.1152/jn.00527.2005. Intercepting an object requires a precise estimate of its time of arrival at the interception point ( time to contact or "TTC"). It has been proposed that knowledge about gravitational acceleration can be combined with first-order, visual-field information to provide a better estimate of TTC when catching falling objects. In this experiment, we investigated the relative role of visual and nonvisual information on motor-response timing in an interceptive task. Subjects were immersed in a stereoscopic virtual environment and asked to intercept with a virtual racket a ball falling from above or rising from below. The ball moved with different initial velocities and could accelerate, decelerate, or move at a constant speed. Depending on the direction of motion, the acceleration or deceleration of the ball could therefore be congruent or not with the acceleration that would be expected due to the force of gravity acting on the ball. Although the best success rate was observed for balls moving at a constant velocity, we systematically found a cross-effect of ball direction and acceleration on success rate and response timing. Racket motion was triggered on average 25 ms earlier when the ball fell from above than when it rose from below, whatever the ball's true acceleration. As visual-flow information was the same in both cases, this shift indicates an influence of the ball's direction relative to gravity on response timing, consistent with the anticipation of the effects of gravity on the flight of the ball
The year’s work in stylistics 2009
No full textAt a recent conference on the linguistics of English (ISLE, Freiburg, 2008) I was
surprised by the number of talks on topics that for me were clearly related to stylistics.
My surprise was not that stylistics papers should be so prevalent at a linguistics conference
but that the presenters of these papers seemed not to consider their work as primarily
stylistic in nature. Most positioned themselves as historical linguists or sociolinguists
and presented their work as contributions to historical linguistics and sociolinguistics
respectively, despite the fact that all of them were concerned with aspects of style. Along
with a number of PALA colleagues, I gave a paper in a dedicated stylistics strand, though
in retrospect it now seems that it would perhaps have been more valuable to have integrated
our explicitly stylistic papers into the conference generally; after all, the interest
in stylistics was clearly there, even if it was not designated as such
Senator James O. Eastland, Bill Brock; Thomas J. McIntyre; Edward M. Kennedy; Richard S. Schweiker; Edmund S. Muskie; Thomas F. Eagleton; Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.; Howard Baker; J. Glenn Beall; Lowell Weicker, Jr.; William D. Hathaway; Dale Bumpers; John A. Durkin; Stuart Symington; Clairborne Pell; Hugh Scott; Edward W. Brooke; Birch Bayh; Henry M. Jackson; John L. McClellan; Gaylord Nelson; Ted Stevens; Ernest F. Hollings; Robert Morgan; Jesse Helms; Dick Stone; & Jennings Randolph to President Gerald R. Ford, 27 Februray 1976
No full textCopy typed letter signed dated 27 February 1976 from Eastland; Bill Brock; Thomas J. McIntyre; Edward M. Kennedy; Richard S. Schweiker; Edmund S. Muskie; Thomas F. Eagleton; Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.; Howard Baker; J. Glenn Beall; Lowell Weicker, Jr.; William D. Hathaway; Dale Bumpers; John A. Durkin; Stuart Symington; Clairborne Pell; Hugh Scott; Edward W. Brooke; Birch Bayh; Henry M. Jackson; John L. McClellan; Gaylord Nelson; Ted Stevens; Ernest F. Hollings; Robert Morgan; Jesse Helms; Dick Stone; & Jennings Randolph to Ford, re: International Trade Commission, non-rubber footwear; 3 pages.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/joecorr_g/1064/thumbnail.jp
The Kinelite Project: a new powerful motion analyser for Spacelab and space station
No full textThe goal of the Kinelite Project is to develop a space qualified motion analysis system to be used in space by the scientific community, mainly to support neuroscience protocols. The measurement principle of the Kinelite is to determine, by triangulation mean, the 3D position of small, lightweight, reflective markers positioned at the different points of interest. The scene is illuminated by Infra Red flashes and the reflected light is acquired by up to 8 precalibrated and synchronized CCD cameras. The main characteristics of the system are: Camera field of view: 45 degrees; Number of cameras: 2 to 8; Acquisition frequency: 25, 50, 100, or 200 Hz; CCD format: 256 x 256; Number of markers: up to 64; 3D accuracy: 2mm; Main dimensions: 45 cm x 45 cm x 30 cm; Mass: 23 kg; Power consumption: less than 200 W. The Kinelite will first fly aboard the NASA Spacelab; it will be used, during the NEUROLAB mission (4/98), to support the "Frames of References and Internal Models" (Principal Investigator: Pr. A. Berthoz, Co Investigators: J. McIntyre, F. Lacquaniti)
The Meaning of McIntyre
No full textWhen certiorari was granted in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011), many hoped that the Supreme Court would provide much-needed clarification to the area of personal jurisdiction. It didn’t. The Court failed to generate a majority opinion, splitting into Justice Kennedy’s four-Justice plurality, Justice Breyer’s two-Justice concurrence, and Justice Ginsburg’s three-Justice dissent.
This essay – for the Southwestern Journal of International Law’s 2012 symposium “Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Procedure” – examines how state and federal courts have been using the McIntyre decision. Some lower court opinions have mistakenly interpreted McIntyre as establishing new constitutional restraints on state court exercises of personal jurisdiction, or as resolving previously open questions in favor of a more restrictive approach. These opinions misread the Justices’ opinions in McIntyre. In particular, there has been confusion about Justice Breyer’s concurrence, which explicitly disagreed with Justice Kennedy’s reasoning and was premised on a narrow understanding of the factual record in McIntyre. Many lower court decisions, however, correctly recognize that the fractured McIntyre decision does not mandate new constitutional restrictions on personal jurisdiction
The Lay of the Land: Examining the Three Opinions in J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro
No full textIt was a long time coming. The Supreme Court\u27s decisions last Term in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown ended a two-decade high-court hiatus from the subject of personal jurisdiction. In McIntyre, the more controversial of the two, the Court concludes that New Jersey state courts lacked jurisdiction over a British manufacturer in a suit by a New Jersey plaintiff who was injured in New Jersey by a machine purchased by his New Jersey employer. McIntyre lacks a majority opinion, however. Instead we have a four-Justice plurality authored by Justice Kennedy, a three-Justice dissent authored by Justice Ginsburg, and a scale-tipping concurrence written by Justice Breyer and joined by Justice Alito.
This article for the South Carolina Law Review\u27s symposium on McIntyre and Goodyear examines the three McIntyre opinions. It argues that McIntyre should not be read to impose significant new restraints on jurisdiction. Although there are aspects of Justice Kennedy\u27s plurality that suggest a more restrictive approach, Justice Breyer\u27s concurrence explicitly rejects Justice Kennedy\u27s reasoning. Justice Breyer does agree that jurisdiction was not proper in McIntyre, but that conclusion is premised on a very narrow understanding of the factual record. Correctly understood, Justice Breyer\u27s approach would allow jurisdiction in a similar case -- even one where only a single sale is ultimately made to an in-state purchaser -- provided the record is slightly more developed on the presence of potential customers in the forum state. In terms of the overarching legal principles, Justice Breyer\u27s concurrence has more in common with Justice Ginsburg\u27s dissent than Justice Kennedy\u27s plurality
Supplemental Material, SPPS762298_suppl_mat - Motivated Collective Defensiveness: Group Members Prioritize Counterarguing Out-Group Criticism Over Getting Their Work Done
No full textSupplemental Material, SPPS762298_suppl_mat for Motivated Collective Defensiveness: Group Members Prioritize Counterarguing Out-Group Criticism Over Getting Their Work Done by J. Lukas Thürmer, Sean M. McCrea, and Baylee M. McIntyre in Social Psychological and Personality Science</p
Theories and measurement of adaptive behavior.
No full textIn this chapter we will briefly present an overview of the history and evolution of the construct of adaptive behavior. We will discuss its role and relevance in the field of disabilities with a special emphasis on intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). We will focus on the role of adaptive behavior regarding the diagnosis, classification, and as an intervention outcome of different IDD conditions, including intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We will also present an overview of the best practices in conducting an evaluation of a person’s adaptive behavior (also called adaptive functioning; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as well as presenting the characteristics and psychometric properties of some of the major assessment instruments. Lastly, we will review and discuss the use of the adaptive behavior construct and measurement internationally
- …
