Instrumentation and robotic image processing using top-down model control

A top-down image processing scheme is described. A three-dimensional model of a robotic working environment, with robot manipulators, workpieces, cameras, and on-the-scene visual enhancements is employed to control and direct the image processing, so that rapid, robust algorithms act in an efficient manner to continually update the model. Only the model parameters are communicated, so that savings in bandwidth are achieved. This image compression by modeling is especially important for control of space telerobotics. The background for this scheme lies in an hypothesis of human vision put forward by the senior author and colleagues almost 20 years ago - the Scanpath Theory. Evidence was obtained that repetitive sequences of saccadic eye movements, the scanpath, acted as the checking phase of visual pattern recognition. Further evidence was obtained that the scanpaths were apparently generated by a cognitive model and not directly by the visual image. This top-down theory of human vision was generalized in some sense to the frame in artificial intelligence. Another source of the concept arose from bioengineering instrumentation for measuring the pupil and eye movements with infrared video cameras and special-purpose hardware

Plasma Electronics

Contains reports on eight research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant G-24073)United States Atomic Energy Commission (Contract AF(30-1)-3285)Lincoln Laboratory (Purchase Order DDL BB-107)United States Air Force (Contract AF19(628)-500)United States Atomic Energy Commission (Contract AT(30-1)-3221

Dental disease outcomes following a 2-year oral health promotion program for Australian Aboriginal children and their families: a 2-arm parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background: Dental disease has far-reaching impacts on child health and wellbeing. We worked with Aboriginal Australian communities to develop a multifaceted oral health promotion initiative to reduce children's experience of dental disease at age 2 years. Methods: This was a single-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited from health service providers across South Australia. Women pregnant with an Aboriginal child were eligible. The intervention comprised: (1) provision of dental care to mothers during pregnancy; (2) application of fluoride varnish to teeth of children at ages 6, 12 and 18 months; (3) motivational interviewing delivered in conjunction with; (4) anticipatory guidance. The primary outcome was untreated dental decay as assessed by the number of teeth with cavitated and non-cavitated carious lesions (mean dt) at child age 24 months. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principles. The RCT was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12611000111976. Findings: Women (n = 448) were recruited from February 2011 to May 2012, resulting in 223 children in the treatment group and 225 in the control. Mean dt at age two years was 0.62 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.65) for the intervention group and 0.89 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92) for the control group (mean difference − 0.27 (95% CI − 0.31, − 0.22)). Interpretation: A culturally-appropriate intervention at four time-points from pregnancy through to 18-months resulted in improvements in the oral health of Aboriginal children. Further consultation with Aboriginal communities is essential for understanding how to best sustain these oral health improvements for young Aboriginal children.Lisa Jamieson, Lisa Smithers, Joanne Hedges, Eleanor Parker, Helen Mills, Kostas Kapella

Follow-up of an intervention to reduce dental caries in Indigenous Australian children: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Importance:Testing the long-term usefulness of a childhood intervention and determining the best age of implementation are important for translation and policy change. Objectives:To investigate among children aged 3 years the long-term effectiveness an intervention that aimed to reduce dental caries among South Australian Aboriginal children and to assess if children in the delayed intervention (DI) group had any benefit from the intervention from ages 2 to 3 years and if the intervention usefulness was greater when delivered between pregnancy and age 2 years (immediate intervention [II] vs ages 2 to 3 years [DI]). Design, Setting, and Participants:Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. The study enrolled 448 pregnant women across South Australia, Australia, at baseline (February 1, 2011, to May 30, 2012), with 223 randomly allocated to the II group and 225 to the DI group. Three-year follow-up data were collected November 2014 to February 2016. Interventions:The intervention comprised dental treatment to mothers, fluoride varnish application to children, and motivational interviewing delivered together with anticipatory guidance. This was delivered during pregnancy and at child ages 6, 12, and 18 months for the II group and at child ages 24, 30, and 36 months for the DI group. Main Outcomes and Measures:The mean number of decayed teeth measured at child age 3 years. Results:There were 324 children at age 3 years (52.3% male). The mean number of decayed teeth at age 3 years was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.38-1.50) for the II group and 1.86 (95% CI, 1.89-2.03) for the DI group (mean difference, -0.41; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.10). The predicted mean number of decayed teeth at age 3 years for the DI group was 2.15. Between ages 2 and 3 years, the caries increment for the II group was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), compared with 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87-1.17) for the DI group (P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance:At the 3-year follow-up, II children had less dental caries than DI children, DI children developed dental caries at a lower trajectory than predicted had the intervention not been received at ages 2 to 3 years, and the caries increment was less between ages 2 to 3 years among II children compared with DI children. This study suggests that the best time to implement the intervention is earlier rather than later infancy. Trial Registration:Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Ideintifier: ACTRN12611000111976.Lisa M. Jamieson, Lisa G. Smithers, Joanne Hedges, Jacqueline Aldis, Helen Mills, Kostas Kapellas, Herenia P. Lawrence, John R. Broughton, Xiangqun J