Quadtree based mouse trajectory analysis for efficacy evaluation of voice-enabled CAD

Voice-enabled applications have caught considerable research interest in recent years. It is generally believed that voice based interactions can improve the working efficiencies and the overall productivities. Quantitative evaluations on the performance boost by using such Human-Computer interactions (HCI) are therefore necessary to justify the claimed efficacies and the usefulness of the HCI system. In this paper, a quadtree based approach is proposed to analyze the mouse movement distributions in the proposed Voice-enabled Computer-Aided Design (VeCAD) system. The mouse tracker keeps a record of all the mouse movement during the solid modeling process, and a quadtree based approach is applied to analyze the mouse trajectory distributions in both the traditional CAD and the VeCAD system. Our experiments show that the mouse movement is significantly reduced when voice is used to activate CAD modeling commands. ©2009 IEEE.published_or_final_versionThe IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces, and Measurements Systems (VECIMS) 2009, Hong Kong, 11-13 May 2009. In Conference Proceedings, 2009, p. 196-20

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field