text:
EspañolOn Call 24/7 215-752-5282 Email Me
PA Criminal Defense and DUI Trial Attorney
Home » Driving Under the Influence » DUI Checkpoints
According to the latest statistics from the Pennsylvania State Police, state troopers made 18,801 arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) in 2015, a 6.2 percent increase from 2014. Significantly, the state police noted a 43 percent increase in the number of arrests for driving under the influence of drugs, also referred to as "drugged driving." The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation reported a 25 percent increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2016.
In response to the rising number of impaired drivers on Pennsylvania's roadways, state and local police departments have begun using more even aggressive strategies to reduce the number of individuals driving while under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances and other drugs. The penalties for a DUI conviction can be severe and may include mandatory jail time, loss of driving privileges and substantial fines and court costs.
DUI Checkpoint Enforcement in Pennsylvania
One of the strategies utilized by law enforcement officers involves the use of a DUI checkpoint, also known as a DUI roadblock. In Pennsylvania, a driver entering a DUI checkpoint will generally be subject to a vehicle stop, questioning by law enforcement and, in some cases, field sobriety testing and an eventual arrest for DUI. It is critical that you understand your constitutional rights if you have been subjected to a DUI checkpoint arrest.
Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint Guidelines
State and local police must conduct DUI checkpoints according to court-mandated rules and procedures. Law enforcement officers who break these rules can be found in violation of a motorist's federal and state constitutional rights. I can evaluate the facts and circumstances of your case to determine whether the state or local police conducted the DUI checkpoint according to the legal guidelines.
Bucks County DUI Checkpoint Lawyer
I have over a decade of experience providing skilled and aggressive representation to individuals charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Bucks County, Montgomery County and the surrounding counties. Contact me at (215) 752-5282 for a free initial consultation or fill out the confidential contact form for an immediate response. Appointments are available after business hours and on weekends.
Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoints
State and local police typically conduct DUI checkpoints late at night or early in the morning at locations where the police believe they will find a higher-than-average number of impaired drivers. Law enforcement officers often schedule DUI checkpoints on holidays and weekends to encounter drivers returning from bars, restaurants or holiday parties.
Initial Police Contact at the DUI Checkpoint
Drivers entering a DUI checkpoint will be briefly detained by the police and asked to provide their driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. During this initial contact, the police will observe the inside of the vehicle for the presence of alcoholic beverages, drugs or drug paraphernalia. In some cases, the police will document the smell of alcohol or marijuana. The police will observe the driver for signs of impairment, including watery, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, the odor of alcohol on their breath and difficulty producing the required documents.
Field Sobriety Testing at the DUI Checkpoint
Drivers who do not display signs of impairment can leave without additional delay. Drivers suspected of impairment will be asked to complete field sobriety tests at a designated area away from the initial stop. Law enforcement officers may ask the driver to complete field sobriety tests including the walk and turn, finger-to-nose, one-legged stand or Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) examination. Drivers who cannot complete the field sobriety tests may be asked to submit to chemical testing of their blood, breath or urine to determine their blood alcohol level.
Search and Seizure Issues Involving a Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint
DUI roadblocks and checkpoints involve both searches and seizures and, thus, trigger the protections of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania State Constitution. Both the United States Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have ruled that DUI checkpoints are legal if law enforcement officers follow specific procedures and protocols. I can review the circumstances of your DUI checkpoint arrest to determine whether the police conducted the investigation and arrest according to the law.
In the 1992 case of Pennsylvania v. Blouse, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court outlined guidelines that state and local law enforcement officers must follow for a DUI checkpoint to constitutional. In a trial involving a DUI checkpoint arrest, the prosecutor must prove that the police complied with all of the requirements of Blouse. If the police did not follow these guidelines, the trial court may suppress the evidence obtained by the police as a result of the DUI checkpoint arrest. That evidence may include the officer's observations of driver's performance during field sobriety tests and any chemical test results obtained by the police after the arrest.
Legal Requirements for a Valid Pennsylvania DUI Checkpoint
According to Blouse, a DUI checkpoint must comply with the following rules and procedures:
Length of the Vehicle Stop Must be Brief
Any vehicle stops occurring because of a DUI checkpoint must be brief and may not involve a physical search of the vehicle's driver or passengers. State and local police are permitted to ask the driver to produce his or her driver's license, registration and insurance and answer a few questions. The police officer must wave through, without delay, those drivers who do not display signs of impairment.
Sufficient Warning of the DUI Checkpoint
The DUI checkpoint must be clearly identifiable, and drivers must receive sufficient notice of the checkpoint, typically through visible signage, flashing lights or marked police vehicles. Law enforcement officials should provide notice of the DUI checkpoint through the local media, including newspapers and the internet.
Prior Administrative Approval of the DUI Checkpoint
The decision to conduct a DUI checkpoint must be made by law enforcement officials acting in an administrative or managerial capacity. Patrol or field officers may not set up a DUI checkpoint without approval from a qualified supervisor.
DUI Checkpoint Location
The DUI checkpoint location and hours of operation must be based on local, verifiable information indicating that a higher-than-average number of impaired drivers would likely travel through this area during this particular time frame. To try to satisfy this requirement, state and local police often rely on statistical reports and other data indicating increased cases of DUI-related accidents and arrests during a specific time-frame at a particular location.
Predetermined and Objective Standard for Vehicle Stops
State and local police must use neutral, predetermined, administratively approved standards in deciding which vehicles to stop at the DUI checkpoint. For example, law enforcement may stop all vehicles, or may choose to stop every fifth vehicle. Police officers are not permitted to conduct vehicle stops based on a vehicle's make, model or year, or a driver's age, gender or ethnicity.
DUI Checkpoint Defense
I will thoroughly protocols and procedures used by the police to conduct the DUI checkpoint in your case. I will file a Motion to Suppress Evidence in cases where the police have violated a driver's federal and state constitutional rights as a result of a DUI checkpoint arrest. In a suppression hearing held before trial, the prosecutor has the burden of establishing the DUI checkpoint's constitutionality. The court may exclude evidence DUI checkpoint arrest if it is established that the police violated any of the DUI checkpoint guidelines.
Challenging the DUI Checkpoint Location
I will thoroughly investigate the legality of every aspect of the DUI checkpoint, including whether law enforcement had sufficient reports, statistics or other data to support its decision to approve a DUI checkpoint in a particular location at a certain time. Through the discovery process or through the service of a subpoena, I can obtain the information that law enforcement officials relied on during the decision-making process.
In some cases, the police will not be able to provide sufficient evidence of DUI arrests, accidents or other statistics at a specific location to justify the approval of the checkpoint. This will often lead the court to issue a ruling suppressing the evidence related to the arrest. A successful ruling for the defense at the conclusion of a Motion to Suppress Evidence hearing will generally result in a withdrawal or dismissal of the DUI charges against the accused.
Challenging the Administrative Approval of the DUI Checkpoint
I will also investigate whether the police followed the proper legal guidelines in notifying the public about the checkpoint and whether an appropriate supervisory or managerial police officer approved the checkpoint location and hours. I will also review the process used by the police to make the initial contact with motorists at the DUI checkpoint as well as the standards applied by the police to decide which motorists would be subject to sobriety testing, chemical testing and arrest.
Challenging the Breath Testing Procedures
I will verify the accuracy and calibration of any breathalyzer devices used at the DUI checkpoint or after the DUI arrest. In Pennsylvania, breath test operators must be certified and must conduct breath testing according to specifically defined procedures. Additionally, I will review the facts and circumstances of your case to analyze the legality of any other DUI chemical testing procedures used in your case.
Start with a Strong Defense
If you have been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Bucks County, Montgomery County or the surrounding counties, you must act quickly to protect your rights and build the strongest possible defense against the charges. Phone lines are open 24 hours a day at (215) 752-5282. Call today for a free initial consultation or fill out the confidential contact form for an immediate response.
Contact Me For a Free Evaluation
Bucks County Office
174 Middletown Blvd. Suite 300
Langhorne , PA 19047
Payment Plans Available | Pay Online Now
Keith E. McAndrews, Attorney at Law is located in Fairless Hills, PA and serves clients in and around Abington, Ambler, Bedminster, Bensalem, Blue Bell, Bristol, Bryn Athyn, Buckingham, Chalfont, Cheltenham, Croydon, Doylestown, Elkins Park, Fallsington, Falls Township, Feasterville, Glenside, Hatboro, Horsham, Hulmeville, Huntingdon Valley, Ivyland, Jamison, Jenkintown, Langhorne, Levittown, Lower Makefield, Lower Moreland, Middletown, Montgomeryville, Morrisville, New Britain, New Hope, Newtown, Norristown, Northampton, North Wales, Perkasie, Plumstead, Quakertown, Richboro, Sellersville, Southampton, Trevose, Tullytown, Upper Dublin, Upper Makefield, Upper Moreland, Warrington, Warminster, Willow Grove, Yardley, Bucks County and Montgomery County.
© 2020 Keith E. McAndrews, Attorney at Law. All rights reserved.
WordPress Design and Development by Expanding Designs
Sitemap | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Payment Portal


The instance 15 variations & fugue in E flat op. 35, "Eroica" ; : 6 variations in F, op. 34 ; Rondo in C, op. 51, no. 1 ; Rondo in G, op. 51, no. 2 ; Für Elise, Beethoven represents a material embodiment of a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in Boston University Libraries. This resource is a combination of several types including: Instance, Electronic, Sound Recording.


text:
Opinion Yusimi Rodriguez
Ten Million and Forty Years Later
August 16, 2010 November 3, 2010 Circles Robinson	14 Comments
By Yusimi Rodriguez, photos: Bill Hackwell
Taking the harvest to the mill. Mario Munoz Sugar Refinery, Matanzas, Cuba
HAVANA TIMES, August 16 – On the last Thursday of every month, issues of the country's history and present are discussed and debated. These gatherings are held at the Cuban Film Institute Center (ICAIC) known as "Strawberry and Chocolate," which is located in the corner of 23rd and 12th streets in Havana's Vedado district. On Thursday, July 29, I attended one of these "Last Thursday Forums" for the first time.
First, a panel of specialists on the issue at hand gives a presentation, and then people in the audience pose questions or express their opinions. After this input the panelists respond. Though this forum is not promoted in the mass media, nor is it censored.
Attending regularly are intellectuals, writers and artists, as well as anyone who wants to participate, since admission is free. The topic of the forum that I attended was "The Harvest of Ten Million."
Cane cutter.
That discussion took its name from the Cuban sugarcane harvest of 1970, when an effort was made to produce ten million tons of sugar. This goal was not reached and the harvest was a failure, though at the same time it was the biggest harvest in the history of our country – but at what price?
Discussing the failed campaign
The panel consisted of planner Selma Diaz; economist Julio Diaz Vazquez, a member of the National Institute of Land Reform in 1970; and the sociologist Juan Valdes Paz. They covered the carrying out the harvest and how cane was sowed anywhere and everywhere, even to the point of moving cattle off grazing land to devote more fields to planting, which strongly effected the agricultural and livestock industries.
Due to the resource allocation problems in sugar refineries, the shortage of qualified personnel and limited time to make the necessary adjustments, some government ministers even wound up managing refineries. When it came time to actually cut the cane, it was necessary to mobilize the whole country. Though lacking experience in this work, workers from all industries, students and even the members of the armed forces were called on to assist in a campaign that distorted the Cuban economy.
One person in the audience who spoke in the debate was 14 years old in 1970, but even at that age they went to cut cane. Their inexperience in this type of work led to getting cut with a machete. Nonetheless, this was not their bone of contention; instead, it was the fact that —as opposed to the point of view of historians, economists or politicians— there doesn't exist a work that describes the harvest of 1970 from the perspective of those who directly experienced and suffered it.
Sewing sugar sacks.
The train in which this person traveled to cut cane was routed along a preferential railroad line so they arrived at their destination in a little more than one day. To return home, a bunch of oranges was the provision for each one of those passengers on the train, which —no longer having a preferred route— took three days to reach Havana; the bags of oranges lasted one. They returned tired, hungry and without knowing the outcome of the harvest, the result of their effort.
Even if the ten million tons had been reached, would that have compensated all the effort and the sacrifice, or all the resources that were devoted to the harvest? Before attending this forum, I had heard that during those months classes had closed and even the night schools were shut down. The rest of the industries in the country were practically paralyzed. People who participated in the debate and had lived during that time only confirmed these facts to me.
Pyrrhus of Epirus, one of the greatest military leaders in history, conquered the Romans in the battle of Asculum; however he lost 3,505 soldiers against the less than 6,000 Romans who fell. When his was congratulated for his victory he responded, "With another such victory I shall be ruined." The harvest of 1970 didn't end up being a pyrrhic victory – it was worse. It was a pyrrhic defeat because the ten million tons were not reached and the cost was that the harvest lasted longer than normal, land was left devastated, and agriculture and cattle breeding suffered damage from which the country has never totally recovered.
Revelations around the fateful decision
How is it possible that the ten million ton goal was not achieved despite the massive labor force that was dedicated to cutting cane, despite the enthusiasm with which the Cuban people took on that task, and their unbridled confidence that it was possible to achieve it?
Sugar train. Mario Munoz Sugar Refinery, Matanzas
I've known people who worked in the harvest and they've told me that when they participated they were convinced that they were building the economic future of the country. It was the moment for each to make a sacrifice for a prosperous tomorrow in which shortages would never again exist. Now I find that naïve, though I look at them with respect. I'm sure that if it had been possible to produce the ten million tons of sugar, if it had only depended on the effort of the Cuban people, it would have been accomplished.
Many cried when it was announced that the ten million would not be achieved. At that moment, the immense majority of people ignored the fact that our leader, Commander-in-chief Fidel Castro, had been alerted that the goal of ten million was impossible. Over the years I heard rumors and speculation of this in different versions: "An engineer warned him," "a French economist alerted him," "the Russians told him."
Mario Munoz Sugar Mill
On Thursday, July 29, the "Last Thursday Forum" was focused on learning the truth about this matter. Any other information would be interesting, especially from the mouths of those who were involved in the harvest. But what I wanted to know was if the country's leadership —more specifically, our leader— knew ahead of time that it was not possible to reach the ten million ton figure.
Selma Diaz related that she had been part of the group in charge of analyzing the capacity of the country's sugar refineries to achieve a harvest of ten million tons. That analysis began starting with the mid-1960s. When that commission met with our commander-in-chief, they told him that it was only possible to produce 8.5 million tons. He said that it should be nine, and when they met again he increased the figure to ten.
Consequences of being closed to criticism
Rumors are hardly ever groundless. I'm sure that all of us present at 23rd & 12th had heard that the person responsible for establishing that impossible goal had been Fidel Castro, but we wanted to hear it from the experts. We needed to hear it said aloud in an official setting, or at least in one that up until then had not been censored. A secret in hushed voices is not the same thing as a truth stated in public. The novelty was not the information in and of itself, but in the fact of hearing it directly, in public and from the mouth of someone who was involved in the event.
Sugar refinery worker.
I told this to a friend at the beginning of last week. I was dying to tell it to someone and I did it with the air of someone who had a scoop, because although she must have heard the same rumors as me all her life, she hadn't attended the forum.
My friend is 59. I found out her exact age that day and also that her father had worked in the sugar industry for many years prior to the victory of the Revolution. In 1970 he had enough experience to know that it was impossible to produce ten million tons of sugar. As the true revolutionary he was, he tried to alert people in a meeting at his workplace that this goal could not be achieved. That cost him his membership card in the Communist Party of Cuba.
As his daughter, my friend told me that he didn't have to wait long for time to prove him right. Though he had been recognized as being among a "national vanguard worker" for many years (thanks to which my friend got to go to a house at the Varadero beach resort every year), they didn't return her father's Party card to him until he was much older.
I don't think I would have accepted it. I wouldn't want to be member of an organization that I couldn't question if it were acting in a way that appeared to be wrong and in which I couldn't express an opinion that contradicted the official line.
Moreover, that is not only a situation of the past. Recently, Esteban Morales was "separated" from the Communist Party of Cuba for publishing a letter with criticisms and matters that were not received well by the leadership of the Party. While they ceaselessly repeat that "Revolution is to change everything that must be changed," according to the "Concept of Revolution" voiced by comrade Fidel Castro in 2000, they continue applying the same policies.
Continued counterproductive whitewashing
For me, what was most paradoxical on Thursday, July 29, was the cover of the official Granma newspaper that day. For months, the newspaper has been publishing fragments of old speeches by the Commander-in-chief with the clear intention of demonstrating to us the present validity of his ideas from those times. If now it's necessary to eliminate many jobs across the country, for example, they show us on the cover of Granma an excerpt of a speech by the Commandant from thirty or forty years ago criticizing excessive staffing (despite the fact that this has existed in our country ever since that time).
Reading these excerpts in Granma, you have to ask yourself how it's possible that we've faced and continued to face so many problems about which our leader has warned us in the past. It turns out that our official press continues to highlight the role of the leader and recalls his successes. His errors though are orphaned and enunciated in passive voice ("it was not foreseen," "it was not planned," "it was not understood") or wrapped in an "us," which makes us all responsible for the errors of a single person.
The fragment that I read in the Thursday July 29 edition of Granma in fact recalled his speech from September 3, 1970, from the same year as the harvest that constituted such a tremendous failure.
But in the excerpt, Fidel called people's attention to a minority of people who effectively exploited the general public because they didn't work yet enjoyed public resources. "When the inhuman factors disappear that previously forced people to work, the alternative of this is the maximum development of collective consciousness and the employment of a coercive force of working society against those who aspire to live parasitically off of others… "
I wonder what that use of coercive force would consist of exactly. But I especially wonder whether the ten million tons of sugar would have been achieved if those "parasites" had been incorporated in cutting sugar cane? Were they the ones responsible for the failure of the harvest and the country's subsequent economic problems? In that harvest, the refineries couldn't process all of the cane that was cut. But while people's attention was diverted toward those people who didn't work, they didn't have time to reflect on the errors made by the highest leadership of the country.
← The Loneliness of the Grey Buildings
Pres. El Salvador Confirms Cuba Visit →
14 thoughts on "Ten Million and Forty Years Later"
Michael N. Landis
If you contrast Cuba with surrounding 3rd World nations, Hubert and Julio, you will see that many in the younger generations there–Mexico, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, Guatemala, San Salvadore, Honduras, etc.– cannot make any economic progress in their respective homelands and are migrating, often illegally, to the United States. This is so much the case that often a major part of growth, at least outside the capital cities and other major metropolitan areas, is the fact that these immigrants remit USD$ home. Also, whenever the majority of folks in these nations vote for candidates whose programs coincide with their economic interests, rather than those of the rulling classes, then these elections are stolen (as was the case in Mexico in the early 2000's), or the ruling classes pull an outright coup (as was the case recently in Honduras). Not that two or three–or a dozen–wrongs make a right (i.e. justify the Cuban government's continuing to sit on its hands, rather than addressing its own pressing economic, social and political issues), but just to bring some contrast and focus between Cuba and the rest of the region. Finally, any shrewd observer will see that democracy in America is more and more becoming a myth. Just as in the late Roman Republic, wealth and power have come ever more to dominate our own political processes.
Julio de la Yncera
Could you please explain in more detail what you mean by this
"Just look at the immorale way stock markets gamble with wheat prices and deny third world consumers access to affordable food sources"
I like to understand what you mean so that I can properly answer you.
Hubert Gieschen
Julio,
with me you are knocking on many open doors here. However, I am a socialist (one that believes socialism can never mean one-party-state!) Where we have to agree to disagree is that clearly there is massive exploitation in capitalism both on a national and a global scale. Just look at the immorale way stock markets gamble with wheat prices and deny third world consumers access to affordable food sources
Willie Rosario – Song of the Day
Contrasts of My Havana – Photo of the Day
Human Misery on Display in Cuba
Havana Weather for January 14-20
Nicaraguans Wanting to Travel "Pay Through the Nose"
What's to Learn in Cuba from Poland's Example
The Many Challenges Awaiting Cubans in 2021
Stroll by the Lake – Photo of the Day

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
At the 500-student Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse, a Detroit charter school, administrators are combating student stress with the relaxation technique known as Transcendental Meditation.
"Children have a lot of stress," said Principal Carmen N'Namdi, who founded the school. "Kids used to feel that they lived in a safe world, but now [they] have access to information only adults used to know."
The constant bombardment of news and information can put pressure on students, she notes. "Today, you know everything about politicians, from their personal lives to their flaws," she said. "We saw the war [in Iraq] on TV. Now, imagine being 7."
Students also feel pressure from parental expectations, according to Ms. N'Namdi. Many busy parents, she contends, need their children to achieve certain things to prove to themselves that they're good parents.
The school, which began its meditation program in 1997, allows students 10 minutes of meditation time twice a day to help them relax. Transcendental Meditation is a nonreligious technique in which a person meditates using a "mantra," or special word-sound, that only he or she knows. The practice originated in India in 1957 and was developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Some parents have reservations about the technique, Ms. N'Namdi said, because they believe it has religious implications. But the principal, who has been practicing the method for 30 years herself, said it is designed only to help the body to rest.
A recent study of the technique at the school, in fact, found a "significantly higher elevation in positive emotional state" among meditating students. The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan.
"[Students] have to prepare for a world that has access to them 24/7," said Ms. N'Namdi. "They are going to have to be able to balance themselves and rest."
—Marianne D. Hurst
Published in Print: June 18, 2003, as Take Note


text:
A coronal mass ejection, as seen by a NASA satellite in June 2011.
Photograph courtesy NASA/SDO
New "Sunquake" Trigger Found: Huge Solar Belches
Coronal mass ejections join solar flares as quake sources, study says.
ByDave Mosherfor National Geographic News
Powerful earthquake-like events on the sun's surface, called sunquakes, can be set off by huge belches of charged particles from the solar atmosphere, scientists say.
Researchers had previously linked sunquakes to solar flares, eruptions on the sun that can send powerful bursts of x-rays, ultraviolet light, and matter into space. (See video: "Solar Flares Cause 'Sunquakes.'")
On February 15, 2011, researchers spied two sunquakes and a solar flare that occurred around the same time—but the flare wasn't hot enough to have spawned the seismic waves.
"The heat and radiation from solar flares is thought to drive a pressure wave to the surface, like thunder from a lightning bolt. But for this February 15th event, it wasn't like that," said Sergei Zharkov, a space scientist at University College London, who presented the new findings about sunquakes last month at the 2012 National Astronomy Meeting in Manchester, U.K.
Instead it appears the February sunquakes were linked to a coronal mass ejection, or CME, a huge cloud of charged solar particles that erupted from the sun's upper atmosphere.
(Related: "'Dark Fireworks' Seen on Sun—Blast as Big as Ten Earths.")
"This is the first time we've seen a sunquake associated with a coronal mass ejection," Zharkov said. "It's the first clear counterexample."
Sunquakes Pack Powerful Punches
Solar researchers in 1972 predicted the existence of sunquakes, which look like the circular ripples on a pond's surface after someone tosses in a stone.
It wasn't until 1998, however, that a team of scientists announced the first observed sunquake, found in 1996 data from NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. The 11.3-magnitude sunquake occurred following a solar flare, and it was 40,000 times more powerful than the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
(See before-and-after pictures of the historic San Francisco quake.)
Zharkov and his team measured February 2011's set of sunquakes as each being a thousand times more energetic than last year's Tohoku earthquake in east Japan.
(Related: "Japan Earthquake Vibrations Nearly Reached Space.")
But instead of coming from a flare, the new sunquakes seemed to emanate from the ends of a contorted magnetic rope connected to the sun's surface, also the source of the observed CME.
Zharkov and colleagues' new observations suggest that several other forces—not just hot pressure from a solar flare—might trigger the sun's seismic events.
"One possibility is that jets of particles from coronal mass ejections might push the solar atmosphere down and cause sunquakes," Zharkov said.
Another theory is that piled-up magnetic field lines might send acoustic waves rippling through the sun's atmosphere. When these waves impact the solar surface and subsurface, the thinking goes, the reverberations could trigger sunquakes.
"At this point," Zharkov said, "we don't understand the mechanics [behind sunquakes]. The exact physical processes remain a mystery."
Sun Giving Us "Beautiful Data"
To wrestle the unknowns, Zharkov needs to see more sunquakes and gather additional data.
The good news for researchers such as Zharkov is that the sun is close to its 2013 solar maximum—the peak of a roughly 11-year cycle in solar activity. (Also see "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
In addition, more and better sun-monitoring satellites are in place now than ever before.
The "most beautiful data," Zharkov said, comes from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), which launched in 2010. That spacecraft will provide the best views yet of increasingly common sunquakes, he said.
"These sunquakes," Zharkov said, "are part of the puzzle of flares and coronal mass ejections, which have the most direct impact on space weather" that can disrupt satellites and cause auroras.
Zharkov's ultimate dream is to use sunquakes to "see" inside the sun, in much the same way seismologists use earthquakes to probe inside our planet.
"Sunquakes travel through the solar interior and contain some info about it," he said. "We'd like to capture that information to see below the sun's surface."


The Lake Zone is managed by the Lake Zonal Manager. The zonal manager provide services through the following regions;- Mwanza, Kagera, Mara, Geita Simiyu and Shinyanga. The main duties/ Obligations is to coordinate the administrative activities and to solicit jobs within the zone on behalf of the agency.


Thank you for shopping with 718Closeouts!!
EXCELLENT buyer, PROMPT payment, VALUED customer, HIGHLY recommended, A+++!!!
Nordic is the best in fish oil, A lot better then krill oil,free of toxins and has higher amounts EPA ans DHA. Krill oil has smaller amounts. Have been using for years. most Drs, also use this product.


This week on "In My Own Words," Glenn Epps spoke with Caleb Thomas, a local muralist and graffiti artist who co-founded Ithaca Murals, a group that connects local artists and muralists with surfaces to paint on. Thomas shares how Ithaca Murals came to be — as an advocate for social justice and equity, a promoter of town pride and beautification, and a pipeline for public discourse. On the topic of public discourse through art, the two discuss the messages of solicited (murals) and unsolicited (graffiti) art in public spaces.
If you have any questions or comments about this or any other "In My Own Words," please contact Glenn Epps @glenn_epps_ on Twitter or by email gepps@ithaca.edu.
While sculptures and murals decorate the Ithaca community, splashes of graffiti hide behind brick buildings and beneath layers of paint, waiting for a chance to join the display.


text:
2020 Resolution: Stand Up to Cultural Bullies; Stand Your Ground for What Is Right
12.19.2019 | Commentary | Daily Surge |
Surge Summary: As we enter a new year, more than ever, it is time for clear-thinking defenders of righteousness to stand up to the cultural bullies in America – especially the LGBTQ bullies. Many are buckling and attempting to appease the other side. That's a mistake. Not answering "evil with evil", but standing our ground for what is true.
by Mission America
Who are the real bigots and bullies in America today? We all know the answer. The body count is piling up of those who've capitulated to sexual rebel demands. And it's not because these folks occupy the high moral ground.
Corporations, schools, politicians and everyday moms and dads give in to the "LGBT" bullies mostly out of fear. Chick Fil A and Hallmark are the latest prominent examples of appeasement as once family-friendly companies attempt to buy off this mob.
It won't work and now both face boycott actions by their largest audience—conservative Christians. This is the face of corporate stupidity.
And then there's the unjust and unfair "Fairness for All Act" sponsored by a few congressional Republicans. There must be big "LGBT" donors lurking somewhere, because H.R. 5331 is an obvious dead-end mistake that will only serve to alienate GOP voters.
So how do you deal effectively with bullies?
Stand up to them. And we need more standing in 2020.
As Christians, this does not mean we answer evil for evil, but we do stand our ground, especially to protect the innocent. And even though everyone would like to ignore it, a growing sexual corruption coalition is aggressively pursuing children in schools, libraries, and online.
But be prepared, because confronting these extremists is not always easy.
Let me tell you about Lynn Meagher. I interviewed this Seattle-area mom on my radio show recently, and Hallmark, Chick Fil A and the GOP sponsors of the so-called "Fairness Act" should take note here of what the "LGBT" movement really is all about. Lynn shared her shocking discovery that high-risk sexual behavior and gender deviance were being promoted to children at a "Teen Pride" event targeting youth ages 9 to 19 at her local taxpayer-funded library.
When will Hallmark feature a movie about this?
Even though Lynn and several friends observed the event and documented it on video, they did so peacefully but were eventually escorted out of the library by police, accused of "criminal trespass." That happened in June. Her videos of the event went viral.
Moms who uncover the obscene truth are considered the threat, not the depraved gyrations of the "drag queen" who performed for young children at the library. Nor the pornographic, medically-risky information given out to pre-teens and teens. More on that later.
Following that Renton, WA event and in another recent situation, Meagher has been targeted and harassed both online and in person by a coalition including Antifa members.
Lynn is an accidental activist, now the founder of a network of moms called "A.S.K. Moms (Against Sexualizing Kids)." She never intended to become an avid spokeswoman exposing this anti-child movement. But circumstances and God's conviction can raise people up for such a time as this, despite the doxing, targeting and persecution the "LGBT" mob unleashes.
She told me she has "nothing left to lose" because two of her three adult children have embraced an opposite sex identity, including hormones and surgery. First her son, now in his thirties, declared his intention to live as a woman, and years later his younger sister began calling herself a male. Because Lynn did not affirm these decisions, even though she still expressed her maternal love for them, they and a younger sibling have cut off communication.
Hers is a determined attempt to warn other families and confront those drawing vulnerable minors into these behaviors. A poignant article about the toll the "trans cult" has taken on her family was published earlier this year in The Christian Post.
What Lynn found at the Renton library was truly shocking, and it's why the police were called. A common weapon is often deployed by radicals when they are caught– accusing concerned families of being "unsafe" while they proceed to molest the minds, hearts and sometimes, bodies of impressionable kids.
At the Renton library, chest-binders for girls were being raffled off for confused teen girls wanting to appear masculine. Who could possibly believe it's "progressive" to encourage girls to permanently damage developing breasts while restricting breathing and causing lung complications? Are we regressing to the days of Scarlett O'Hara again?
But the irresponsible child destruction didn't end there. On library display tables were free condoms, lubricant and penis-shaped bookmarks. And then Lynn noticed material promoting "PrEP" medication. This is short for "pre-exposure prophylaxis." The drug Truvada is now being pushed by public health entities all over the country to "males who are sexually active with other males" in an effort to prevent HIV.
That's because the health profession resists what actually works. There's little use of the "A" word— abstinence.
Lynn asked a young fellow at the table why this was offered to teens.
The answer was stunning. There is apparently a program in Washington State promoting this medication to young males. Lynn wanted to know about parental knowledge or permission. Not needed, was the answer, and there's even an educational program for better "access" led by PrEP "navigators"—those who steer kids around their parents while finding a medical provider.
She asked, what age male would qualify for this drug. The answer— "77 pounds." That's the weight of an average 10 or 11- year-old boy.
This is consistent with guidelines given by an organization funded with a grant from HHS. The FDA in 2018 approved use of PrEP as a prevention drug for those who weigh at least 77 pounds.
A boy this age having sexual encounters with other males? Why is there a federal/state drug program to enable statutory rape?
Meagher recognizes the danger these radicals pose to families. Their fascist tactics of terror, intimidation and denial of free expression targeted Lynn Meagher's scheduled speech to a small Tacoma Republican group in November. About twenty people were expected at a restaurant where the group regularly met. But a local "LGBT" group posted notices on social media and the restaurant was inundated with hateful calls and emails, including a threat to burn the facility down. The restaurant eventually caved under the pressure, and told the Republicans to meet elsewhere.
When the meeting moved to a pizza café, the hateful stalkers followed them. The group then left that restaurant for a third, where they were targeted once again by the supporters of "tolerance."
Meagher told me that one of the group who uses a wheelchair was followed on the bus home by an Antifa member and after exiting the bus, confronted again.
Despite this treatment, Lynn's commitment is solid. She will press on.
Now you are thinking, these stories do not make me want to stand up to these bullies. But you know what? God is still in control and He equips us to do the work needed.
How do we deal with bullies? We don't cave to their intimidation. Support the boycott of Hallmark by AFA, for instance.
Let's keep exposing the danger to our children, and support the courageous among us like Lynn Meagher.
Hopefully, many more will rise up in the coming year.
Image: Adapted from: John Hain from Pixabay
← Previous Story Prodigal Son vs. the Elder Brother? Neither One Is the Way to God
Next Story → Awkward: Chinese Diplomats Expelled from America; Chinese Government Not Happy
Iran Wants You To Love This Axe-Wielding Crusader Against ISIS
Limbaugh: Trump Turns the War on Women Around on the Clintons–Democrats Are Panicking
BREAKING: ISIS Burns Jordanian Pilot Alive (VIDEO)
Clint Eastwood Blasts The "Pussy Generation" In Epic Rant
John Brennan Changing His Story, Fearful of Being Indicted for Staging Anti-Trump 'Coup'?
How Martin Luther King, Jr. Changed Hearts — One at a Time, Across Society
Sharyl Attkisson Blasts Media's Fast And Furious Coverage: "We Should All Be Embarrassed"
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Millennials Are Dying Their Hair GRAY


text:
The MiscRisk project intends to prevent harmful behaviors and misconduct in entrepreneurship. According to the literature, it is widely accepted that entrepreneurship may have destructive features. Such features may create harm (or externalities) on several levels, creating a great number of victims among stakeholders, consumers and the public.
This research project has as main objectives the analyses of the risk factors involved in misconduct in entrepreneurship and the production of i) a multidimensional risk assessment tool to be applied in the early stages of incubation processes (MES – Misconduct in Entrepreneurship Scale) and ii) the production of sets of guidelines resulting from the assessment, to be delivered to the incubators at the beginning of each batch.
Thus, the research project will be structured in 3 main phases.
3 years (2022)
The development of the Misconduct in Entrepreneurship Scale includes a qualitative and a quantitative study. Following standard guidelines for scale development, the first stage consists in focus groups with entrepreneurs, investors and other relevant stakeholders (such as program managers). In order to undertake this task, a series of focus groups (in Portugal) with entrepreneurs and investors (separate groups for each of the segments) is conducted. The script explores the types of behaviors that investors and startup founders met along their careers and that, although not strictly illegal, have the potential of being considered misconduct. The data collected at this stage is analyzed through a Grounded Analysis approach, with the aid of corresponding software, such as NVivo
Phase two consists in the development of the Risk for Misconduct in Entrepreneurship Assessment tool. General guidelines suggested by criminal recidivism risk assessment, combining personality, attitudes, social norms and previous misconduct behaviour assessments, are combined with perceived opportunities for
misconduct. The elements that are successfully admitted to incubation periods will be followed up during the length of the program (usually 4 to 6 months). The follow up analysis in month 6 will allow
the analysis of the predictive ability of the instrument (and analyze the possibility of dropping items/dimensions). A final assessment point relates to the objective success of entrepreneurs during and post-incubation stage.
This stage will allow us to understand, in a complex manner, the extent to which a combination of situational (such as descriptive or prescriptive norms related to misconduct) and the personality aspects of the entrepreneurs
combine in determining the emergence of misconduct/contribution towards success, and delineate, in an exploratory manner a set of conditional guidelines to be presented to incubators.
In addition, each entrepreneur will be followed up 6 months after the end of the incubation period, in order to analyze the stability and longer term predictive ability of the risk factors
identified.
The final stage of the project has an exploratory/applied purpose. Based on the knowledge gained from phases 1 and 2, a tool is developed to perform on a case by case basis, an assessment of the normative, pro-misconduct aspects of each incubation program, and combine them with the personal characteristics of attending entrepreneurs to produce a set of guidelines for each program. The guidebook has the general form of an initial assessment of the risk factors for each candidate, along with an empirically determined probability of misconduct, plus an overshot of the main situational aspects that characterize the incubator/batch. This program will be delivered to the partner incubators and a first feasibility study on its use will be performed on the final stage of the project.
Co-funded by
About Miscrisk
MISCRISK in a research project under development at:
CJS – Interdisciplinary Research Center on Crime, Justice and Security School of Criminology.
Faculty of Law, University of Porto
Rua dos Bragas, 223, 4050-123 Porto, Portugal
miscrisk@direito.up.pt
MISCRISK Final Conference July 30, 2022
We are on the MatchingWINGS newsletter! March 11, 2021
MiscRisk on Webinar "Observatório Valorização e Utilização do Conhecimento Científico em Portugal" January 28, 2021
© 2019 Miscrisk. All Rights Reserved.


Funda Yildirim, Vincent Meyer, Frans W. Cornelissen; Eyes on crowding: Crowding is preserved when responding by eye and similarly affects identity and position accuracy. Journal of Vision 2015;15(2):21. doi: 10.1167/15.2.21.
Peripheral vision guides recognition and selection of targets for eye movements. Crowding—a decline in recognition performance that occurs when a potential target is surrounded by other, similar, objects—influences peripheral object recognition. A recent model study suggests that crowding may be due to increased uncertainty about both the identity and the location of peripheral target objects, but very few studies have assessed these properties in tandem. Eye tracking can integrally provide information on both the perceived identity and the position of a target and therefore could become an important approach in crowding studies. However, recent reports suggest that around the moment of saccade preparation crowding may be significantly modified. If these effects were to generalize to regular crowding tasks, it would complicate the interpretation of results obtained with eye tracking and the comparison to results obtained using manual responses. For this reason, we first assessed whether the manner by which participants responded—manually or by eye—affected their performance. We found that neither recognition performance nor response time was affected by the response type. Hence, we conclude that crowding magnitude was preserved when observers responded by eye. In our main experiment, observers made eye movements to the location of a tilted Gabor target while we varied flanker tilt to manipulate target–flanker similarity. The results indicate that this similarly affected the accuracy of peripheral recognition and saccadic target localization. Our results inform about the importance of both location and identity uncertainty in crowding.
In crowding, recognition of an object is impaired when it is surrounded by other—similar—objects. The current main theories explain crowding either in terms of excessive feature pooling (e.g., Greenwood, Bex, & Dakin, 2010; Pelli & Tillman, 2008; van den Berg, Roerdink, & Cornelissen, 2010) or as due to a loss of positional information (source confusion) resulting in reporting a flanking object as the target (e.g., Dakin, Cass, Greenwood, & Bex, 2010; Greenwood, Bex, & Dakin, 2009; Strasburger, Harvey, & Rentschler, 1991; Strasburger & Malania, 2013). A recent model integrates both of these accounts by assuming that uncertainty (i.e., the width of the internal noise distribution) about both stimulus positions and identities depends on flanker proximity (van den Berg, Johnson, Martinez Anton, Schepers, & Cornelissen, 2012). To further test this idea, crowding studies would ideally assess target position and identity in tandem, but to our knowledge, hardly any studies have done so thus far (a study by Greenwood, Bex, & Dakin, 2012, forms a notable exception, and we will discuss it later).
A very natural way to simultaneously assess what an observer saw and where s/he saw it is through using eye tracking. Perceived identity can be inferred from the selected object, and the saccadic localization data can be used to evaluate perceived location. This is the approach we will take in our main experiment that will be aimed at simultaneously assessing perceived position and identity in crowding. However, before we can proceed with this approach, we first need to verify whether eye movements themselves influence crowding in our type of task. This is assessed in Experiment 1.
The possibility that eye movements influence crowding is suggested by several recent studies that assessed the relationship between crowding and eye movements (Harrison, Mattingley, & Remington, 2013a; Harrison, Retell, Remington, & Mattingley, 2013). These studies suggest that just prior to the observer making an eye movement, crowding may substantially change. If these effects were to generalize to other crowding tasks (e.g., tasks that require identifying and locating targets with one's eyes), this would complicate the interpretation of results obtained with eye tracking. In fact, it would call into question the relevance of the majority of previous crowding studies for understanding natural vision (as these mostly used manual responses and required participants to fixate).
Harrison, Mattingley et al. (2013a) reported that about 50 ms before a saccade is initiated toward a crowded object, the magnitude of crowding was reduced. Moreover, the spatial area within which crowding occurred was approximately halved. Harrison, Mattingley et al. (2013a, p. 2927) concluded that "eye movement preparation effectively enhances object discrimination in peripheral vision at the goal of the intended saccade. These presaccadic changes may enable enhanced recognition of visual objects in the periphery during active search of visually cluttered environments." Various mechanisms may underlie the reduced crowding observed by Harrison, Mattingley et al. (2013a). As an explanation, they proposed that extraretinal signals during saccade preparation stop the obligatory averaging of flanker and distractor features, thereby partially releasing the target from crowding. Two alternative explanations for the phenomenon were suggested by van Koningsbruggen and Buonocore (2013). Preparing an eye movement might lead to a shift of covert attention to the saccade target (Deubel & Schneider, 1996), thereby enhancing discrimination performance at the location of the saccade goal (Deubel, 2008). To the extent that this influence is sufficiently selective, perception of the target might be enhanced more than that of the distractors, effectively reducing crowding magnitude. However, this explanation has been disputed by Harrison, Mattingley, and Remington (2013b; p. 1) because "observers knew the target's position and approximate timing in the no-eye movement and eye movement conditions so that attention could be allocated in the same manner on every trial." Second, performance might have been enhanced through saccadic unmasking (De Pisapia, Kaunitz, & Melcher, 2010; Hunt & Cavanagh, 2011). In this presaccadic effect, the target and its distractors—although presented at the same physical location—are being perceived at different spatial locations. As perceived—and not physical—position determines crowding (Dakin, Carlson, & Greenwood, 2011) this would effectively release a target from the crowding influence of its distractors. In another study, Harrison, Retell et al. (2013) reported a different perisaccadic phenomenon, which they referred to as "remapped crowding." Harrison, Retell, et al. found that flankers flashed at the postsaccadic location of a target but prior to the actual saccade (and thus rather distant from the target), nevertheless affecting the magnitude of crowding. Authors explained these results on the basis of a predictive remapping of receptive fields prior to saccades. Effectively, this phenomenon could increase the amount of crowding around saccadic eye movements.
There is one important reason to question whether presaccadic phenomena would be able to improve saccadic goal selection is the existence of a saccadic dead time. This is the brief period just prior to saccadic execution during which neither the execution of the saccade can be cancelled nor its goal changed (Hooge & Erkelens, 1996; Hooge, Beintema, & van den Berg, 1999). Hooge and Erkelens (1996) estimated that this saccadic dead time starts approximately 70 ms prior to a saccade. Thus, there appears to be a substantial overlap between this estimate of saccadic dead time and the period in which the reduced crowding has been observed. De Vries, Hooge, Wiering, and Verstraten (2011) reported the presence of crowding in an eye movement–based visual search paradigm, thus suggesting that crowding is still present in the presence of eye movements. However, they did not compare crowding magnitude with and without eye movements, so reduced crowding might still have been present. Note that this question has not been answered by the studies of Harrison, Mattingley et al. (2013a) or Harrison, Retell et al. (2013) as, in order to measure crowding magnitude, observers made manual responses after having moved their eyes. Hence, the question of whether presaccadic phenomena can influence perception during natural tasks remains open.
Therefore, in this experiment preceding the main one of the present study, we set out to assess the influence of responding by eye on crowding magnitude. To do so, we adapted the most common crowding paradigm—recognition of a single isolated or flanked object in peripheral vision—for use with eye movements. In our paradigm, observers are simultaneously shown an (isolated or flanked) object to the left and to the right sides of a fixation mark and respond by making an eye movement to the one perceived to be the target. Note that, in essence, this paradigm mimics what the visual system has to do in most natural viewing behavior, e.g., visual search: select a potential target—out of the usually many available in peripheral vision—for further scrutiny and plan a saccade to its location. During manual responding, observers fixate and indicate the target location by pressing one of two buttons. Our hypothesis is that recognition performance in this crowding task does not change between eye and manual responses.
In the experiment, we measured the errors in discriminating between a target and a reference presented left and right of fixation. Target and reference could either be presented in isolation or be surrounded by four flankers. The target could be discerned from the reference on the basis of tilt: The observer's task was to choose the most right-tilted object. In different blocks of trials, observers indicated their responses by (a) making a saccade to the perceived target or (b) pressing a left or right arrow key. Below the experiment is described in detail.
Eight observers (age range: 20–49; three women) participated in the experiment. Authors FY and FWC were among the observers. The remaining observers were naïve as to the purpose of the experiment. All observers had normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
Observers viewed stimuli on a 22-in. CRT RGB monitor with a frame rate of 75 Hz (LaCie) from a distance of 59 cm. Stimulus presentation, eye movement recording, and response collection were programmed in Matlab (MathWorks) using the Psychophysics Toolbox (Brainard, 1997; Pelli, 1997) and EyeLink Toolbox extensions (Cornelissen, Peters, & Palmer, 2002). Eye movements were recorded at 250 Hz with an EyeLink 1000 (SR Research, Kanata, Ontario, Canada) infrared eye tracker. We used the EyeLink's built-in nine-point calibration procedure. Background luminance during the experiment was 35 cd/m2. We used a chin rest and a forehead rest to stabilize the observer's head position.
Prior to the start of a trial, a white horizontal line (a minus sign; 0.2°) was presented at the center of the display. The observer pressed a key to commence the trial. Following the key press, the horizontal line changed into a fixation cross. Two hundred milliseconds thereafter, the stimulus was presented for 200 ms. An example stimulus is shown in Figure 1. The stimulus consisted of a target and reference that were presented left and right of fixation, at either 8° or 10° of eccentricity and either in isolation or surrounded by flankers. The side at which the target appeared was determined randomly. Target, reference, and flankers were Gabor patches (width = 1.0°, spatial frequency 3.0 c/°). Base target and reference tilt was set to 45°. To distinguish the target from the reference, it was tilted clockwise from base tilt by 5°, and the reference was tilted counterclockwise by 5°. In 20% of the trials, target and reference were presented in isolation. In the remaining 80% of the trials, four flankers surround the target and reference. Flankers were positioned at the four corners of an invisible square with the target or reference at the center. Flanker tilt was either the same as the base tilt (45°) to create a high (difference 0°) or differed (by 45° or −45°) to create a low target–flanker similarity condition (see Figure 2 for an example). The 0° flanker tilt condition occurred twice as often as each of the 45° or −45° flanker tilt conditions. Flankers were always presented at 25% contrast. Target and reference were presented at individually determined contrast and tilt thresholds (see below).
An example stimulus. In different blocks of trials, observers were instructed to indicate the most rightward-tilted target (central object) by either making a saccade or by pressing a button while maintaining fixation.
Example stimuli. (a) Low target–flanker similarity and (b) high target–flanker similarity.
The observer's task was to choose the most right-tilted target (the right one in the example of Figure 1). In alternating blocks of trials, observers either indicated their response by making a saccade to the target or by pressing one of two keys. After the response, the fixation point turned either red (error) or green (correct) to provide feedback to the observer. During manual responding, observers were required to maintain steady fixation throughout the trials, and their gaze was monitored. A single block of trails consisted of 260 trials. In their first session, observers first completed a 100-trial training block for each condition. Following these, observers completed two blocks of experimental trials in a row. They commenced with a block in which they responded manually, followed by a block in which they responded by eye. In each of their next three sessions, observers completed two more blocks of trials in which the order of eye and manual responding was alternated each time. All eight observers thus completed eight blocks of trials for a total of 1,040 trials in each response mode.
In a session preceding the experimental ones, we individually determined the tilt and contrast levels that enabled observers to achieve 80% correct recognition performance (manual responses) at each eccentricity for isolated targets and references. Observers were asked to report the more rightward tilted target. Target and reference tilt were set to 45° ± 5°, respectively, and were presented at either 8° or 10° of eccentricity. In different trials, target and reference were presented at 13 different levels of contrast (1.0%, 1.3%, 1.7%, 2.2%, 2.9%, 3.8%, 5.0%, 6.5%, 8.5%, 11.2%, 14.6%, 19.1%, or 25.0% contrast). For the first two experimental sessions, we determined an individual contrast level for each observer that enabled them to achieve 80% correct performance. We did so by first fitting a cumulative normal distribution to a participant's performance data as a function of contrast level. Next, using this distribution, we determined the threshold level of contrast. For the final two sessions, thresholds were determined slightly differently. The contrast was fixed, and the required tilt difference was determined. Contrast was set to the level to achieve 70% correct performance. Next, we determined the tilt level that enabled 80% correct performance. Target and references were presented at 13 different tilt values (difference from base tilt: 1.0°, 1.3°, 1.7°, 2.2°, 2.9°, 3.8°, 5.0°, 6.3°, 7.9°, 10.0°, 12.6°, 15.9°, or 20.0°). Again, a cumulative normal distribution was fitted to the performance data as a function of tilt, and this function was used to calculate the threshold tilt level. In the Results section, the results for all sessions will be integrally presented (after verifying that the type of threshold setting had no significant influence on the results).
Saccades were determined using the EyeLink's built-in analyses routines. Prior to entering the statistical analysis, eye movement responses were filtered based on saccadic amplitude, saccade latency, and saccadic direction. Trials were removed in which saccades were (a) made within 150 ms or after 3000 ms following the start of the stimulus presentation or (b) in which saccadic direction differed more than 15° from horizontal (the direction of the target or reference) or (c) in which saccadic amplitude was less than two thirds of the target or reference eccentricity. On average, this excluded about 8% of the eye-response trials. For the manual trials, responses that were accompanied by an eye movement were excluded from the analysis. On average, this excluded about 3% of the manual-response trials.
We used repeated-measures ANOVA to determine whether differences in performance were statistically significant. Within-observer factors were response type (eye, manual), flanker mode (isolated target, low target–flanker similarity, high target–flanker similarity), and threshold (contrast, tilt). To test for differences in response time between manual and eye responses, first, a Gaussian was fit to the individual distributions, and the mean and standard deviations were determined. Paired t tests were used to test for differences in these fitted parameters.
As we used two slightly different ways to set the individual thresholds, we first determined whether the factor threshold resulted in significant performance differences. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that this was not the case, F(1, 7) = 1.1, p > 0.05. Interactions of this factor with the other factors were not significant either: response type, F(1, 7) = 2.7, p > 0.05; flanker mode, F(2, 14) = .14, p > 0.05. For this reason, in the remainder of the analysis, this factor is not further considered.
Figure 3a through c shows the results for the individual observers with different panels for the isolated target and the low and high target–flanker similarity conditions. Figure 3d shows the results averaged over observers. In each panel, results are split by response mode (eye or manual). Not surprisingly, observers performed best when the target and reference were presented in isolation (Figure 3a and d). As expected, adding flankers decreased performance (Figure 3b through d). This decrease in performance was largest when target–flanker similarity was highest (Figure 3c, d). Overall, the small difference between the two different response modes was not significant, F(1, 7) = 0.7, p > 0.05, and it showed no significant interaction with target-flanker similarity either, F(2, 14) = 0.5, p > 0.05.
Discrimination performance of individual observers for manual and eye responses. (a) Results for the isolated target condition, (b) for the low target–flanker similarity condition, and (c) for the high target–flanker similarity condition. (d) Results averaged over observers. Bars in (d) indicate the standard error of the mean over observers.
To examine the crowding effect in more detail, we calculated crowding magnitude by subtracting performance in the two flanker conditions from performance in the isolated target condition. This is a standard procedure to calculate the difference in performances for isolated and flanked conditions. The results are shown in Figure 4. It is obvious that the results for the manual and the eye responses are nearly identical.
Crowding magnitude. Results are shown for the conditions with low and high target–flanker similarity. Average results of eight observers. Bars indicate standard error of the mean over observers.
Finally, we compared the time that it took observers to respond when making manual or eye responses. Figure 5 shows the response time histograms for both manual and eye responses. Response times and saccadic latencies were binned in 50-ms bins. As Figure 5 shows, the histograms of response times for the manual and eye responses are very similar. Neither the means nor the standard deviations of individually fitted Gaussians differed between eye and manual responses; means: manual: 845 ms and eye: 892 ms, t(7) = −1.153, p > 0.05; standard deviations: manual: 68 ms and eye: 63 ms, t(7) = 2.203, p > 0.05.
Frequency distribution of saccadic and manual response times.
In normal visual behavior, information from peripheral vision is used in saccade goal selection. In the task at hand, the visual system uses saliency and other metrics of relevance to determine the priority with which peripheral locations need to be scrutinized by foveal vision (Fecteau & Munoz, 2006; Hayhoe & Ballard, 2005; Itti & Koch, 2001; Tatler, Hayhoe, Land, & Ballard, 2011; Yanulevskaya, Marsman, Cornelissen, & Geusebroek, 2011). Peripheral vision is also the part of the visual field that is most strongly affected by crowding (Bouma, 1970; Korte, 1923; Stuart & Burian, 1962; Toet & Levi, 1992).
If eye movement preparation would effectively change peripheral discrimination—and thereby saccade goal selection—this would profoundly affect our understanding of the relationship between peripheral vision and crowding in natural viewing. In our view, it thus seemed worthwhile to compare crowding magnitude when observers responded either manually or used their eyes to respond. The main finding of our first experiment is that crowding magnitude is preserved when observers use their eyes to respond in a crowding task, thus confirming our hypothesis. This implies that previously observed changes in crowding as a result of eye movement preparation (Harrison, Mattingley et al., 2013a; Harrison, Retell et al., 2013) do not appear to change crowded object discrimination as measured in our—relatively standard—crowding paradigm. Therefore, we also conclude that eye tracking is a valid tool to assess crowding.
An important reason for not finding a difference was already suggested in the Introduction. The temporal window of the observed enhancement and integration effects is such that they show a substantial overlap with saccadic dead time. During this brief period just before saccade initiation, no changes to the saccade execution are possible anymore. The period of the saccadic dead time (approximately 70–100 ms) is very similar in size to the period during which changes in crowding were observed (approximately 50 ms prior to saccade initiation). It is important to note that our results do not necessarily demonstrate that eye movement preparation does not cause changes in crowding. However, our results do indicate that eye movement preparation does not affect discrimination performance in our paradigm.
We modeled our paradigm to mimic what we believe the visual system has to do in most natural viewing behavior, e.g., visual search: select a potential target—out of the usually many available in peripheral vision—for further scrutiny and plan a saccade to its location. One might object that an (forced) orientation-discrimination task preceding the eye movement is not natural. Yet planning an eye movement requires, at the least, a preattentive target-selection process (e.g., based on saliency). Therefore, in our view, our paradigm with a forced selection based on orientation followed by an eye movement comes close to the natural situation.
Our present design—with both a target and a reference symmetrically presented left and right of fixation—guaranteed that there was no net advantage on discrimination performance of moving one's eyes early. As in natural viewing behavior, our paradigm requires observers to decide on the location of the target before programming the saccade. Therefore, one could argue that discrimination performance could not have been affected by saccade preparation. However, Allik, Toom, and Luuk (2003) showed that saccade direction and amplitude can be planned separately. In our paradigm, observers could plan saccade direction only after having made the decision about which side contained the target. However, they might have started planning the saccadic amplitude as soon as the stimulus was shown, giving this process a substantial head start and also leaving sufficient time for any putative enhancement and integration effects to occur.
Having shown that crowding is preserved for eye responses, we now can use eye tracking to simultaneously quantify errors in identity and perceived location caused by crowding. It is not a priori certain that both aspects would be affected—let alone similarly affected—by crowding. "What" and "where" information is considered to be processed in different streams in the visual cortex (Goodale & Milner, 1992). A number of studies locate crowding effects beyond the early visual areas (Dakin et al., 2011; Liu, Jiang, Sun, & He, 2009), increasing the likelihood that position and identity information are differentially affected by crowding. Psychophysical support for separate coding of what and where aspects in crowded conditions has also been reported (Strasburger, 2005).
Another reason that might result in differences in identification and localization performance is the following: A number of studies have indicated the importance of perceived target position in crowding (Dakin et al., 2011; Maus, Fischer, & Whitney, 2011). However, as recently demonstrated using a motion illusion, (saccade) localization need not necessary follow perceived position (Lisi & Cavanagh, 2014). Greenwood et al. (2009, p. 13130) suggested that "crowding is a preattentive process that uses averaging to regularize the noisy representation of position in the periphery." Based on this—if anything—one would expect that crowding would tend to minimize localization errors, and consequently, identity and position errors would perhaps even be anticorrelated.
On the other hand, a recent crowding model proposed that flanker proximity affects uncertainty about both stimulus positions and identities (van den Berg et al., 2012). This model therefore predicts that both aspects would be affected by crowding and, most likely, to a similar extent. Moreover, a study by Greenwood et al. (2012, p. 1) investigated the binding of feature and relative position information in crowding. In one of their experiments, observers were asked to indicate both the target identity and perceived location. The authors concluded that "…crowding is a singular process that affects bound position and orientation values in an all-or-none fashion." Based on this finding, recognition and localization errors would also be expected to be largely correlated.
To assess how identity and position uncertainty are affected by crowding, we used eye tracking to measure the influence of target–flanker similarity on both recognition and saccadic localization performance. Based primarily on our model (van den Berg et al., 2012), our hypothesis is that increasing target–flanker similarity will lead to both increased recognition and localization errors.
We quantified the errors in recognition performance and saccadic landing position of a crowded target. The target was defined by tilt; the observer's task was to choose the most right- or left-tilted target, respectively, by making a saccade to the target.
Six different observers (age range: 23–27; all males) participated in the experiment. All of the observers were naïve as to the purpose of the experiment. All observers had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. One observer was excluded because of poor attention, resulting in poor performance, leaving five observers for the results reported.
The materials used in this experiment were identical to those used in the first experiment.
Prior to the start of a trial, a white fixation cross (0.2°) was presented at the center of the display. The observer initiated a trial by fixating on this fixation cross. If the fixation was stable for at least 250 ms, the trial commenced by presentation of the stimulus. It was presented until the observer made an eye response. If there was no response given within 3000 ms, the trial was marked as invalid. An example stimulus is shown in Figure 6. The stimulus consisted of a target and reference that were presented left and right of fixation, either at 8° or 10° of eccentricity and either in isolation or surrounded by flankers. The side at which the target appeared was determined randomly. Target, reference, and flankers were Gabor patches (width = 1.0°, spatial frequency 3.0 c/°).
An example stimulus for the second experiment. In different blocks of trials, observers were instructed to indicate either the most rightward-tilted target (central object) or the most leftward-tilted target by making a saccade.
In 10% of the trials, target and reference were presented in isolation. In the remaining 90% of the trials, flankers were present, and these were positioned at the four corners of an invisible square with the target or reference at the center. Center-to-center distance of the target and flankers was 0.15 times the target eccentricity. All four flankers always had the same tilt, which was randomly chosen to be one of 12 different values in the interval −75° to 90° (step size 15°). Flankers were always presented at 25% contrast. Target and reference were presented at 5% contrast.
In alternating blocks of trials, the base target and reference tilt was set to either 45° or −45° from vertical. To distinguish the target from the reference, targets varied either 5° or 10° from this base tilt, always mirrored for the reference Gabor. So the target and the reference differed in orientation by either 10° or 20°. The observer's task varied depending on the base tilt. In blocks in which base tilt was 45° (−45°), the observer's task was to choose the target by making a saccade to the most rightward (leftward) tilted Gabor.1 After the response, the fixation point turned either red (error) or green (correct) to provide feedback to the observer. During manual responding, observers were required to maintain steady fixation throughout the trials, and their gaze was monitored. A single block of trails consisted of 300 trials.
In each of six sessions, observers completed two blocks of 300 trials each. For each session, the base tilt for the first of the two blocks was determined randomly. The other base tilt was used in the second block. Observers were offered a short break in between the two blocks of trials to minimize fatigue. All six observers thus completed 12 blocks of trials for a total of 3,600 trials per observer. Prior to the actual experiment, observers completed two training blocks of trials, one for each base tilt and task combination. These trials were used to verify that the observer's performance for isolated targets was in the range 70%–90%. The training trials were not used in the further analysis.
Saccades were determined using the EyeLink's built-in analyses routines. Prior to the statistical analysis, eye movement responses were filtered based on saccadic amplitude, saccade latency, and saccadic direction. Trials were removed in which saccades were (a) made within 150 ms following the start of the stimulus presentation or (b) in which saccadic direction differed more than ±15° from horizontal (the direction of the target or reference) or (c) in which saccadic amplitude was less than two thirds of the target or reference eccentricity. On average, this excluded 13% of the eye response trials.
The first part of the analysis was done separately for each observer. First, we determined the average recognition performance in the "no-flanker" condition separately for each eccentricity and base tilt. To obtain crowding magnitude, this value was subtracted from performance in each of the flanker conditions, again separately for each eccentricity and base tilt. For the final analysis, the results were averaged over observers.
To determine the occurrence of changes in localization performance, we included the saccades made during both erroneous and correct recognition responses. Our reasoning behind also using the recognition errors is that, in those cases, the observer apparently considered the reference to be the target. Therefore, for determining localization performance, an error is as informative as a correct response.
First, saccadic landing positions to the left of fixation were mirrored in the origin. Next, we determined the average saccadic landing position for isolated target/reference trials (i.e., no flanker presented). This was done separately for each eccentricity and base tilt. Next, for each trial, we calculated the absolute distance between the saccadic landing position in that particular trial and the average saccadic landing position in the no flanker condition for the corresponding eccentricity and base tilt. Note that this removes any bias (e.g., due to saccadic undershoot) a participant may have had. We refer to this value as the localization error.
Next, average localization errors were calculated for each flanker orientation. Subsequently, the average localization error in the no-flanker condition was subtracted from the average localization error in each of the flanker conditions separately for each eccentricity and base tilt. Note that this measure is therefore analogous to the calculation of crowding magnitude in that it indicates the extent to which the localization error changed in magnitude as a result of the presence of flankers.
Finally, to compare the changes in recognition performance and localization error induced by the presence of flankers, each measure was also converted into a "z-score" by subtracting the average value and dividing by the standard deviation (over flanker orientation). These z-scores were calculated first for each individual observer separately for each base tilt and eccentricity.
Repeated-measures ANOVA results revealed that eccentricity and base tilt of the target had no significant effect on either recognition performance, F(1, 64) = 0.67, p > 0.05, or on localization error, F(1, 64) = 0.187, p > 0.05. Hence, for the remainder of the results, we report data averaged over eccentricity and target base tilt.
We examined performance as a function of target–flanker similarity. Results are shown in Figure 7. As expected, target–flanker similarity had a substantial effect on crowding magnitude, and a clear peak in crowding magnitude can be observed at 0° difference, i.e., when target and flanker are most similar. Because crowding was predicted to be strongest at 0° tilt difference, we used a paired t test to compare crowding magnitude at tilt level 0° to the average crowding magnitude in the other conditions (p < 0.001). This indicates that crowding magnitude at 0° was increased compared to crowding magnitude in the other tilt conditions.
Crowding magnitude plotted as a function of the difference in tilt between target and flankers. Bars indicate ±1 SEM over observers.
In an analogous fashion, for the analysis of localization error, we examined performance as a function of target–flanker similarity. Results are shown in Figure 8. Similar to crowding magnitude for recognition performance, target–flanker similarity had a substantial effect on localization error, and a clear peak can be observed near 0° difference. A paired t test comparing localization error at tilt level 0° to the average error in the other conditions (p = 0.06) indicated that localization error at 0° was increased compared to the average error in the other tilt conditions.
Saccadic localization error plotted as a function of the difference in tilt between target and flankers. Bars (where visible) indicate ±1 SEM over observers.
To enable comparison of the changes in recognition performance and localization error caused by crowding, results for each observer were converted into a z-score. The results are shown in Figure 9. Coinciding peaks in recognition (crowding magnitude) and localization performance (localization error) can be observed at 0° difference, i.e., when target and flanker are most similar. A repeated-measures ANOVA on the z-scores of recognition and localization performance revealed no significant interaction between similarity level and parameter, F(11, 44) = 1.15, p = 0.345, indicating that, when expressed in terms of a z-score, the crowding magnitudes for recognition and localization are not different.
Comparison of average crowding magnitude (blue) and localization error (red) expressed in terms of a z-score and plotted as a function of target–flanker similarity. Bars indicate ±1 SEM over observers.
The finding of our main experiment is that flanking objects affect both recognition and localization performance and that crowding magnitude in both domains is approximately equal. As anticipated based on previous studies, we observed that crowding magnitude (recognition) was largest for identical target and flankers and decreased with increasing target–flanker difference (Figure 7). The localization error showed a very similar dependence on target–flanker difference (Figure 8). Moreover, when expressed as a z-score (Figure 9), crowding magnitudes for recognition performance and for localization error turned out to be approximately equal. In turn, this suggests that identity and position uncertainty are similarly affected by target–flanker differences.
These results are consistent with the predictions based on the model study of van den Berg et al. (2012). They are also consistent with a report by Greenwood et al. (2012), who concluded that bound position and orientation are affected by crowding in an all-or-none fashion. Our results—although measured in an entirely different manner—are congruent with this finding.
In our study, saccadic localization error showed a similar pattern of results as present in identification performance, therefore suggesting that the perceived position of the target was affected by target-flanker similarity. Our results therefore imply that in this kind of task, saccadic localization follows the perceived rather than the physical location of the target.
Our finding that crowding affects saccadic localization performance is also relevant for understanding the potential role of reduced crowding around saccade initiation (Harrison, Mattingley et al., 2013a; Harrison, Retell et al., 2013). Although—as in our first experiment—orientation-based target selection would have occurred in advance of saccadic planning, target localization should definitely take place just prior to this process. Our finding that target discrimination and localization are similarly influenced by crowding argues against the notion that any modified crowding around saccade initiation might affect performance. As we noted previously, it simply appears to occur too late in the process.
The pattern of results (Figures 7 through 9) suggests that the relationship between target–flanker similarity on the one hand and crowding magnitude and saccadic localization error on the other hand does not follow a monotonically increasing and decreasing function. The reason for the deviations from monotonicity could be the "tilt illusion," which causes exaggeration of perceived target–flanker tilt differences. For crowding in the identity domain, the relationship with the tilt illusion has previously been described (Solomon, Felisberti, & Morgan, 2004). Our present results indicate deviations from a smooth function also for saccadic localization, suggesting that this process is similarly affected by the tilt illusion.
A limitation of the present experiment is that we used a fixed target contrast instead of basing it on individual contrast thresholds. Also, our present experiment may underestimate the actual localization errors due to crowding because of the very presence of the flankers. Although distant from the target, flankers were presented in a regular array. Therefore, participants might have used the flanker position for planning saccades to the target, thereby diminishing the influence of perceived target position. Using flankers with a randomized position around the target might diminish this possibility. Another reason for underestimation could be that participants habituate to making saccades to the limited number of four positions (±8° and ±10° of eccentricity), thereby potentially limiting the magnitude of the saccadic localization error. A final limitation of the present experiment relates to the fact that observers had to choose between two objects only. This is a very limited choice compared to the demand usually posed by natural scenes, which tend to provide much more complex sceneries and choices. Future experiments should therefore consider using more variegated visual stimuli and response requirements.
The main aim of this paper was to determine whether identity and localization performance are similarly affected by crowding, using eye movements as a response measure to integrally assess these aspects. Moreover, given the natural link between peripheral vision, eye movement planning, and crowding and the possibility that saccade-confounded image statistics explain visual crowding (Nandy & Tjan, 2012), the question of whether making eye movements influences performance in crowding tasks and vice versa seemed a relevant and natural one too.
We performed two experiments. A first experiment revealed that crowding is preserved when observers make an eye movement response rather than a manual keyboard response. This indicated that, in our task, preparing eye movements did not affect performance. This is good news for two reasons: First, it indicates that eye movements are a valid measure to assess crowding. Second, it indicates that most of the findings in the existing crowding literature—which primarily have been measured using manual responses—remain valid for understanding real-life visual behavior (in which eye movements are the most frequent way by which we select visual information).
Our main experiment used saccades to simultaneously assess changes in recognition and localization errors induced by crowding. We observed that localization errors and recognition performance are similarly affected by target–flanker similarity. Both traditional crowding magnitude (recognition performance) and localization error were larger for flankers that were similar in orientation to the target than for flankers that differed in orientation. Simultaneous assessment of the magnitude of—and the relationship between—errors in crowding in different feature domains is crucial for understanding the underlying mechanisms.
Current feature integration or pooling accounts of crowding (Pelli & Tillman, 2008) are predominantly concerned with the feature aspects of objects. To our knowledge, no specific predictions have been made for position other than averaging (Freeman, Chakravarthi, & Pelli, 2012). Our results argue against an averaging account of crowding of position information (Greenwood et al., 2009; Parkes, Lund, Angelucci, Solomon, & Morgan, 2001). Straightforward averaging of the positions of the five Gabors on each side of the stimulus would have given the exact location of the target and reference and thus not resulted in systematic localization errors as a function of target–flanker orientation difference. Instead of pooling, grouping has also been evoked to explain crowding (Banks, Bodinger, & Illige, 1974; Banks, Larson, & Prinzmetal, 1979; Livne & Sagi, 2007; Manassi, Sayim, & Herzog, 2012; Saarela, Westheimer, & Herzog, 2009) with stronger grouping—and thus crowding, as we find—for higher target–flanker similarity. Position errors would be a consequence of the putative grouping mechanism having "jumbled" target and flanker features, in which case, the increased position uncertainty might be an epiphenomenon. A substitution or source confusion account (Ester, Klee, & Awh, 2014; Strasburger & Malania, 2013) comes close to explaining our present results in that it would predict both localization errors and—as a result of these—recognition errors in the presence of flankers. Whether it could quantitatively account for our present results remains to be determined.
In a previous model study of our group (van den Berg et al., 2012), we showed that perceptual uncertainty about both stimulus positions and identity could explain crowding (assuming that the uncertainty about these aspects depends on flanker proximity). Our present results support the notion that crowding is due to a combination of spatial and identity uncertainty (van den Berg et al., 2012).
This work was supported by The Graduate School of Medical Sciences (GSMS), University of Groningen, The Netherlands. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.
Address: Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Allik, J., Toom M., Luuk A. (2003). Planning of saccadic eye movements. Psychological Research, 67 (1), 10–21, doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0094-5.
Banks W. P., Bodinger D., Illige M. (1974). Visual detection accuracy and target-noise proximity. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4 (4), 411–414.
Banks W. P., Larson D. W., Prinzmetal W. (1979). Asymmetry of visual interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 25 (6), 447–456, doi:10.3758/BF03213822.
Brainard D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 433–436. Retrieved from http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156856897x00357.
Cornelissen F. W., Peters E. M., Palmer J. (2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 34 (4), 613–617. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12564564.
De Pisapia N., Kaunitz L., Melcher D. (2010). Backward masking and unmasking across saccadic eye movements. Current Biology, 20 (7), 613–617, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.01.056.
De Vries J. P., Hooge I. T. C., Wiering M. A., Verstraten F. A. J. (2011). Saccadic selection and crowding in visual search: Stronger lateral masking leads to shorter search times. Experimental Brain Research, 211 (1), 119–131, doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2660-9.
Deubel H. (2008). The time course of presaccadic attention shifts. Psychological Research, 72 (6), 630–640, doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0165-3.
Deubel H., Schneider W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36 (12), 1827–1837. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8759451.
Ester E. F., Klee D., Awh E. (2014). Visual crowding cannot be wholly explained by feature pooling. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 40 (3), 1022–1033, doi:10.1037/a0035377.
Fecteau J. H., Munoz D. P. (2006). Salience, relevance, and firing: A priority map for target selection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (8), 382–390, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.011.
Freeman J., Chakravarthi R., Pelli D. G. (2012). Substitution and pooling in crowding. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 74 (2), 379–396, doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0229-0.
Goodale M. A., Milner A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15 (1), 20–25, doi:10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8.
Greenwood J. A., Bex P. J., Dakin S. C. (2009). Positional averaging explains crowding with letter-like stimuli. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106 (31), 13130–13135, doi:10.1073/pnas.0901352106.
Harrison W. J., Mattingley J. B., Remington R. W. (2013a). Eye movement targets are released from visual crowding. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33 (7), 2927–2933, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4172-12.2013.
Harrison W. J., Mattingley J. B., Remington R. W. (2013b). Releasing crowding prior to a saccade requires more than "attention": response to van Koningsbruggen and Buonocore. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 1–4.
Harrison W. J., Retell J. D., Remington R. W., Mattingley J. B. (2013). Visual crowding at a distance during predictive remapping. Current Biology, 23 (9), 793–798. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23562269.
Hayhoe M., Ballard D. (2005). Eye movements in natural behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (4), 188–194, doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.02.009.
Hooge I. T. C., Beintema J. A., van den Berg A. V. (1999). Visual search of heading direction. Experimental Brain Research, 129 (4), 615–628. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638435.
Hooge I. T. C., Erkelens C. J. (1996). Control of fixation duration in a simple search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 58 (7), 969–976. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03206825.
Itti L., Koch C. (2001). Feature combination strategies for saliency-based visual attention systems. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 10 (1), 161–169. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.1333677.
Korte W. (1923). Uber die Gestaltauffassung im indirekten Sehen [On the apprehension of Gestalt in indirect vision]. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 93, 17–82.
Liu T., Jiang Y., Sun X., He S. (2009). Reduction of the crowding effect in spatially adjacent but cortically remote visual stimuli. Current Biology, 19 (2), 127–132, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.11.065.
Maus G. W., Fischer J., Whitney D. (2011). Perceived positions determine crowding. PloS One, 6 (5), e19796, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019796.
Nandy A. S., Tjan B. S. (2012). Saccade-confounded image statistics explain visual crowding. Nature Neuroscience, 15(3), 463–469, S1–S2, doi:10.1038/nn.3021.
Pelli D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 437–442. Retrieved from http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156856897x00366.
Pelli D. G., Tillman K. A. (2008). The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (10), 1129–1135, doi:10.1038/nn.2187.
Strasburger H., Harvey L., Rentschler I. (1991). Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view. Perception & Psychophysics, 49 (6), 495–508, doi:10.3758/BF03212183.
Stuart J. A., Burian H. M. (1962). A study of separation difficulty: Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 53, 471.
Toet A., Levi D. M. (1992). The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea. Vision Research, 32 (7), 1349–1357, doi:10.1016/0042-6989(92)90227-A.
van den Berg R., Roerdink J. B. T. M., Cornelissen F. W. (2010). A neurophysiologically plausible population code model for feature integration explains visual crowding. PLoS Computational Biology, 6 (1), e1000646, doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000646.
van Koningsbruggen M. G., Buonocore A. (2013). Mechanisms behind perisaccadic increase of perception. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33 (28), 11327–11328, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1567-13.2013.
Yanulevskaya V., Marsman J. B., Cornelissen F., Geusebroek J.-M. (2011). An image statistics-based model for fixation prediction. Cognitive Computation, 3 (1), 94–104, doi:10.1007/s12559-010-9087-7.
1 Note that the term "target–flanker difference" refers to the difference in orientation between the base orientation of the target and the flanker orientation. In the experiments, the target and the reference were defined by a tilt offset relative to this base orientation For instance, when both target base tilt and flanker tilt were 45°, both the target and reference would still be 5° different from the flankers (e.g., 40° and 50°). For the sake of simplicity of the analyses, the target–flanker differences were grouped based on the difference between the base orientation of the target and the flanker orientation (so 0° in the particular case mentioned here).


text:
Little England – by Pantelis Voulgaris (Opening film), Thursday, 21.01., 19:30 (Hall 1)
Greece, 2013, 152′, Greek with German subtitles
With Pinelopi Tsilika, Sofia Kokkali, Aneza Papadopoulou, Andreas Konstantinou, Maximos Moumouris a.o.
The exceptional family saga spans two decades in the history of modern Greece
and in the lives of the Saltafero sisters, Orsa and Moscha, their parents,
husbands and children. United and divided by a terrible secret, the two sisters
spend their lives in love with the same man. It is a story of passion, family and
loss; it is a tribute to the seafaring men who leave their homes behind, as well
as the strong women who wait for them, and hold their worlds together: the
Penelopes of the island of Andros.
Pantelis Voulgaris
was born in Athens in 1940 and studied at the Stavrakou Film School. He worked initially as an assistant director and made his first short in 1965. Since then his films have won international acclaim and numerous awards establishing his reputation as one of the foremost Greek film directors of his generation. Pantelis Voulgaris has also directed several documentaries for Greek television and the hour-long documentary on the poet Yannis Ritsos for German Television. He also directed for the stage. In 1995 Pantelis Voulgaris was honoured by the Museum of Modern Art in New York with a mid-career retrospective.
Filmography (Selection):
1965 THE THIEF, short
1966 JIMMY THE TIGER, short
Best Short Film, Best Actor and Critics Awards, Thessaloniki Film Festival
1969 THE DANCE OF THE GOATS, documentary,
Grand Prix Contemporary Film Festival, Athens
1972 THE ENGAGEMENT OF ANNA, feature
Best Film, Best Director Awards Thessaloniki Film Festival
The Sentimentalists – by Nicholas Triandafyllidis / Downhill by Stelios...