Attention distribution and cognitive load in a subtitled academic lecture: L1 vs. L2

In multilingual classrooms, subtitling can be used to address the language needs of students from different linguistic backgrounds. The way students distribute their visual and cognitive resources during a lecture is important in educational design. Students have to shift their attention between sources of information of varying density and relevance. If there is redundancy between these sources, there will be competition and possible cognitive overload. This paper compares visual attention distribution between subtitles and other sources of information through eye tracking and relates this to academic comprehension and cognitive load as measured through self-report questionnaires and EEG. The study provides promising results for the use of both first and second language subtitles in academic contexts

Conducting experimental research in audiovisual translation (AVT) : a position paper

Experimental studies on AVT have grown incrementally over the past decade. This growing body of research has explored several aspects of AVT reception and production using behavioural measures such as eye tracking, as well as venturing into physiological measures such as electroencephalography (EEG), galvanic skin response, and heart rate. As a novel approach to the field of AVT, the experimental approach has borrowed heavily from other fields with established experimental traditions, such as psycholinguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. However, these methodologies are often not implemented with the same rigour as in the disciplines from which they were taken, making for highly eclectic and, at times, inconsistent practices. The absence of a common framework and best practice for experimental research in AVT poses significant risk in addition to the potential reputational damage. Some of the most important risks are: the duplication of efforts, studies that cannot be replicated due to a lack of methodological standardisation and rigour, and findings that are, at best, impossible to generalise from and, at worst, invalid. Given the growing body of work in AVT taking a quasi-experimental approach, it is time to consolidate our position and establish a common framework in order to ensure the integrity of our endeavours. This chapter analyses problems and discusses solutions specifically related to the multidisciplinary nature of experimental AVT research. In so doing, it aims to set the course for future experimental research in AVT, in order to gain credibility in the wider scientific community and contributes new insights to the fields from which AVT has been borrowing. Its conclusion lays out the foundation for a common core of measures and norms to regulate research in the growing field of AVT

Conducting experimental research in audiovisual translation (AVT) : a position paper

Experimental studies on AVT have grown incrementally over the past decade. This growing body of research has explored several aspects of AVT reception and production using behavioural measures such as eye tracking, as well as venturing into physiological measures such as electroencephalography (EEG), galvanic skin response, and heart rate. As a novel approach to the field of AVT, the experimental approach has borrowed heavily from other fields with established experimental traditions, such as psycholinguistics, psychology, and cognitive science. However, these methodologies are often not implemented with the same rigour as in the disciplines from which they were taken, making for highly eclectic and, at times, inconsistent practices. The absence of a common framework and best practice for experimental research in AVT poses significant risk in addition to the potential reputational damage. Some of the most important risks are: the duplication of efforts, studies that cannot be replicated due to a lack of methodological standardisation and rigour, and findings that are, at best, impossible to generalise from and, at worst, invalid. Given the growing body of work in AVT taking a quasi-experimental approach, it is time to consolidate our position and establish a common framework in order to ensure the integrity of our endeavours. This chapter analyses problems and discusses solutions specifically related to the multidisciplinary nature of experimental AVT research. In so doing, it aims to set the course for future experimental research in AVT, in order to gain credibility in the wider scientific community and contributes new insights to the fields from which AVT has been borrowing. Its conclusion lays out the foundation for a common core of measures and norms to regulate research in the growing field of AVT

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570