Do personality traits predict post-traumatic stress?: a prospective study in civilians experiencing air attacks

Publisher version available from: http://journals.cambridge.org

Recognition of dance-like actions: memory for static posture or dynamic movement?

Dance-like actions are complex visual stimuli involving multiple changes in body posture across time and space. Visual perception research has demonstrated a difference between the processing of dynamic body movement and the processing of static body posture. Yet, it is unclear whether this processing dissociation continues during the retention of body movement and body form in visual working memory (VWM). When observing a dance-like action, it is likely that static snapshot images of body posture will be retained alongside dynamic images of the complete motion. Therefore, we hypothesized that, as in perception, posture and movement would differ in VWM. Additionally, if body posture and body movement are separable in VWM, as form- and motion-based items, respectively, then differential interference from intervening form and motion tasks should occur during recognition. In two experiments, we examined these hypotheses. In Experiment 1, the recognition of postures and movements was tested in conditions in which the formats of the study and test stimuli matched (movement-study to movement-test, posture-study to posture-test) or mismatched (movement-study to posture-test, posture-study to movement-test). In Experiment 2, the recognition of postures and movements was compared after intervening form and motion tasks. These results indicated that (1) the recognition of body movement based only on posture is possible, but it is significantly poorer than recognition based on the entire movement stimulus, and (2) form-based interference does not impair memory for movements, although motion-based interference does. We concluded that, whereas static posture information is encoded during the observation of dance-like actions, body movement and body posture differ in VWM

What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology

Oncological diseases account for a significant portion of the burden on public healthcare systems with associated costs driven primarily by complex and long-lasting therapies. Through the visualization of patient-specific morphology and functional-molecular pathways, cancerous tissue can be detected and characterized non- invasively, so as to provide referring oncologists with essential information to support therapy management decisions. Following the onset of stand-alone anatomical and functional imaging, we witness a push towards integrating molecular image information through various methods, including anato-metabolic imaging (e.g., PET/ CT), advanced MRI, optical or ultrasound imaging. This perspective paper highlights a number of key technological and methodological advances in imaging instrumentation related to anatomical, functional, molecular medicine and hybrid imaging, that is understood as the hardware-based combination of complementary anatomical and molecular imaging. These include novel detector technologies for ionizing radiation used in CT and nuclear medicine imaging, and novel system developments in MRI and optical as well as opto-acoustic imaging. We will also highlight new data processing methods for improved non-invasive tissue characterization. Following a general introduction to the role of imaging in oncology patient management we introduce imaging methods with well-defined clinical applications and potential for clinical translation. For each modality, we report first on the status quo and point to perceived technological and methodological advances in a subsequent status go section. Considering the breadth and dynamics of these developments, this perspective ends with a critical reflection on where the authors, with the majority of them being imaging experts with a background in physics and engineering, believe imaging methods will be in a few years from now. Overall, methodological and technological medical imaging advances are geared towards increased image contrast, the derivation of reproducible quantitative parameters, an increase in volume sensitivity and a reduction in overall examination time. To ensure full translation to the clinic, this progress in technologies and instrumentation is complemented by progress in relevant acquisition and image-processing protocols and improved data analysis. To this end, we should accept diagnostic images as “data”, and – through the wider adoption of advanced analysis, including machine learning approaches and a “big data” concept – move to the next stage of non-invasive tumor phenotyping. The scans we will be reading in 10 years from now will likely be composed of highly diverse multi- dimensional data from multiple sources, which mandate the use of advanced and interactive visualization and analysis platforms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) for real-time data handling by cross-specialty clinical experts with a domain knowledge that will need to go beyond that of plain imaging

Bohemia and Moravia

In the ninth century two independent and separate units existed, the Great Moravian Christian polity and the pagan gens of the Czechs. Moravia emerged as a political unit sometime after 830. It is traditionally referred to by the name Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus gave it: Great Moravia. Great Moravia collapsed under Magyar assault in 906. From the tenth century a Christian state developed consisting of two lands, Bohemia and Moravia. While nothing at all is known from the written record about the society of Great Moravia prior to the turn of the ninth century, there are numerous reports dealing with Bohemia in ninth-century Frankish annals and chronicles. The inhabitants of Bohemia appear in these sources under the name Bohemani and variations thereon, taken from the name of the country, either the Latin Bohemia or the Germanic Baiahaim. Their own name for themselves, Czechs (of unknown etymology), is first documented in the tenth century. From the point of view of the Empire these Bohemani formed a single political unit on the territory of Bohemia; numerous princes (duces Bohemanorum), however, would often treat on their behalf. This apparently contradictory situation – with a unified ‘tribe’ on the one hand and a number of chiefs on the other – is resolved in the earlier literature by a preference for one of two alternatives