Phonological and orthographic influences in the bouba–kiki effect

We examine a high-profile phenomenon known as the bouba–kiki effect, in which non-word names are assigned to abstract shapes in systematic ways (e.g. rounded shapes are preferentially labelled bouba over kiki). In a detailed evaluation of the literature, we show that most accounts of the effect point to predominantly or entirely iconic cross-sensory mappings between acoustic or articulatory properties of sound and shape as the mechanism underlying the effect. However, these accounts have tended to confound the acoustic or articulatory properties of non-words with another fundamental property: their written form. We compare traditional accounts of direct audio or articulatory-visual mapping with an account in which the effect is heavily influenced by matching between the shapes of graphemes and the abstract shape targets. The results of our two studies suggest that the dominant mechanism underlying the effect for literate subjects is matching based on aligning letter curvature and shape roundedness (i.e. non-words with curved letters are matched to round shapes). We show that letter curvature is strong enough to significantly influence word–shape associations even in auditory tasks, where written word forms are never presented to participants. However, we also find an additional phonological influence in that voiced sounds are preferentially linked with rounded shapes, although this arises only in a purely auditory word–shape association task. We conclude that many previous investigations of the bouba–kiki effect may not have given appropriate consideration or weight to the influence of orthography among literate subjects

Deliberation, Unjust Exclusion, and the Rhetorical Turn

Theories of deliberative democracy have faced the charge of leading to the unjust exclusion of voices from public deliberation. The recent rhetorical turn in deliberative theory aims to respond to this charge. I distinguish between two variants of this response: the supplementing approach and the systemic approach. On the supplementing approach, rhetorical modes of political speech may legitimately supplement the deliberative process, for the sake of those excluded from the latter. On the systemic approach, rhetorical modes of political speech are legitimate within public deliberation, just so long as they result in net benefits to the deliberative system. I argue that neither of these two approaches adequately meets the unjust exclusion charge. Whereas the supplementing approach does not go far enough to incorporate rhetorical speech into public deliberation, the systemic approach goes too far by legitimizing forms of rhetoric that risk only exacerbating the problem of unjust exclusion. More constructively, I draw on Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric, as an art (technē) that is a counterpart to dialectic, to argue for a constitutive approach to rhetoric. I show how this approach provides a more expansive notion of deliberation that remains normatively orientated

Correlates of comfort with alternative settings for HPV vaccine delivery

Low uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine calls for innovative approaches. Offering the vaccine in settings outside the traditional medical home, such as schools and pharmacies, could increase use. We sought to characterize the acceptability of HPV vaccine delivery in these alternative settings using a national (US) sample of parents of adolescent males ages 11–17 y (n = 506) and their sons (n = 391) who completed our online surveys in Fall 2010. We used multivariable regression to identify correlates of parents’ and sons’ comfort with (i.e., acceptability of) alternative settings. Half of parents (50%) and over one-third of sons (37%) reported that they were comfortable with schools or pharmacies as locations for the sons to receive HPV vaccine. Parents and sons were more comfortable with HPV vaccination in alternative settings if the sons had not recently visited their health care providers or had previously received vaccines at school, or if parents and sons were comfortable talking with each other about new vaccines. Parents who perceived greater barriers to HPV vaccination were more comfortable with alternative settings, as were sons who perceived that their peers were more accepting of HPV vaccine (all p < 0.05). Offering HPV vaccine in alternative settings may increase vaccination, especially among hard-to-reach adolescents. For example, our results suggest that offering the vaccine in alternative settings to boys who had not had recent health care visits could increase uptake by more than 10%. Study findings also highlight factors that should be addressed to maximize the potential success of HPV vaccination programs

How is knowledge shared in Public involvement? A qualitative study of involvement in a health technology assessment

Background: Public involvement in research is seen as a quality marker by funders. To understand the process and impact of involvement, more in-depth studies are needed on how members of the public contribute in meetings with researchers. Objectives: This study aimed to observe and reflect on what is said by public advisers in involvement. We wanted to understand (a) what knowledge and experience is shared during research meetings, and (b) how this knowledge is shared with researchers. Methods: Data were collected in November 2016 as part of the public involvement in a health technology assessment of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography. Three meetings were audio recorded and observed with the purpose of understanding how members of the public contributed during the meetings. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analysed using a thematic approach, with the coding framework developed inductively. We also included reflections from a community drop-in session. Results: Members of the public brought three different ‘sources’ of knowledge and experience to meetings with researchers: direct lived personal experience; learnt knowledge; and the experience and values of others. The data suggest that group settings allow for dynamic discussions and sharing of different types of knowledge. Conclusion: Group-based involvement meetings allow for the synergistic combination of individual knowledge and experience. This gives researchers a broader understanding of the topic, which can be the vehicle for patient impact on the research. A combination of group meeting and community drop-in can enable more varied input into research planning and conduct