Digital Signal Processing

Contains an introduction and reports on fourteen research projects.National Science Foundation FellowshipNational Science Foundation (Grant ECS84-07285)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-81-K-0742)Sanders Associates, Inc.U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F19628-85-K-0028)Advanced Television Research ProgramAmoco Foundation FellowshipHertz Foundation Fellowshi

Digital Signal Processing

Contains an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00O14-81-K-0742)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0266)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS80-07102)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS84-07285)Amoco Foundation FellowshipSanders Associates, Inc.Advanced Television Research ProgramM.I.T. Vinton Hayes FellowshipHertz Foundation Fellowshi

Digital Signal Processing

Contains an introduction and reports on twenty research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant ECS 84-07285)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-81-K-0742)National Science Foundation FellowshipSanders Associates, Inc.U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F19628-85-K-0028)Canada, Bell Northern Research ScholarshipCanada, Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l'Aide a la Recherche Postgraduate FellowshipCanada, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Postgraduate FellowshipU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-81-K-0472)Fanny and John Hertz Foundation FellowshipCenter for Advanced Television StudiesAmoco Foundation FellowshipU.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F19628-85-K-0028

Digital Signal Processing

Contains introduction and reports on seventeen research projects.U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-81-K-0742)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0266)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS80-07102)Bell Laboratories FellowshipAmoco Foundation FellowshipSchlumberger-Doll Research Center FellowshipSanders Associates, Inc.Toshiba Company FellowshipM.I.T. Vinton Hayes FellowshipHertz Foundation Fellowshi

Digital Signal Processing Group

Contains an introduction and reports on nineteen research projects.U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0266)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-81-K-0742)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS80-07102)Bell Laboratories FellowshipAmoco Foundation FellowshipU.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-77-C-0196)Schlumberger-Doll Research Center FellowshipToshiba Company FellowshipVinton Hayes FellowshipHertz Foundation Fellowshi

Prospective randomized study comparing the Teleflex Medical SaphLITE Retractor to the Ethicon CardioVations Clearglide Endoscopic System

BACKGROUND: Several minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques have been developed to reduce morbidities associated with coronary artery bypass grafting. This prospective, randomized study was designed to compare two commonly used minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques, the SaphLITE Retractor System (Teleflex Medical) and the Clearglide Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting System (Ethicon CardioVations, Inc.). METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2004, a total of 200 patients scheduled for primary, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without concomitant procedures were randomized into two groups: SaphLITE (n = 100) and Clearglide (n = 100). Pre-, intra- and postoperative data was collected and subjected to statistical analysis. Randomization provided homogenous groups with respect to preoperative risk factors. RESULTS: Harvest location for the SaphLITE group was thigh (n = 40), lower leg (n = 5) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 55). The location of harvest for the Clearglide group was thigh (n = 3), lower leg (n = 16) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 81). The mean incision length was 3.6 cm (range, 2–6) in the SaphLITE group versus 2.1 cm (range, 1–4) in the Clearglide group (p < 0.05). The total incision length was 12.9 cm versus 8.9 (p < 0.05) in the SaphLITE and Clearglide groups. Conversion to the open technique occurred in 5 SaphLITE patients and 7 Clearglide patients. Intraoperative leg exploration for bleeding occurred in two of the Clearglide patients and none of the SaphLITE patients. Post-operative complications specifically related to minimally invasive harvesting technique, including a two-week post-discharge visit, were not statistically different between the groups. CONCLUSION: The saphenous vein can be safely harvested utilizing the SaphLITE and Clearglide systems. While the Clearglide system allows for fewer incisions (number and length) and less harvest time, these benefits may be outweighed by the increased cost of the Clearglide system compared to the SaphLITE retractor

Narcissism: a factor behind the selective sharing of news online

The current study examined the extent to which narcissism influences the social network users’ intention to share positive and negative life events with (close or unknown) online contacts. Using an online survey, small vignettes and a cross-sectional convenience sample of 119 participants, the results showed that narcissism positively predicted sharing intention of positive and negative life events with strangers. However, individuals rating higher in narcissism were less likely to share negative news with family. The research findings suggest that personality traits such as narcissism, the type of contacts online, and the nature of the news may shape what information is shared by online users. The type of news presented may therefore be a function of who is posting the content, their personality, and the kind of social network contacts they have online

Weighing waiting

People have been shown to delay decision making to wait for missing noninstrumental attribute information --- information that would not have altered their decision if known at the outset --- with this delay originally attributed to uncertainty obscuring one's true preference (Bastardi and Shafir, 1998). To test this account, relative to an alternative that delay arises from low confidence in one's preference (Tykocinski and Ruffle, 2003), we manipulated information certainty and the magnitude of a penalty for delay, the latter intended to reduce the influence of easily resolved sources of delay and to magnify any influence of uncertainty. Contrary to expectations, the results were largely inconsistent with the uncertainty account in that, under a low penalty, delay did not depend on information certainty; and, under a high penalty, delay rate was actually much lower when information was uncertain. To explain the latter, we propose that people use a strategy for resolving choice under uncertainty that does not require establishing a confident preference for each value of the missing information. These findings are related to others in which choice difficulty has been found to be a major source of delay