Cognitive Neuropsychology of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders

Advances in the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have dramatically improved survival rates over the past 10 years, but HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) remain highly prevalent and continue to represent a significant public health problem. This review provides an update on the nature, extent, and diagnosis of HAND. Particular emphasis is placed on critically evaluating research within the realm of cognitive neuropsychology that aims to elucidate the component processes of HAND across the domains of executive functions, motor skills, speeded information processing, episodic memory, attention/working memory, language, and visuoperception. In addition to clarifying the cognitive mechanisms of HAND (e.g., impaired cognitive control), the cognitive neuropsychology approach may enhance the ecological validity of neuroAIDS research and inform the development of much needed novel, targeted cognitive and behavioral therapies

Author Correction: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper

SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.

SciPy is an open-source scientific computing library for the Python programming language. Since its initial release in 2001, SciPy has become a de facto standard for leveraging scientific algorithms in Python, with over 600 unique code contributors, thousands of dependent packages, over 100,000 dependent repositories and millions of downloads per year. In this work, we provide an overview of the capabilities and development practices of SciPy 1.0 and highlight some recent technical developments

Below-ground planning in local communities: Case studies of five United States archaeological preservation programs

In the last forty years, both environmental preservation advocates and supporters of historic preservation have mobilized groups and helped to shaped legislation that would effect the use of land. Although the archaeological preservation movement has been weaker, a number of communities around the country have found ways to embed their concerns into institutionalized planning practices. This is a study of that movement and its role in planning in Philadelphia, Alexandria, Virginia, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and Metro-Dade County and St. Augustine, Florida. Archaeological preservation nearly always poses a constraint in the development process, and unlike the rehabilitation of historic buildings, it almost never results in economic gain and thus poses a greater challenge for the archaeological preservation planner. When possible, local archaeologists have used endowments of the community, particularly rehabilitated and reconstructed historic downtowns to help market archaeology as a tourist attraction. In jurisdictions with highly articulated historic images such as Alexandria and St. Augustine, archaeological preservation is promoted into residents\u27 and tourists\u27 world views through public excavations and presentations. This is transpired to local government officials, which helps to formalize and further institutionalize the cause. Where this is not the case, institutionalizing archaeology into local practice and city life is less likely. Some archaeological practitioners, such as those in Metro-Dade and Anne Arundel County, have gained credence as individual specialists, creating minor legacies around themselves and thus legitimizing their authority. Archaeological preservation in local settings is advanced by a few dedicated individuals, planning legislation, and community volunteers. In local government settings, archaeologists have expanded their roles to planner and community relations specialist. By bringing preservation concerns to the attention of local governments, archaeologists have begun to articulate an archaeological planning and preservation ethic. In this study, extensive interviews examine the attitudes of developers, planners, and archaeologists toward archaeological preservation. Archaeological preservation in planning settings is still relatively new in archaeological practice, and this study examines a variety of ordinances and other protective planning instruments used therein