How Strong a Kick Should be to Topple Northeastern's Tumbling Robot?

Rough terrain locomotion has remained one of the most challenging mobility questions. In 2022, NASA's Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Program invited US academic institutions to participate NASA's Breakthrough, Innovative \& Game-changing (BIG) Idea competition by proposing novel mobility systems that can negotiate extremely rough terrain, lunar bumpy craters. In this competition, Northeastern University won NASA's top Artemis Award award by proposing an articulated robot tumbler called COBRA (Crater Observing Bio-inspired Rolling Articulator). This report briefly explains the underlying principles that made COBRA successful in competing with other concepts ranging from cable-driven to multi-legged designs from six other participating US institutions

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0002U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0635U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0655U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 NS33778Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy Research Fellowship Gran

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fourteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC52107U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-95-1-0176U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0002National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-184

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01-DC22402National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-93-1-1399U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-94-1-1079U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NCC 2-771U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-94-1-0236U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Agreement with Brandeis Universit

Consonant recognition by humans and machines

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Harvard--Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, 1998.Includes bibliographical references (p. 113-117).The goal of this research is to determine how aspects of human speech processing can be utilized to improve the performance of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems. Three traditional ASR parameterizations matched with Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) are compared to humans on a consonant recognition task using Consonant Vowel- Consonant (CVC) nonsense syllables degraded by highpass filtering, lowpass filtering, or additive noise. Confusion matrices were determined by recognizing the syllabies using different ASR front ends, including Mel-Filter Bank (MFB) energies, Mel-F filtered Cepstral Coefficients (MFCCs), and the Ensemble Interval Histogram (EIH). For syllables degraded by lowpass and highpass filtering, automated systems trained on the degraded condition recognized the consonants roughly as well as humans. Moreover, all the ASR systems produce similar patterns of recognition errors for a given filtering condition. These patterns differ significantly from that characteristic of humans under the same filtering conditions. For syllables degraded by additive speech-shaped noise, none of the automated systems recognized consonants as well as humans. As with filtered conditions, confusion matrices revealed similar error patterns for all the ASR systems. While the error patterns of humans and machines was more similar for noise conditions than for filtered conditions, the similarities were not as great as between the ASR systems. The greatest difference between human and machine performances was in determining the correct voiced/unvoiced classification of consonants. Given these results, work was focused on recognition of the correct voicing classification in additive noise (0 dB SNR). The approach taken attempted to automatically extract attributes of the. speech signal, termed subphonetic features, which are useful in determining the distinctive feature voicing. Two subphonetic features, intervocal period ( the length of time between the onset of the vowel and any preceding vocalization) and delta fundamental (the average first difference of fundamental frequency over the first 90 msec of the vowel) proved particularly useful. When these two features were appended to traditional ASR parameters, th-3 deficit exhibited by automated systems was reduced substantially, though not eliminated.by Jason Sroka.Ph.D

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo