More Like this

1. Too SHY 2 repress

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2024.09.001  

   Reed, Jason W; Bargmann, Bastiaan OR (October 2024, Molecular Plant)
2. Too hot, too fast! Using the thermal grill illusion to explore dynamic thermal perception

   https://doi.org/10.1109/HAPTICS.2018.8357167  

   Patwardhan, Shriniwas; Kawazoe, Anzu; Kerr, David; Nakatani, Masashi; Visell, Yon (March 2018, 2018 IEEE Haptics Symposium (HAPTICS))

   Thermal perception is important in the experience of touching real objects, and thermal display devices are of growing interest for applications in virtual reality, medicine, and wearable technologies. In this paper, we designed a new thermal display, and investigated the perception of spatially varying thermal stimuli, including the thermal grill illusion. The latter is a perceptual effect in which a burning sensation is elicited in response to touching a surface composed of spatially juxtaposed warm and cool areas. Using a computer controlled thermal display, we present experiments in which we measured temporal correlates of the perception of spatially inhomogeneous stimuli, or thermal grills. We assessed the intensity of responses elicited by thermal grill stimuli with different temperature settings, and measured the response time until the onset of burning sensations. We found that thermal grills elicited highly stereotyped responses. The experimental results also indicated that as the temperature difference increases, the intensity increases monotonically, while the response time decreases monotonically. Consequently, perceived intensity was inversely correlated with response time. Under current physiological explanations, responses to thermal stimuli depend on tissue heating, neural processing, and the spatial distribution (or juxtaposition) of surface temperatures. The results of this study could help to inform models accounting for these factors, enabling new applications of the thermal grill illusion. 

   more » « less
3. Terebratulina: is 81 species too many?

   Carlson, S. J.; Bapst, D. W.; Robinson, J. H.; Rudman, E. A.; Lopez-Carranza, N. (January 2017, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs,)
4. Chiplets: How Small is too Small?

   Graening A.; Pal S.; Gupta P. (January 2023, Proceedings ACM IEEE Design Automation Conference)
5. Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03061-9  

   Lloyd, Elisabeth A.; Oreskes, Naomi; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Larson, Edward J. (April 2021, Climatic Change)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence. 

   more » « less