A peculiar limp, pink leaf flush
3 hours ago in The Phytophactor
fMRI studies, especially related to causality and connectivity, would benefit from reduced repetition time in terms of better statistics and physiological noise characteristics...They don't really say *how* these studies would achieve this benefit. The rest of the discussion is mostly about how their technique improves on other attempts at ultra-fast fMRI, which tend to have poor spatial resolution. They do mention that maybe ultra-fast fMRI would help simultaneous EEG-fMRI studies to strengthen the link between the EEG signal and the fMRI signal, but it's obvious to me just how helpful this would be, given the very different timing of EEG and fMRI.
Obviously, all InI-based and comparable imaging methods are sensitive to motion especially at the edges of the brain with possible incorrect estimation of prior information. However, due to the large amount of data, scan times are currently short (4 min in teh current study), which mitigates the motion problem.I take this to mean that because their ultra-rapid scanning technique collects so much data from each trial, you don't need as many trials, so the entire experiment can be shortened. Note that they are focused on the comparison between their technique and other related techniques, not the comparison between their technique and standard fMRI techniques. But it does seem reasonable that more densely sampling the hemodynamic response for an individual trial should mean you need fewer trials overall, thus shortening experiments.
I aimed my gun into the living room. (p. 109)I cannot by any means convince Dictate to print this. It prefers to convert "my gun" to "my God". For example, on my third try, it wrote:
I aim to my God into the living room.Dictate offers a number of alternatives in case its initial transcription is incorrect. Right now, it is suggesting, as an alternative to "aim to my God":
aimed to my GodPerhaps Nuance has a religious bent, but I suspect that this is a simple N-gram error. Like many natural language processing systems, Nuance figures out what word you are saying in part by reference to the surrounding words. So in general, it thinks that common bigrams (2-word sequences) are more likely than uncommon bigrams.
aim to my God and
aim to my god
aim to my gun
aimed to my God and
aim to my garden
aimed to my god
aimed to my gun
aim to my guide
aim to my God in
aimed to my God in
(1) Give me that.The reason that (2) is weird -- by convention, an asterisk marks a bad sentence -- is that the word this suggests that whatever is being requested is close to the speaker. Consider also:
(2) *Give me this.
(3) Jane came home.If we were currently at Jane's home, it would be more natural to say (3) than (4). Of course, we could say (4), but we would be shifting our perspective, treating wherever Jane was as the reference point, rather than where we are now (this is particularly common in story-telling).
(4) Jane went home.
(5) The lunchroom door slowly opened and two men walked in.These sentences describe the same event, but place the reader in a very different position. As Talmy points out, when reading (5), one gets the sense that you are in the lunchroom, whereas in (6), you get the sense that you outside of the lunchroom ... either that, or the door to the lunchroom is transparent glass.
(6) Two men slowly opened the lunchroom door and walked in.
(7) There are some houses in the valley.The first sentence implies a static point of view, far from the houses, allowing you to see all the houses at once (Talmy calls this "stationary distal perspective point with global scope of attention"), whereas (8) gives the sense of moving through the valley and among the houses, with only a few within view at any given time ("moving proximal perspective point with local scope of attention")
(8) There is a house every now and then through the valley.
(1) Sally frightens Mary because she...Although the pronoun is ambiguous, most people guess that she refers to Sally in (1) but Mary in (2). That is, the verb used (frightens, loves) seems to affect pronoun resolution.
(2) Sally loves Mary because she...
(3) Sally blames Mary because she...Here, most people think "she" is Mary, even though this is not an emotion verb and so the "cause" was supposed to be -- on Brown and Fish's theory -- the subject (Sally).
"Because of" should not be used to modify a sentence in the future tense, since it is a logical fallacy to impute a cause to something that is not (yet) true. Rather, a construction such as "due to" or "owing to" should be used, or the sentence should be rewritten to be more clear.This is such a convincing prescriptive rule that Geoffrey Pullum at Language Log has issued a plea that people not start following it.
For example, instead of "He's going to Florida next week, because of a friend's wedding," one should write, "He's going to Florida next week *for* a friend's wedding."
Writers who observe this rule thereby uphold an important distinction; a sentence such as "Because of the promised bonus, he decided to teach an extra class next summer" makes clear that the promised bonus is the cause of the *decision* (which has already happened), not the cause of the *teaching an extra class* (which hasn't happened yet, so doesn't yet have a cause).