ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "หน้าหลัก"

จาก wiki.surinsanghasociety
ไปยังการนำทาง ไปยังการค้นหา
ล
ล
แถว 1: แถว 1:
−
Ofacial study neighborhood for describing human improvement and anatomy, and for relating these descriptions to relevant counterparts in model organisms which include mice. One example is, whereas craniofacial study needs a comprehensive representation of head anatomical entities and their relations, an ontology such as the mouse anatomy ontology [Hayamizu et al., 2005] represents only two forms of relation (part_of and is_a), with limited depth for craniofacial structures. Similarly, whereas the mapping ontology UBERON [Mungall et al., 2012] was deliberately developed to become homology-neutral, craniofacial researchers frequently have to have to link orthologous genes (i.e. inherited from a widespread ancestor, and distinguished from 1 another through speciation events) across species. It can be for these reasons that the NIDCR sponsored the creation from the OCDM. The objective of this article will be to introduce the OCDM for the craniofacial investigation neighborhood, to describe its current status and future plans, and to provide examples of how the OCDM is going to be of use not merely to FaceBase but also to geneticists, dysmorphologists, and craniofacial investigators. We start by describing our general strategy, then deliver precise particulars on our driving use circumstances, the organizational framework and content entered to-date, and prototype examples of the prospective use of your OCDM.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptOverall approachWhen complete, the OCDM will include things like standard and abnormal craniofacial structure and function, developmental anatomy and processes, syndromes, and other conditions relevant to craniofacial analysis and clinical practice. It will contain links to corresponding model organism knowledge sources, as well as relevant genomic information sources which include the gene ontology [Ashburner et al., 2000]. To provide a framework for this significant and diverse quantity of facts we organize the OCDM primarily about human adult and developmental anatomy, as offered by our Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA) [Rosse and Mejino, 2003]. The FMA is usually a symbolic representation from the phenotypic structure of your body ranging from macroscopic anatomy to molecules, which is by design limited to canonical structure. The FMA consists of a degree of detail that is definitely not found in anatomy textbooks like Gray's Anatomy [Gray, 1918]. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, to be able to establish ontological relationships among the adult lip, a cleft lip, embryologic improvement with the lip, and gene expression within the lipAm J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. Author manuscript; obtainable in PMC 2014 June 02.Brinkley et al.Pageregion, the FMA includes definitions for many subcomponents and bounds on the lip which might be unnamed in normal texts.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe FMA currently comprises more than 93,000 classes (e.g. "Head", "Mouth") represented by about 170,000 terms including preferred names, synonyms, eponyms and non-English equivalents, at the same time as over two.three million relations between classes (is_a, part_of, and so on). The FMA is at the moment the biggest and most comprehensive human anatomy ontology, and is becoming broadly accepted as the canonical anatomy reference ontology, with many of the main ontologies and controlled terminologies, which include SNOMED-CT [Spackman and Campbell, 1998], RadLex [Kundu et al., 2009], and Terminologia Anatomica [Whitmore, 1999] aligning to or incorporating the FMA because the anatomy axis of their.
+
Pho-phonemic substitutions and morphological merging errors, subjects substituted a unique sign
 +
Pho-phonemic substitutions and morphological merging errors, subjects substituted a various sign than the 1 inside the stimulus model in a offered sentence location. Such information let us to flesh out and further subdivide the notion of "semantic error" as described in Mayberry and Fischer (1989). In lexical and syntactic errors, we see a further distinction in between errors preserving semantic content at the lexical level (synonyms) vs. errors preserving semantic content by means of grammatical alternations, affecting the morpho-syntactic structure from the whole sentence. In circumstances of several alternations or commissions within a given sentence location, every deviation is counted as a separate error. Within the subsequent section we turn to the main element affecting reproduction accomplishment and error kind: the relative fluency in the signer. To start, Figure three shows the amount of occurrences of six separate error kinds in the pooled 75-subject response data for 20 sentences. Each from the first 3 errors was included within the count,FIGURE 1 | Histogram of participants with correct reproduction for each in the 20 sentences in the ASL-SRT job (N = 75 subjects).FIGURE 2 | Quantity of participants per group (maximum N = 25) with correct sentence reproduction as a function of sentence complexity ordered from easiest (sentence 1) to hardest (sentence 20).Table two | Distribution of errors across 1500 responses. Topic group DDA (n = 25) DDY (n = 25) HDA (n = 25) N = 75 # test products 500 500 500 1500 Successful reproduction 361 348 247 956 Failure 139 152 253 544 With 1 error 77 74 121 272 With two errors 34 49 80 163 With 3 errors or much more 28 29 52www.frontiersin.orgAugust 2014 | Volume 5 | Report 859 |Supalla et al.Cognitive scaffolding in working memoryTable 3 | Classification of reproduction errors. Error type and description OMISSION AS One Sort OF ERROR Target sign is omitted MORPHOLOGICAL Variety OF ERROR Bound inflectional morphology is replaced, resulting in simplified sign (morphological omission) Re-interpretation of classifier structure such that response has related type but distinctive which means Merge two indicators into 1 type LEXICAL Kind OF ERROR The target sign is replaced by a various lexical form (lexical substitution) Sign not present within the stimulus item is added (lexical commission) PHONOLOGICAL Sort OF ERROR Response sign is misarticulated in kind, hence recognized as unique in the target sign (misarticulation) Sign is replaced with one particular that was morphologically/lexically related (morpho-phonemic substitution) SYNTACTIC Kind OF ERROR Sequence of signs is reordered (word displacement) A sign is repeated at a unique place in the sentence OTHER RESPONSE ERROR Varieties Rough approximation of form and movement of target sign (visuo-motoric mimicry) Miscomprehension: Response indicates that topic will not recognize ideas in stimulus Overall response has a meaningless non-sign approximating the phonology of the target sign at a specific sentence place Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE SPIN HIT TREE Response: MOTORCYCLE RIDE SEE TREE Stimulus: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by Response: INDEX-first LIKE GO CL: trees-go-by BIKE PATH Stimulus: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by Response: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by BIKE Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE SPIN(base hand palm-down) HIT TREE Topic Error: MOTORCYCLE SPIN(base hand palm-up) HIT TREE Stimulus: MY DOG CONTINUE+ + + BARK Response: MY DOG CONTINUE+ + + BITE Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE CL: veh.

รุ่นแก้ไขเมื่อ 14:20, 28 กรกฎาคม 2564

Pho-phonemic substitutions and morphological merging errors, subjects substituted a unique sign Pho-phonemic substitutions and morphological merging errors, subjects substituted a various sign than the 1 inside the stimulus model in a offered sentence location. Such information let us to flesh out and further subdivide the notion of "semantic error" as described in Mayberry and Fischer (1989). In lexical and syntactic errors, we see a further distinction in between errors preserving semantic content at the lexical level (synonyms) vs. errors preserving semantic content by means of grammatical alternations, affecting the morpho-syntactic structure from the whole sentence. In circumstances of several alternations or commissions within a given sentence location, every deviation is counted as a separate error. Within the subsequent section we turn to the main element affecting reproduction accomplishment and error kind: the relative fluency in the signer. To start, Figure three shows the amount of occurrences of six separate error kinds in the pooled 75-subject response data for 20 sentences. Each from the first 3 errors was included within the count,FIGURE 1 | Histogram of participants with correct reproduction for each in the 20 sentences in the ASL-SRT job (N = 75 subjects).FIGURE 2 | Quantity of participants per group (maximum N = 25) with correct sentence reproduction as a function of sentence complexity ordered from easiest (sentence 1) to hardest (sentence 20).Table two | Distribution of errors across 1500 responses. Topic group DDA (n = 25) DDY (n = 25) HDA (n = 25) N = 75 # test products 500 500 500 1500 Successful reproduction 361 348 247 956 Failure 139 152 253 544 With 1 error 77 74 121 272 With two errors 34 49 80 163 With 3 errors or much more 28 29 52www.frontiersin.orgAugust 2014 | Volume 5 | Report 859 |Supalla et al.Cognitive scaffolding in working memoryTable 3 | Classification of reproduction errors. Error type and description OMISSION AS One Sort OF ERROR Target sign is omitted MORPHOLOGICAL Variety OF ERROR Bound inflectional morphology is replaced, resulting in simplified sign (morphological omission) Re-interpretation of classifier structure such that response has related type but distinctive which means Merge two indicators into 1 type LEXICAL Kind OF ERROR The target sign is replaced by a various lexical form (lexical substitution) Sign not present within the stimulus item is added (lexical commission) PHONOLOGICAL Sort OF ERROR Response sign is misarticulated in kind, hence recognized as unique in the target sign (misarticulation) Sign is replaced with one particular that was morphologically/lexically related (morpho-phonemic substitution) SYNTACTIC Kind OF ERROR Sequence of signs is reordered (word displacement) A sign is repeated at a unique place in the sentence OTHER RESPONSE ERROR Varieties Rough approximation of form and movement of target sign (visuo-motoric mimicry) Miscomprehension: Response indicates that topic will not recognize ideas in stimulus Overall response has a meaningless non-sign approximating the phonology of the target sign at a specific sentence place Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE SPIN HIT TREE Response: MOTORCYCLE RIDE SEE TREE Stimulus: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by Response: INDEX-first LIKE GO CL: trees-go-by BIKE PATH Stimulus: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by Response: INDEX-first LIKE GO BIKE PATH CL: trees-go-by BIKE Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE SPIN(base hand palm-down) HIT TREE Topic Error: MOTORCYCLE SPIN(base hand palm-up) HIT TREE Stimulus: MY DOG CONTINUE+ + + BARK Response: MY DOG CONTINUE+ + + BITE Stimulus: MOTORCYCLE CL: veh.

ดึงข้อมูลจาก "https://wiki.surinsanghasociety.com/index.php?title=หน้าหลัก&oldid=223039"