Cross-cultural interpretation of filmic metaphors: A think-aloud experiment

The purpose of this study is to investigate how viewers who speak different languages interpret cinematographic metaphors in a filmic advertisement. The study is organized in three parts: First, we offer a theoretical model that predicts the offline mental mechanisms that occur while people interpret filmic metaphors, based on an existing model of visual metaphor processing. Second, we evaluate the model in a think-aloud retrospective task. A TV-commercial is projected individually to 30 Spanish, 30 American, and 30 Persian participants, who are then asked to verbalize their thoughts. The commercial was previously segmented, analyzed using FILMIP (Filmic Metaphor Identification Procedure), and marked for metaphoricity by two independent analysts. The collected data is then evaluated in two formal content analyses. In the first one, two independent coders classified all the clauses used by the 90 participants in relation to the steps outlined in the theoretical model. In the second analysis, those clauses in which the participants were constructing their metaphorical interpretation of the filmic advertisement were annotated for the type of metaphor they constructed. The general results show that: (1) some mental processes seem to be more prominent in some cultures and not in others, and (2) genre-related knowledge plays a crucial role in constructing filmic metaphors in certain cultures and not in others. With this study, we theoretically formalize and empirically test the types of operations reflected in the language that viewers use to describe how they interpret filmic metaphors, thus advancing the current theory and methods on filmic metaphor interpretation from cognitive, semiotic, and cross-cultural perspectives

Expectativas y problemas del cultivo de camarón en Centroamérica

No disponible/Not availabl

Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data

© The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Davis, G. E., Baumgartner, M. F., Corkeron, P. J., Bell, J., Berchok, C., Bonnell, J. M., Thornton, J. B., Brault, S., Buchanan, G. A., Cholewiak, D. M., Clark, C. W., Delarue, J., Hatch, L. T., Klinck, H., Kraus, S. D., Martin, B., Mellinger, D. K., Moors-Murphy, H., Nieukirk, S., Nowacek, D. P., Parks, S. E., Parry, D., Pegg, N., Read, A. J., Rice, A. N., Risch, D., Scott, A., Soldevilla, M. S., Stafford, K. M., Stanistreet, J. E., Summers, E., Todd, S., & Van Parijs, S. M. Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a decade of passive acoustic data. Global Change Biology, (2020): 1-30, doi:10.1111/gcb.15191.Six baleen whale species are found in the temperate western North Atlantic Ocean, with limited information existing on the distribution and movement patterns for most. There is mounting evidence of distributional shifts in many species, including marine mammals, likely because of climate‐driven changes in ocean temperature and circulation. Previous acoustic studies examined the occurrence of minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) and North Atlantic right whales (NARW; Eubalaena glacialis ). This study assesses the acoustic presence of humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae ), sei (B. borealis ), fin (B. physalus ), and blue whales (B. musculus ) over a decade, based on daily detections of their vocalizations. Data collected from 2004 to 2014 on 281 bottom‐mounted recorders, totaling 35,033 days, were processed using automated detection software and screened for each species' presence. A published study on NARW acoustics revealed significant changes in occurrence patterns between the periods of 2004–2010 and 2011–2014; therefore, these same time periods were examined here. All four species were present from the Southeast United States to Greenland; humpback whales were also present in the Caribbean. All species occurred throughout all regions in the winter, suggesting that baleen whales are widely distributed during these months. Each of the species showed significant changes in acoustic occurrence after 2010. Similar to NARWs, sei whales had higher acoustic occurrence in mid‐Atlantic regions after 2010. Fin, blue, and sei whales were more frequently detected in the northern latitudes of the study area after 2010. Despite this general northward shift, all four species were detected less on the Scotian Shelf area after 2010, matching documented shifts in prey availability in this region. A decade of acoustic observations have shown important distributional changes over the range of baleen whales, mirroring known climatic shifts and identifying new habitats that will require further protection from anthropogenic threats like fixed fishing gear, shipping, and noise pollution.We thank Chris Pelkie, David Wiley, Michael Thompson, Chris Tessaglia‐Hymes, Eric Matzen, Chris Tremblay, Lance Garrison, Anurag Kumar, John Hildebrand, Lynne Hodge, Russell Charif, Kathleen Dudzinski, and Ann Warde for help with project planning, field work support, and data management. For all the support and advice, thanks to the NEFSC Protected Species Branch, especially the passive acoustics group, Josh Hatch, and Leah Crowe. We thank the field and crew teams on all the ships that helped in the numerous deployments and recoveries. This research was funded and supported by many organizations, specified by projects as follows: data recordings from region 1 were provided by K. Stafford (funding: National Science Foundation #NSF‐ARC 0532611). Region 2 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA and the Office of Naval Research #N00014–03–1–0099, NOAA #NA06OAR4600100, US Navy #N00244‐08‐1‐0029, N00244‐09‐1‐0079, and N00244‐10‐1‐0047). Region 3A data: D. Risch (funding: NOAA and Navy N45 programs). Region 3 data: H. Moors‐Murphy and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2005–2014 data), and the Whitehead Lab of Dalhousie University (eastern Scotian Shelf data; logistical support by A. Cogswell, J. Bartholette, A. Hartling, and vessel CCGS Hudson crew). Emerald Basin and Roseway Basin Guardbuoy data, deployment, and funding: Akoostix Inc. Region 3 Emerald Bank and Roseway Basin 2004 data: D. K. Mellinger and S. Nieukirk, NOAA PMEL contribution #5055 (funding: NOAA). Region 4 data: S. Parks (funding: NOAA and Cornell University) and E. Summers, S. Todd, J. Bort Thornton, A. N. Rice, and C. W. Clark (funding: Maine Department of Marine Resources, NOAA #NA09NMF4520418, and #NA10NMF4520291). Region 5 data: S. M. Van Parijs, D. Cholewiak, L. Hatch, C. W. Clark, D. Risch, and D. Wiley (funding: National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP), NOAA, and Navy N45). Region 6 data: S. M. Van Parijs and D. Cholewiak (funding: Navy N45 and Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species [AMAPPS] program). Region 7 data: A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, A. Warde, B. Martin, J. Delarue, and S. Kraus (funding: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, and BOEM). Region 8 data: G. Buchanan, and K. Dudzinski (funding: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Clean Energy Fund) and A. N. Rice, C. W. Clark, and H. Klinck (funding: Center for Conservation Bioacoustics at Cornell University and BOEM). Region 9 data: J. E. Stanistreet, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, and S. M. Van Parijs (funding: NOAA and US Fleet Forces Command). Region 10 data: L. Garrison, M. Soldevilla, C. W. Clark, R. A. Chariff, A. N. Rice, H. Klinck, J. Bell, D. P. Nowacek, A. J. Read, J. Hildebrand, A. Kumar, L. Hodge, and J. E. Stanistreet (funding: US Fleet Forces Command, BOEM, NOAA, and NOPP). Region 11 data: C. Berchok as part of a collaborative project led by the Fundacion Dominicana de Estudios Marinos, Inc. (Dr. Idelisa Bonnelly de Calventi; funding: The Nature Conservancy [Elianny Dominguez]) and D. Risch (funding: World Wildlife Fund, NOAA, and Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs)

International Consensus Based Review and Recommendations for Minimum Reporting Standards in Research on Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (Version 2020)

Given its non-invasive nature, there is increasing interest in the use of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) across basic, translational and clinical research. Contemporaneously, tVNS can be achieved by stimulating either the auricular branch or the cervical bundle of the vagus nerve, referred to as transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation(VNS) and transcutaneous cervical VNS, respectively. In order to advance the field in a systematic manner, studies using these technologies need to adequately report sufficient methodological detail to enable comparison of results between studies, replication of studies, as well as enhancing study participant safety. We systematically reviewed the existing tVNS literature to evaluate current reporting practices. Based on this review, and consensus among participating authors, we propose a set of minimal reporting items to guide future tVNS studies. The suggested items address specific technical aspects of the device and stimulation parameters. We also cover general recommendations including inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants, outcome parameters and the detailed reporting of side effects. Furthermore, we review strategies used to identify the optimal stimulation parameters for a given research setting and summarize ongoing developments in animal research with potential implications for the application of tVNS in humans. Finally, we discuss the potential of tVNS in future research as well as the associated challenges across several disciplines in research and clinical practice