A large-scale, cross-sectional investigation into the efficacy of brain training

Brain training is a large and expanding industry, and yet there is a recurrent and ongoing debate concerning its scientific basis or evidence for efficacy. Much of evidence for the efficacy of brain training within this debate is from small-scale studies that do not assess the type of “brain training,” the specificity of transfer effects, or the length of training required to achieve a generalized effect. To explore these factors, we analyze cross-sectional data from two large Internet-cohort studies (total N = 60,222) to determine whether cognition differs at the population level for individuals who report that they brain train on different devices, and across different timeframes, with programs in common use circa 2010–2013. Examining scores for an assessment of working-memory, reasoning and verbal abilities shows no cognitive advantages for individuals who brain train. This contrasts unfavorably with significant advantages for individuals who regularly undertake other cognitive pursuits such as computer, board and card games. However, finer grained analyses reveal a more complex relationship between brain training and cognitive performance. Specifically, individuals who have just begun to brain train start from a low cognitive baseline compared to individuals who have never engaged in brain training, whereas those who have trained for a year or more have higher working-memory and verbal scores compared to those who have just started, thus suggesting an efficacy for brain training over an extended period of time. The advantages in global function, working memory, and verbal memory after several months of training are plausible and of clinically relevant scale. However, this relationship is not evident for reasoning performance or self-report measures of everyday function (e.g., employment status and problems with attention). These results accord with the view that although brain training programs can produce benefits, these might extend to tasks that are operationally similar to the training regime. Furthermore, the duration of training regime required for effective enhancement of cognitive performance is longer than that applied in most previous studies

Translation and the Internet : evaluating the Quality of Free Online Machine Translators

The late 1990s saw the advent of free online machine translators such as Babelfish, Google Translate and Transtext. Professional opinion regarding the quality of the translations provided by them, oscillates wildly from the «laughably bad» (Ali, 2007) to «a tremendous success» (Yang and Lange, 1998). While the literature on commercial machine translators is vast, there are only a handful of studies, mostly in blog format, that evaluate and rank free online machine translators. This paper offers a review of the most significant contributions in that field with an emphasis on two key issues: (i) the need for a ranking system; (ii) the results of a ranking system devised by the authors of this paper. Our small-scale evaluation of the performance of ten free machine translators (FMTs) in «league table» format shows what a user can expect from an individual FMT in terms of translation quality. Our rankings are a first tentative step towards allowing the user to make an informed choice as to the most appropriate FMT for his/her source text and thus produce higher FMT target text quality.Durant la darrera dècada del segle xx s'introdueixen els traductors online gratuïts (TOG), com poden ser Babelfish, Google Translate o Transtext. L'opinió per part de la crítica professional sobre aquestes traduccions es mou des d'una ingrata ridiculització (Ali, 2007) a l'acceptació més incondicional (Yang y Lange, 1998). Actualment, els estudis valoratius sobre els TOG són realment escassos, la majoria en format blog, mentre que la literatura sobre els traductors comercials és enorme. L'article que plantegem aporta una revisió de les principals contribucions i posa l'èmfasi bàsicament en dues qüestions: (i) necessitat d'un sistema de classificació (un rànquing) i (ii) descripció dels resultats obtinguts pel sistema de classificació ideat pels autors d'aquest article. L'avaluació que realitzem a petita escala es basa en l'anàlisi de l'actuació de deu TOG en un rànquing que posa de manifest les expectatives que en termes de qualitat de traducció pot esperar l'usuari. El resultat del rànquing ofereix a l'usuari els criteris que millor s'ajusten a cada cas, per tal d'utilitzar un traductor o un altre en funció del text original, i obtenir com a resultat una traducció de qualitat considerable

The soy bean in New Hampshire, Bulletin, no. 181

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Twelfth annual report, Bulletin, no. 79

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Fruit bud formation, Bulletin, no. 153

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Ninth annual report, Bulletin, no. 48

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Eighth annual report, Bulletin, no. 40

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Seventh annual report, Bulletin, no. 31

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Pasture top-dressing in New Hampshire, Bulletin, no. 320

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Results of seed tests for 1915, Bulletin, no. 177

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire