Search for: All records

Fire regimes are changing across the globe, with new wildfire behaviour phenomena and increasing impacts felt, especially in ecosystems without clear adaptations to wildfire. These trends pose significant challenges to the scientific community in understanding and communicating these changes and their implications, particularly where we lack underlying scientific evidence to inform decision-making. Here, we present a perspective on priority directions for wildfire science research—through the lens of academic and government wildfire scientists from a historically wildfire-prone (USA) and emerging wildfire-prone (UK) country. Key topic areas outlined during a series of workshops in 2023 were as follows: (A) understanding and predicting fire occurrence, fire behaviour and fire impacts; (B) increasing human and ecosystem resilience to fire; and (C) understanding the atmospheric and climate impacts of fire. Participants agreed on focused research questions that were seen as priority scientific research gaps. Fire behaviour was identified as a central connecting theme that would allow critical advances to be made across all topic areas. These findings provide one group of perspectives to feed into a more transdisciplinary outline of wildfire research priorities across the diversity of knowledge bases and perspectives that are critical in addressing wildfire research challenges under changing fire regimes. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Novel fire regimes under climate changes and human influences: impacts, ecosystem responses and feedbacks’. 

This research article is a collaborative set of reflections and provocations stemming from the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded workshop on STS as a Critical Pedagogy, hosted online during the summer of 2021 by Shannon N. Conley and Emily York at James Madison University. The workshop occurred over four separate sessions, bringing together forty participants (including six undergraduate students who contributed as both facilitators and research assistants). Participants self-organized into panels, leading the workshop collective to engage a host of questions, challenges, methods, and practices related to STS and critical pedagogy. Questions included the following. What characterizes critical STS pedagogies? How are critical STS pedagogies enabled and constrained by our institutional and disciplinary locations? What makes STS pedagogies travel? How might we imagine STS pedagogies otherwise? How do our pedagogies shape our research and engagement in the world? How might we critically interrogate the boundaries between research, teaching, service, and engagement, and what becomes visible when we do so? 

Abstract Objective. Brain–machine interfaces (BMIs) have shown promise in extracting upper extremity movement intention from the thoughts of nonhuman primates and people with tetraplegia. Attempts to restore a user’s own hand and arm function have employed functional electrical stimulation (FES), but most work has restored discrete grasps. Little is known about how well FES can control continuous finger movements. Here, we use a low-power brain-controlled functional electrical stimulation (BCFES) system to restore continuous volitional control of finger positions to a monkey with a temporarily paralyzed hand. Approach. We delivered a nerve block to the median, radial, and ulnar nerves just proximal to the elbow to simulate finger paralysis, then used a closed-loop BMI to predict finger movements the monkey was attempting to make in two tasks. The BCFES task was one-dimensional in which all fingers moved together, and we used the BMI’s predictions to control FES of the monkey’s finger muscles. The virtual two-finger task was two-dimensional in which the index finger moved simultaneously and independently from the middle, ring, and small fingers, and we used the BMI’s predictions to control movements of virtual fingers, with no FES. Main results. In the BCFES task, the monkey improved his success rate to 83% (1.5 s median acquisition time) when using the BCFES system during temporary paralysis from 8.8% (9.5 s median acquisition time, equal to the trial timeout) when attempting to use his temporarily paralyzed hand. In one monkey performing the virtual two-finger task with no FES, we found BMI performance (task success rate and completion time) could be completely recovered following temporary paralysis by executing recalibrated feedback-intention training one time. Significance. These results suggest that BCFES can restore continuous finger function during temporary paralysis using existing low-power technologies and brain-control may not be the limiting factor in a BCFES neuroprosthesis.