An analysis of pitch and duration in material used to test L2 processing of words

The material reported on in this paper is part of a set of experiments in which the role of Information Structure on L2 processing of words is tested. Pitch and duration of 4 sets of experimental material in German and English are measured and analyzed in this paper. The well-known finding that accent boosts duration and pitch is confirmed. Syntactic and lexical means of marking focus, however, do not give the duration and the pitch of a word an extra boost

Focus accent, word length and position as cues to L1 and L2 word recognition

The present study examines native and nonnative perceptual processing of semantic information conveyed by prosodic prominence. Five groups of German learners of English each listened to one of 5 experimental conditions. Three conditions differed in place of focus accent in the sentence and two conditions were with spliced stimuli. The experiment condition was presented first in the learners’ L1 (German) and then in a similar set in the L2 (English). The effect of the accent condition and of the length and position of the target in the sentence was evaluated in a probe recognition task. In both the L1 and L2 tasks there was no significant effect in any of the five focus conditions. Target position and target word length had an effect in the L1 task. Word length did not affect accuracy rates in the L2 task. For probe recognition in the L2, word length and the position of the target interacted with the focus condition

Lutein-fortified infant formula fed to healthy term infants: evaluation of growth effects and safety

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background/Objectives</p> <p>Breast milk contains lutein derived from the mother's diet. This carotenoid is currently not added to infant formula, which has a small and variable lutein content from innate ingredients. This study was conducted to compare the growth of infants fed lutein-fortified infant formula with that of infants fed infant formula without lutein fortification.</p> <p>Subjects/Methods</p> <p>This 16-week study was prospective, randomized, controlled, and double-blind with parallel groups of healthy term infants fed either control formula (Wyeth S-26 Gold, designated as Gold) or experimental formula (Wyeth S-26 Gold fortified with lutein at 200 mcg/l, designated as Gold + Lutein). Two hundred thirty-two (232) infants ≤ 14 days postnatal age were randomized and 220 (94.8%) completed the study. Weight (g), head circumference (cm), and length (cm) were measured at Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16. The primary endpoint was weight gain (g/day) from baseline to Week 16. Safety was assessed through monitoring of study events (SEs) throughout the study and evaluation of selected blood chemistry tests performed at Week 16.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Infants in both treatment groups demonstrated appropriate growth. No differences between treatment groups were found in any of the measures of growth at any of the measurement time points. Both study formulas were well tolerated. The mean values of all measured blood chemistry parameters fell within the modified normal ranges for infants, and the values for both groups for any measured parameter were similar.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Infants fed lutein-fortified S-26 Gold demonstrated growth equivalent to that of infants fed unfortified lutein formula.</p

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health