text:
Psycholinguistics/Chronometry

Introduction
The chronometric perspective examines the production of speech by examining reaction times as a means of teasing apart the various stages of speech production. This chapter explores the evolution of this chronometric approach and examines the landmark findings in a number of the larger categories of chronometric research, such as picture-word interference tasks and word frequency effects. The results of these individual studies and domains of research are also compared to the two dominant models of speech production, interactive cascading models such as Dell's two step model, and the discrete models such as Roelof's WEAVER model and their compatibility with each is explored.

Naming Latencies

The seminal work in the chronometric exploration of speech production, is arguably that of James McKeen Cattell in the 1880s. Cattell discovered that naming lists of 100 object drawings took considerably longer than reading a list of words naming the same 100 objects. This was some of the earliest evidence indicating that the production of speech was not a simple, one step process.

This effect was further explored in 1967 by Steven Fraisse. He demonstrated that the effects observed by Cattell could not be explained by differences in the visual sensory differences between the drawing stimuli and the written word stimuli. This was accomplished by recording the naming latencies of the stimulus "O", when that stimulus was perceived as being a circle, the letter O, or a zero. The differences in response times were clear. When named as "circle", the mean RT was between 100ms-150ms longer than the RT induced by reading the stimulus as either "O" or "zero". These results lead to the conclusion that different coding processes occur when naming an object as opposed to reading a word.

The Stroop Paradigm
Semantic Facilitation and Semantic Interference demonstrated. Showed automaticity of word naming in comparison to color naming.

In 1935, John Stroop published what would become one of the most cited papers in cognitive psychology, in which the oft replicated Stroop Task was first employed. The three conditions of Stroop's experiment each used 2 of three sets of stimuli:
 * 1) a list of color words written in black ink ("red", "blue" etc.)
 * 2) a list of color words printed in an incongruent ink (e.g. "red" printed in blue ink)
 * 3) a list of colored squares. By comparing the time required to read through these lists

Stroop was able to make a number of observations. Firstly, when asked to name the ink color and disregard the written word while reading the second list, participants took significantly longer compared to naming the colours of simple colored squares. This was termed a semantic interference effect, as it was believed to be brought about by the related semantic information of the written color word conflicting with the color of the ink. Second, there was no significant difference in the length of time required to read the written words with varying ink colors in comparison to the time required to read through a list of color words all written in black ink. This observation was termed the Stroop asynchrony (van Maanen). Also of note was that the average time to complete a colored square naming list was significantly longer than the time required to finish a reading list, regardless of ink color. Together, these findings all reinforced the notion that word naming operates on a faster pathway than that of object (or in this case, color) naming. Further research on the topic (see Macleod, 1991 for comprehensive review) confirmed and expanded upon Stroop's original findings, and have demonstrated evidence for some degree of semantic facilitation as well. This effect occurs when the written word and the ink the word is printed in are congruous, e.g. the color blue will be named faster if the word written in the ink is "blue".

Picture/Word Interference Tasks
Based on the Stroop Task, Rosinski and colleagues (1975) created the Picture Word Interference task (PWI). Rosinski presented line drawings of common objects with distractor words superimposed on them. Large increases in latency were observed when participants were told to name the object and ignore the word, but only when the word was semantically unrelated to the object to be identified. Furthermore, this interference was not observed when the task was reversed, the drawings did not strongly interfere with the reading of the words, regardless of their semantic relationship to the word. These findings mirror those of the semantic interference demonstrated in the Stroop literature, and their widespread replication has lead many to believe that the underlying mechanism of interference for Stroop and PWI tasks is in fact the same (Macleod, 1991; van Maanen, 2009).

In 1979, Lupker was able to further refine the nature of the semantic interference effects through the implementation of a microphone to record voice onset times for each individual trial instead of recording completion times for entire lists as had been the tradition previously. Lupker's results showed that words sharing the same semantic category as the target object produce the most amount of interference, regardless of their relative association to the target object. For example, naming the target object of a mouse encountered the more interference when presented with "dog" (which is in the same semantic category of "animal") than when presented with "cheese", a word most people commonly associate with mice. The picture below provides an example of each type of pairing.

Lupker (1982) then went on to experiment with the effects orthographic and phonological elements of the distractor words have on object naming. His first experiment demonstrated that orthographic information facilitates object naming in comparison to an unrelated word, but still showed mild interference in comparison to the naming of a picture in the absence of any distractor. He also demonstrated a mild phonological facilitation effect when the distractor word and target object were phonetically identical, except for the first syllable, but almost entirely orthographically different, e.g. plane-brain. This facilitatory effect was also observable with phonologically similar, pronounceable nonwords. Similar to the orthographic effects, this phonological facilitation is only in comparison to unrelated distractor words. The picture alone still provides the fastest RT.

The next real breakthrough in chronometric research came from the variation of the SOA involved in the PWI tasks of picture naming, word reading, picture categorization, and word categorization(Glaser & Düngelhoff). They were able to distinguish 3 categories of effects from their results. Slow effects occured at SOA of -200ms to -400ms, and can be either facilitating or interfering, depending on the task and the relationship between distractor and target. Fast effects occur at ±100ms, and are always in the form of interference, and are exemplified in the classic Stroop task. Finally, they also observed some retroactive effects where distractor stimuli presented up to 300ms after the target stimuli caused interference in the response to the target. These SOA/RT curves indicated that there was a functional similarity between word reading and picture categorization, as well as between word categorization and picture naming. Another important finding comes from their comparison of picture categorization and picture naming. The dramatic reversal of inhibition clearly indicates that there is some difference between the internal processing of verbal and nonverbal stimuli.

1990 saw the advent of another paradigm shift in PWI tasks by presenting the distractor word as an auditory stimulus. The results were in kind with those of more standard PWI tasks, indicating that the paradigm was valid. Additionally, they compared the time course of effects from semantic and phonological distractors. There was a clear difference in both the timing and nature of these effects. Semantic distractors created the typical interference demonstrated in other studies, but only if it was presented with a SOA of -150ms. Phonological distractors led to varying degrees of facilitation. At the SOA= 0ms condition, phonological facilitation was relative to the unrelated condition, while in the +150ms SOA condition, the facilitation was apparent even in comparison with the silence (picture alone) condition. Due to the temporal distinction of these effects, the results have been used to support the theory that the process of word production involves two discrete steps, semantic activation, followed by phonological activation. Additionally, a distinction was identified between categorical processing and semantic processing in that semantic distractor words had no impact on an image categorizing task.

Implicit Priming
Implicit priming is another experimental method that has proven illuminating to the field of speech production. While much work has been done on the nature and time course of semantic processing in word production, phonological research had been somewhat lacking. Experiments by Meyer and several colleagues (1990, 1991, 1997) were able to cast some light on the nature of phonological and metrical processing using the implicit priming paradigm. In these explorations, participants are presented with several trigger-response word pairs to memorize, e.g. signal-beacon, glass-beaker. Once the word pairs have been familiarized, one of the trigger words is presented to the participant, and the time taken to name its response word is recorded. If all of the response words have the same initial syllable (e.g. beacon, beaver, basin) a priming effect is obtained. If the initial syllables vary, such priming does not occur. This indicates that phonological information proceeds in a segmental, left-to-right fashion. If participants know that all possible responses begin with the same syllable, this syllable can be prepared in advance and thus response time is reduced.

In addition to uncovering this phonological data, the implicit priming paradigm has also provided some evidence for the existence of metrical frames. Roelofs and Meyer (1998) explain these metrical frames as a mental concept that contains information on the word's number of syllables and stress pattern. Using implicit priming techniques as described above, they observed that when the response words all have the same stress pattern and same number of syllables, a metrical priming effect occurs. However, there were a number of interesting interactions that led to inferences about the nature of phonological and metrical priming. Firstly, the phonological priming effect can be blocked if the metrical structures of the words do not also match. The lack of priming for words that differ only in their number of syllables suggests that the metrical frame is not produced segmentally in the same manner as the phonological information. If that were indeed the case, the number or type of syllables after the initial shared segments would not matter. Furthermore, for word lists in which each word has the same number of syllables and an identical stress pattern, metrical priming is not observed if the initial syllables do not match. Taken together, these findings indicate that the metrical and phonological retrieval processes are separate, parallel processes. If both processes must be completed before the next step of speech production can begin (Roelofs & Meyer, 1998), this explains why they are always observed in tandem; speeding up one and not the other will not produce a faster overall result. While it explains this data quite well, at least one major issue arises from this conclusion. If left-to-right segmental process must be completed before speech output can begin, it stands to reason that words of greater length would take longer to process, and should therefore show larger reaction times. However, research into this area has shown that such length induced latencies are elusive if not non-existent ( Bachoud-Lévi et al., 1998). This suggests that articulation must be able to begin before phonological processing is entirely complete, but the exact conditions which must be met for articulation to begin are not yet known.

Word Frequency Effects
Oldfield and Wingfield first noticed in 1965 that response times to images of objects with common word names were faster than those with uncommon names. Further research (e.g. Wingfield, 1968; Jescheniak & Levelt, 1994) was able to determine that this effect is not due to varying speeds of visual stimulus processing, but is based instead at the point of response selection, i.e. the selection and production of the word corresponding to the image. As described above, there are multiple steps involved in the selection and production of a word, and the task became to localize the word frequency effect to one or more of these stages.

Jescheniak and Levelt (1994) ran a series of experiments attempting to do just that. No frequency effect differences in reaction time were found in connection to tasks of categorization, articulation, or the lemma level (measured here through a syntactic based gender identification with Dutch words). A significant effect was found in the phonological processing of words, tested by examining the reaction times to homophone words to low frequency and high frequency controls, which were also compared to each other to ensure the validity of the experiment. Words on the high frequency control list were chosen that matched the combined frequency of all possible readings of words on the homophone list, while the low frequency control words were matched in frequency with the less common reading of words on the homophone list. Reaction times were the highest for the low frequency controls, with high frequency controls and homophones much lower and not reliably distinguishable. This is strong evidence to indicate that it is the frequency of phonological information in lexeme activation that is behind the word frequency effect, and not the frequency of lemma activation.

Interactive Models
These models consist of a vast network of nodes categorized into one of three basic types, semantic nodes, word (or lemma) nodes and phonological nodes. These nodes are all interconnected, and function on the principle of spreading activation (Levelt, 1999). In speech production, first the intended semantic nodes are activated. These nodes contain the meaning or concept that is eventually going to be conveyed. Those semantic nodes will then in turn activate appropriate lemma nodes that contain the words best capable of conveying the intended concepts. Those lemma nodes then in turn activate the phonological codes that make up the words. Because the nodes are all vastly interconnected, the activation does not proceed linearly. The activation of the desired concepts will in turn activate other concepts that are related to those concepts, which will then in turn activate all of the lemma nodes associated with those newly activated concepts, which results in the activation of the phonological nodes connected to each of those lemma nodes as well. Because of this widespread activation, word choice in this model depends not on which nodes are activated, but on how much those nodes are activated.

The bidirectional nature of these models makes them appealing, as they could potentially provide a unified theory behind both speech perception and production; the reading or hearing of a word would activate the phonological nodes, starting the chain reaction in the reverse direction. It also handily explains a number of findings from speech error research and the lexical bias effect (Levelt, 1999). The semantic interference effect repeatedly demonstrated by chronometric researchers (e.g. Rosinski, 1975; Lupker, 1979; Macleod, 1991) can also be somewhat accounted for by these models. By presenting a semantically related distractor, the nodes neighboring the target lemma node already partially activated due to the spreading activation pattern will recieve a boost in activation from the distractor. This boost in activation will make the distractor appear to be a more valid possibility for selection and will require the use of more conscious effort to rule it out, which requires time and would result in larger latencies. If the boost were sufficient enough to surpass the level of activation of the target, a speech error may occur.

However, there are some chronometric results not easily reconciled with the interactive models. Experiments which have found different interference effects by varying SOA (e.g. Glaser & Dugelhoff 1984, Schriefers, Meyer, & Levelt, 1990) are particularly damaging to interactive models as they demonstrate specific windows of semantic and phonological activation and processing. Due to the bi-directionality and spreading activation of the interactive models, such distinct phases are at the least, unlikely. It is certainly possible that such conditions could be met with the proper tweaking of internal factors of the interactive models (such as activation duration, rate of spread, etc.) but the process is somewhat inelegant.

Discrete Process Models
Along with interactive models, the other dominant theoretical perspective is that of discrete process models. These models are built on a spreading activation network similar to that governing the interactive models, but there are constraints place on the direction and extent to which activation can spread. A popular discrete process model is the WEAVER model proposed by Roelofs in 1997. In WEAVER, activation spreads between concept nodes, and from concept nodes to lemma nodes, as well as from lemma nodes back  to concept nodes. However, activation does not spread to the morpho-phonological nodes associated with specific lemmas until that lemma is selected. The morpho-phonological codes also do not feed back into the lemma nodes. This model can more readily accommodate the data from the varied SOA studies, as it dictates that there are very distinct stages for semantic and phonological processing that do not overlap. As it was built based largely on the results of chronometric data, WEAVER can account for the majority of effects typically observed by chronometric studies, including the semantic interference effect, phonological facilitation effects, picture categorizing effects, and object naming latencies (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004). However, just as the interactive models have difficulty incorporating chronometric data, the WEAVER model has difficulty with some speech error data. It primarily relies on the use of an external (from the model) "monitor" and its occasional failure to detect phonological encoding errors to account for observed speech errors (Levelt, 1999). This "monitor" is thought to be more likely to miss errors that produce actual words, hence the lexical bias effect, and more likely still to miss errors that produce actual words that are semantically related to the target word, hence the existence of mixed errors.

Neuroimaging Research and the Time Course of Speech Production
A meta analysis of 82 neuroimaging experiments (Indefrey & Levelt, 2004) has allowed for the creation of relatively solid timeline of speech production. The process has been divided into three major steps, concept activation, lexical selection, and form encoding.

By looking at results of studies involving picture categorization and picture word matching, an estimate of the time reqired for concept activation can be obtained. Thorpe and colleagues (1996) used ERP measures in a go/no-go response experiment involving picture categorization, and found that the ERPs began to differ in the go vs no-go conditions at approximately 150ms after the presentation of the image. This suggests that the image had been categorized and a decision had been made by the 150ms point, providing an upper limit estimate for the time required for concept activation. The meta analysis of similar ERP studies using syntactic (lemma based) attributes to determine the go-no go response indicated that lemma activation occurs takes approximately 75ms, and occurs immediately following concept activation. The final stage, form encoding, involves three substages, phonetic code retrieval, syllabification, and phonetic encoding. These stages appear to occur sequentially, and the compiled data in Indefrey and Levelt's (2004) meta analysis indicates that the durations for these stages are approximately 80ms, 125ms, and 145ms respectively. Altogether, these average stepwise findings sum to an average total processing time of 600ms, which is in keeping with the empirical data from most chronometric experiments.

Conclusion
Chronometric explorations of speech production have provided a procedural focused window into the process of speech production. Over time, and with the advent of new technologies the results have only improved. From Cattell's early discoveries in object naming discrepancies to the much more high-tech brain imaging studies, the underlying concepts have remained largely the same, and the information acquired has built better and more comprehensive models, such as WEAVER. In essence, the primary findings of chronometric studies indicate that speech production occurs in a sequential manner. First, the desired semantic concepts are activated, which then activate the specific words connected to those concepts. The desired word is then selected, phonologically encoded, and articulated.

Further research will help to further identify the timing and duration of each of these steps, and through the use of more complex imaging techniques, may continue to localize the exact locations in the brain where each of these steps occurs.

Learning Module 1
The following are various examples of the Stroop Paradigm. With a partner, use a stopwatch to record the time it takes to read each list of words according to the instructions given.

List 1
Read through the entire list, starting at the top left-hand word and reading down the columns. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

List 2
Read through the entire list, starting at the top left-hand corner and reading down the columns. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

List 3
Read through the entire list, starting at the top left-hand word and reading down the columns. Ignore the color of the letters and read the words spelled by the letters. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

Next, read through the list a second time, this time ignoring the words spelled by the letters, and simply naming the colors of the letters. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

List 4
Read through the entire list, starting at the top left-hand word and reading down the columns. Ignore the color of the letters and read the words spelled by the letters. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

Next, read through the list a second time, this time ignoring the words spelled by the letters, and simply naming the colors of the letters. Have your partner record your time for the entire list and follow your progress. If the reader makes an error, the timer states "try again" and the reader must correct the error before moving on. When you finish, switch roles with your partner.

Questions

 * 1) What purpose does the first list serve in this experiment and why is it important?
 * 2) What reading was the fastest? The slowest? Why?
 * 3) Was there any observable difference between your times on List 1 and List 2? Why might this be the case?
 * 4) How is the last list different from the others? What does this change represent, and what added perspective does it lend?
 * 5) What are some potential confounds of this mini-experiment? How could you better access the constructs this experiment targets? What aspects of this paradigm might you change? Keep the same?
 * 6) How does this "whole list time" method compare to "Voice Onset Asynchrony" methodologies? What are potential strengths and weaknesses of each method?
 * 7) How do your responses to the previous question impact the findings of the data you've collected? Do any of them generalize to the research mentioned in the chapter? If so, how could this have potentially impacted our understanding of speech production?
 * 8) The use of neural imaging studies in the study of speech production creates a window into the online processing of speech production not previously available. How do you project this will impact the future of research into speech production? Given the necessary resources, what tests would you most want to perform with these new technologies?

Learning Module 2
Using the research presented here as a jumping off point, find support for either the WEAVER model or Dell's networking model and prepare a persuasive presentation to support their model of choice. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, if you find another model you believe is more accurate, by all means prepare a presentation on it instead.

You should consider studies from various methodologies, schools of thought, languages, and investigators when preparing your arguments. For example, a good place to start might be the "Speech Errors" chapter of this course.

The presentations will largely follow the format of Pecha Kucha, in that each argument will be given 20 slides that advance automatically. Unlike the original Pecha Kucha format, the time limit for each slide for this assignment will be 30 seconds in order to allow for the additional explanation time required for some complex design protocols.

Completed arguments should be recorded and posted as video files to the Discussion Page of this chapter so that they can be reviewed and critiqued by the community and by those who have researched and presented the alternate model.

More information on Pecha Kucha can be found here.

title: Psycholinguistics/Chronometry


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team2.brenner.HW3.2.fig2.png

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team2.brenner.HW3.2.fig3.png


title: File:Img20.jpg


text:
User:Egm6321.f10.team2.oztekin/Newww

=Problem 3.11:Solving Hw2.9 with fourier basis=

Fourier Basis Functions
For getting approximate solution for dataset 2 given in meeting 12-1 now we can take fourier series family as a basis functions. Family of fourier functions are given in meeting 10-1.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle f(x)=\alpha _{0}+\sum_{i}^{\infty }\alpha _{i}cosiwx+\sum_{i}^{\infty }\beta _{i}siniwx $$     (11.1) Where
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle w=\frac{2\Pi }{T} $$     (11.2) Fourier basis functions $$\displaystyle \left \{ b_{1},......,b_{n} \right \}=\left \{ 1,coswx,sinwx,cos2wx,sinwx,...... \right \} $$.These basis fuctions are linealy independent i.e. their determinant of gram matrix is not equal to zero. And these functions are periodic functions.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

We can take basis functions where $$ \displaystyle w=1 $$

Template
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left \{ 1,cosx,sinx,cos2x,sin2x,.... \right \} $$     (11.3)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Dataset and P(u)
Problem statement is given as :

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \Omega =\left] 0,1 \right[ $$     (11.4)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle a_{2}=2 $$     (11.5)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle f=3 $$     (11.6)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 u(x,t)}{\partial x^2}=0 $$     (11.7)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \Gamma _{g}={1},g=0 $$     (11.8)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \Gamma _{h}={0},h=4 $$     (11.9)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle P(u):=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ {{a}_{2}}(x)\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \right]+f(x,t)-m\frac{{{\partial }^{2}}u}{{{\partial }^{2}}x} $$     (11.10)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

Exact Solution

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle P(u)=\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\left[ 2\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} \right]+3-0=0 $$     (11.11)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle 2\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}=-\int 3dx $$     (11.12)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} x}=-\frac{3}{2}x+c $$     (11.13)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle -\frac{du(x=0)}{dx}=4 $$     (11.14)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} x}=-\frac{3}{2}x-4 $$     (11.15)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u(x)=-\frac{3x^2}{4}-4x+c_{2} $$     (11.16)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u(x=1)=0 $$     (11.17)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u(x)=-\frac{3x^2}{4}-4x+\frac{19}{4} $$     (11.18)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

n=3

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} & b_{1}(x)=1 \\ & b_{2}(x)=cosx \\ & b_{3}(x)=sinx \\ \end{align} $$ (11.19)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} u^{h}(x) & =\sum_{j=1}^{3}d_{j}b_{j}(x) \\ & =d_{1}+d_{2}cosx+d_{3}sinx \\ \end{align} $$     (11.20)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Now we can use our boundry conditions to observe 2 equations;

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x=1)=0 $$     (11.21)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle d_{1}+d_{2}cos(1)+d_{3}sin(1)=0 $$     (11.22)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^{h}(x=0)}{dx}=-4 $$     (11.23)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle 0+d_{3}=-4 $$     (11.24)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

After obtaining 2 equations by applying boundry conditions we need one more equation. We can get it from projection

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_{\Omega }b_{k}(x).P(u^{h}(x))dx=0,k=1,2,3 $$     (11.25) Lets take k=1 for our convenience
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} P(u^{h}(x)) & =\frac{d}{dx}\left [ 2\frac{d}{dx}\left ( d_{1}+d_{2}cos(x)+d_{3}sin(x) \right ) \right ]+3 \\ & =-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)+3 \\ \end{align} $$ (11.26)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_{\Omega }1*\left ( -2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)+3 \right )dx=0 $$     (11.27)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle -2d_{2}sin(1)+2d_{3}(cos(1)-cos(0))+3=0 $$     (11.28)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 1 \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \cos (1) \\ 0 \\   -2\sin (1)  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \sin (1) \\ 1 \\   2(\cos (1)-\cos (0))  \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right]\left[ \begin{matrix} {{d}_{1}} \\ {{d}_{2}} \\ {{d}_{3}} \\ \end{matrix} \right]=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0 \\   -4  \\   -3  \\ \end{matrix} \right] $$     (11.29)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{matrix} {{d}_{1}}=1.2221 \\ {{d}_{2}}=3.9678 \\ {{d}_{3}}=-4 \\ \end{matrix}
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$     (11.30)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=1.2221+3.9678cos(x)-4sin(x) $$     (11.31)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

n=5
Now our new members from the family of fourier series are:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle f(x)=\left \{ 1,cos(x),sin(x),cos(2x),sin(2x) \right \} $$     (11.32)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{5}d_{j}b_{j}(x) $$     (11.33)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=d_{1}.1+d_{2}cos(x)+d_{3}sin(x)+d_{4}cos(2x)+d_{5}sin(2x) $$     (11.34) Applying boundry conditions yields
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x=1)=0 $$     (11.35)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle d_{1}+d_{2}cos(1)+d_{3}sin(1)+d_{4}cos(2)+d_{5}sin(2)=0 $$     (11.36)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^{h}(x=0)}{dx}=-4 $$     (11.37)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^{h}(x)}{dx}=-d_{2}sin(x)+d_{3}cos(x)-2d_{4}sin(2x)+2d_{5}cos(2x) $$     (11.38)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle d_{3}+2d_{5}=-4 $$     (11.39) Now we can project our function on our basis functions to get more equations.
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_{\Omega }b_{k}P(u^{h}(x))dx=0 $$     (11.40)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} P(u^{h}(x)) &=\frac{d}{dx}\left [ 2\frac{d}{dx}\left ( d_{1}+d_{2}cos(x)+d_{3}sin(x)+d_{4}cos(2x)+d_{5}sin(2x) \right ) \right ]+3 \\ &=\left ( -2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x) \right )+3 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.41)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=1$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{1}=1 $$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{1}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }1.(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}sin(1)+2d_{3}(cos(1)-cos(0))-4d_{4}sin(2)+4d_{5}(cos(2)-cos(0))+3 \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.42) $$ \displaystyle k=2$$  where $$ \displaystyle b_{2}=cos(x) $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{2}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }cos(x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }cos(x)^2dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)cos(x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)cos(x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }cos(x)dx \\ &=-d_{2}(1+sin(1)cos(1))+d_{3}(cos^2(1)-cos^2(0))-\frac{4}{3}d_{4}(3sin(1)+sin(3))+\frac{16d_{5}}{3}(cos^3(1)-cos^3(0))+3sin(1) \\ &=0 \\
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

\end{align}$$ (11.43)
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=3$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{3}=sin(x) $$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{3}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }cos(x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(x)dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin^2(x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(2x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)sin(2x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }sin(x)dx \\ &=d_{2}(cos^2(1)-cos^2(0))-d_{3}(1-sin(1)cos(1))-\frac{4}{3}d_{4}(3cos(1)-cos(3)-2cos(0))-\frac{16}{3}d_{5}sin^3(1)-3(cos(1)-cos(0)) \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.44)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 1 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 0 \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \cos (1) \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -2\sin (1) \\ -(1+\sin (1)\cos (1)) \\ (\cos \hat{\ }2(1)-\cos \hat{\ }2(0)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sin (1) \\ 1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 2(\cos (1)-\cos (0)) \\ \cos \hat{\ }2(1)-\cos \hat{\ }2(0) \\ -(1-\sin (1)\cos (1)) \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \cos (2) \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -4\sin (2) \\ -\frac{4}{3}(3\sin (1)+\sin (3)) \\ -\frac{4}{3}(3\cos (1)-\cos (3)-2\cos (0)) \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sin (2) \\ 2 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 4(\cos (2)-\cos (0)) \\ \frac{16}{3}(\cos \hat{\ }3(1)-\cos \hat{\ }3(0)) \\ -\frac{16}{3}\sin \hat{\ }3(1) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right]\left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{d}_{1}} \\ {{d}_{2}} \\ \end{matrix} \\ {{d}_{3}} \\ {{d}_{4}} \\ {{d}_{5}} \\ \end{matrix} \right]=\left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 0 \\   -4  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -3 \\   -3\sin (1)  \\ 3(\cos (1)-\cos (0)) \\ \end{matrix} \right]
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$     (11.45)
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \underline{d}=\left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} -4.1772 \\   10.7337  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -1.3753 \\   -1.7502  \\   -1.3123  \\ \end{matrix} \right]
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$     (11.46)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=-4.1772+10.7337cos(x)-1.3753sin(x)-1.7502cos(2x)-1.3123sin(2x) $$     (11.47)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

n=7

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle f(x)=\left \{ 1,cos(x),sin(x),cos(2x),sin(2x),cos(3x),sin(3x) \right \} $$     (11.48)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{7}d_{j}b_{j}(x) $$     (11.49)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=d_{1}.1+d_{2}cos(x)+d_{3}sin(x)+d_{4}cos(2x)+d_{5}sin(2x)+d_{6}cos(3x)+d_{7}sin(3x) $$     (11.50)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Applying boundry conditions :
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x=1)=0 $$     (11.51)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle d_{1}+d_{2}cos(1)+d_{3}sin(1)+d_{4}cos(2)+d_{5}sin(2)+d_{6}cos(3)+d_{7}sin(3)=0 $$     (11.52)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^{h}(x=0)}{dx}=-4 $$     (11.53)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \frac{du^{h}(x)}{dx}=-d_{2}sin(x)+d_{3}cos(x)-2d_{4}sin(2x)+2d_{5}cos(2x)-3d_{6}sin(3x)+3d_{7}cos(3x) $$     (11.54)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle d_{3}+2d_{5}+3d_{7}=-4 $$     (11.55) Now we can start with projections
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \int_{\Omega }b_{k}P(u^{h}(x))dx=0 $$     (11.56)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} P(u^{h}(x)) &=\frac{d}{dx}\left [ 2\frac{d}{dx}\left ( d_{1}+d_{2}cos(x)+d_{3}sin(x)+d_{4}cos(2x)+d_{5}sin(2x)+d_{6}cos(3x)+d_{7}sin(3x) \right ) \right ]+3 \\ &=\left ( -2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x) \right )+3 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.57) $$ \displaystyle k=1$$  where $$ \displaystyle b_{1}=1 $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{1}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }1.(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}sin(1)+2d_{3}(cos(1)-cos(0))-4d_{4}sin(2)+4d_{5}(cos(2)-cos(0))-6d_{6}sin(3)+6d_{7}(cos(3)-cos(0))+3 \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.58)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=2$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{2}=cos(x) $$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{2}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }cos(x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }cos(x)^2dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)cos(x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)cos(x)dx \\ & -18d_{6}\int_{\Omega }cos(3x)cos(x)dx-18d_{7}\int_{\Omega }sin(3x)cos(x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }cos(x)dx \\ &=-d_{2}(1+sin(1)cos(1))+d_{3}(cos^2(1)-cos^2(0))-\frac{4}{3}d_{4}(3sin(1)+sin(3)) \\ &+\frac{16d_{5}}{3}(cos^3(1)-cos^3(0))-18d_{6}(sin(1)cos^3(1))+\frac{9}{4}d_{7}(4cos^2(1)+cos(4)-4cos^2(0)-cos(0))+3sin(1) \\ &=0 \\
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

\end{align}$$ (11.59)
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=3$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{3}=sin(x) $$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{3}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }cos(x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(x)dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin^2(x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(2x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)sin(2x)dx \\ &-18d_{6}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(3x)dx-18d_{7}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)sin(3x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }sin(x)dx \\ &=d_{2}(cos^2(1)-cos^2(0))-d_{3}(1-sin(1)cos(1))-\frac{4}{3}d_{4}(3cos(1)-cos(3)-2cos(0))-\frac{16}{3}d_{5}sin^3(1) \\ &-\frac{9}{4}d_{6}(4cos^2(1)-cos(4)-4cos^2(0)+cos(0))-18d_{7}(sin^3(1)cos(1))-3(cos(1)-cos(0)) \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.60)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=4$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{4}=cos(2x) $$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{4}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }cos(2x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)cos(x)dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)cos(2x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }cos^2(2x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)sin(2x)dx \\ &-18d_{6}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)cos(3x)dx-18d_{7}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)sin(3x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)dx \\ &=-\frac{d_{2}}{3}(3sin(1)+sin(3))-\frac{d_{3}}{3}(3cos(1)-cos(3)-2cos(0))-d_{4}(4+sin(4))+d_{5}(cos(4)-cos(0)) \\ &-\frac{9}{5}d_{6}(5sin(1)-sin(5))+\frac{9}{5}d_{7}(5cos(1)+cos(5)-6cos(0))+\frac{3}{2}sin(2) \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.61)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

$$ \displaystyle k=5$$ where $$ \displaystyle b_{5}=sin(2x) $$
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle\begin{align} \int_{\Omega }b_{5}P(u^{h})dx &=\int_{\Omega }sin(2x).(-2d_{2}cos(x)-2d_{3}sin(x)-8d_{4}cos(2x)-8d_{5}sin(2x)-18d_{6}cos(3x)-18d_{7}sin(3x)+3)dx \\ &=-2d_{2}\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)cos(x)dx-2d_{3}\int_{\Omega }sin(x)sin(2x)dx-8d_{4}\int_{\Omega }cos(2x)sin(2x)dx-8d_{5}\int_{\Omega }sin^2(2x)dx \\ &-18d_{6}\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)cos(3x)dx-18d_{7}\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)sin(3x)dx+3\int_{\Omega }sin(2x)dx \\ &=\frac{4}{3}d_{2}(cos^3(1)-cos^3(0))-\frac{4}{3}d_{3}sin^3(1)+d_{4}(cos(4)-cos(0))-d_{5}(4-sin(4)) \\ &-\frac{9}{5}d_{6}(5cos(1)-cos(5)-4cos(0))-\frac{36}{5}d_{7}(sin^3(1)(2cos(2)+3))-\frac{3}{2}(cos(2)-cos(0)) \\ &=0 \\ \end{align}$$ (11.62)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$  \displaystyle \left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 1 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 0 \\   0  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 0 \\   0  \\   0  \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \cos (1) \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -2\sin (1) \\ -(1+\cos (1)\sin (1)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \cos \hat{\ }2(1)-\cos \hat{\ }2(0) \\ -\frac{1}{3}(3\sin (1)+\sin (3)) \\ \frac{4}{3}(\cos \hat{\ }3(1)-\cos \hat{\ }3(0)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sin (1) \\ 1 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 2(\cos (1)-\cos (0)) \\ \cos \hat{\ }2(1)-\cos \hat{\ }2(0) \\ \end{matrix} \\ -(1-\sin (1)\cos (1)) \\ -\frac{1}{3}(3\cos (1)-\cos (3)-\cos (0)) \\ -\frac{4}{3}\sin \hat{\ }3(1) \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \cos (2) \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -4\sin (2) \\ -\frac{4}{3}(3\sin (1)+\sin (3)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ -\frac{4}{3}(3\cos (1)-\cos (3)-2\cos (0)) \\ 4+\sin (4) \\ \cos (4)-\cos (0) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sin (2) \\ 2 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 4(\cos (2)-\cos (0)) \\ \frac{16}{3}(\cos \hat{\ }3(1)-\cos \hat{\ }3(0)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ -\frac{16}{3}\sin \hat{\ }3(1) \\ \cos (4)-\cos (0) \\ 4-\sin (4) \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \cos (3) \\ 0 \\   -6\sin (3)  \\ \end{matrix} \\ -18\sin (1)\cos \hat{\ }3(1) \\ \end{matrix} \\ -\frac{9}{4}(4\cos \hat{\ }2(1)-\cos (4)-4\cos \hat{\ }2(0)+\cos (0)) \\ -\frac{9}{5}(5\sin (1)-\sin (5)) \\ -\frac{9}{5}(5\cos (1)-\cos (5)-4\cos (0)) \\ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sin (3) \\ 3 \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 6(\cos (3)-\cos (0)) \\ \frac{9}{4}(4\cos \hat{\ }2(1)+\cos (4)-4\cos \hat{\ }2(0)-\cos (0)) \\ \end{matrix} \\ -18\sin \hat{\ }3(1)\cos (1) \\ \frac{9}{5}(5\cos (1)+\cos (5)-6\cos (0)) \\ -\frac{36}{5}\sin \hat{\ }3(1)(2\cos (2)+3) \\ \end{matrix} \\ \end{matrix} \right] $$     (11.63)
 *

 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle \underline{d}=\left[ \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 14.6952 \\   -13.6724  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ -15.411 \\   3.727  \\ \end{matrix}  \\ 8.1873 \\   0.0003  \\   -1.6545  \\ \end{matrix} \right] $$     (11.64)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle u^{h}(x)=14.6952-13.6724cos(x)-15.411sin(x)+3.727cos(2x)+8.1873sin(2x)+0.0003cos(3x)-1.6545sin(3x) $$     (11.65)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *

 * }

Comment

As we can see from the graphs when we take more components from the family the approximate solution becomes more close to exact solution. Actually for 7 components we can say that our approximation is very good for the problem so more components would nothing but more work.

title: User:Egm6321.f10.team2.oztekin/Newww


text:
Psycholinguistics/Neural Components of Speech Production

Introduction
The ability to verbally communicate with the world is a precise and precious ability. Humans are the only specie on earth that produces such a dynamic form language to communicate. One important feature in the verbal communication of humans is speech production. Speech production is the conversion of individual thoughts into structured sentences for the purpose of communication. The ability to produce speech comes from the integration of physiological, neurological, and cognitive efforts. Humans use these efforts to translate their emotions and thoughts into strings of meaningfully plotted words that are relevant to the topic at hand. It is interesting to see the dynamics of the human brain when producing speech and noting that there is not necessarily one neural area that is activated. When a human utters a word, the lexical, emotional, motoric, semantic, phonological, and syntactic neural areas are all activated. Speech production is a fascinating ability that humans use, and an interesting area of research. This paper will attempt to summarize physiological speech production, anatomical neural areas associated with speech, and further make links to cognitive theories in speech production

The Physiological Production of Sound
The machinery involved in the physiological production of sound can be divided into two active parts; the source and the modulators. The exhaled air, being pushed out by the diaphragm, from the lungs is the source of sound in humans. As the air leaves the lungs and moves up the trachea it enters the larynx. The larynx houses the vocal folds, which are the most important organs in speech production. As the vocal folds, or more commonly called cords, vibrate the air that is channeled around them is converted into sound. Those cord oscillations are what determines the pitch of the sound being produced. A human can produce a frequency of anywhere between 200 and 7000 Hz. That sound then travels through the pharynx, and both the oral and nasal cavities where is it expelled. In order to articulate the sound the lips, tongue, and soft palate quickly modify the shape of the vocal tract, allowing for speech to be modulated and made. Phonetics is the study of speech sounds including their production and perception. In regards to the tongues phonetics there is a traditional and modern view of how to conceptualize the articulation of the tongue. In the traditional view there is discrimination between high, low, mid, front, and back vowels. An example of a low vowel would be the “a” in daughter and how the tongue makes a low flat position in the mouth. This view however, does not take into account the dynamic movements and changes that the tongue makes in articulation. A modern view was then suggested. The modern view takes into account the changing position of the tongue in relation to height vs. how forward or backward it is. The vertical and horizontal abilities of our tongue within our vocal tract are what provide humans with the precision needed to produce speech.It is interesting to note that the only difference between the chimpanzee and human vocal tract is the location of the larynx. Human evolution has lowered the larynx, which allows us to produce a greater variety of formants.

Anatomical Areas Associated with Speech
The localization of speech production in the human brain varies greatly. In order to visualize and better understand the neural components of speech production studies mainly use lesion studies or neuroimaging. This chapter will outline some important lesion studies as well as giving some insight using modern imaging techniques like fMRI and PET. The areas that are most frequently identified as playing major roles in speech production are Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area. Broca’s area lies in the left inferior frontal gyrus, just above the lateral fissure. It role is believed to be in the production of speech. Broca’s area stores the motor programs needed to produce words. Wernicke’s area is located in the left superior temporal gyrus closer to the end of the lateral fissure. Wernicke’s area has been suggested to be important in the comprehension of words, as it holds the meanings, or semantics, of words. Damage to these areas results in Broca’s aphasia and Wernicke’s aphasia, which will be discussed in the aphasias section. Although these dominant areas are usually located in the left hemisphere the right hemisphere also has important roles in higher order speech tasks. The right hemisphere has been shown to be involved in speech perception, grammar, and sentence level semantics (Shuster, 2010). Also, interesting studies have shown that patients with right hemisphere localized strokes or brain damage have a disrupted ability or inability to maintain or initiate normal speech prosody (Brådvik et al, 1991). As there are lateralized functions in the brain there are also important bilaterally activated regions. These regions include the motor cortex, thalamus, dorsolateral caudate nucleus, and the cerebellum.

The Wernicke-Geschwind Model
The Wernicke-Geschwind model is a three-section model that evolved from lesion studies. It outlines the proposed mechanisms that control comprehension, speech, and reading in the brain. The Wernicke-Geschwind model initiates the production of speech with cognition, which is the mental representation or plot of what the individual wants to express. It then moves to Wernicke’s area, which would outline the meanings of the words needed, that information is then sent along the arcuate fasciculus to Broca’s area. Broca’s area is where the motor plans of speech are assembled. Broca’s area then sends these instructions to the adjacent areas in the motor cortex, which communicates with the brainstem to activate the facial motor neurons, and further activate the over 100 correct facial muscles needed to produce speech (Geschwind, 1972). Studies were done to support this suggested role of Broca’s area. It was found that stimulating Broca’s area, in awake patients, gave them the inability to make the voluntary facial movements needed in speech production. Interestingly, stimulation of this area also disrupted the patient’s ability to discriminate phonemes and also affected the patient’s ability to produce gestures associated with speech (Ojemann, 2003). This inability to produce gestures is because the areas used for gestural language and vocal language are mapped in adjacent areas, and it has even been proposed that they depend on the same brain structures. Using fMRI it was found that native signers (those who learned sign language early in life) have the same localized left areas activated during signing that a person who was communicating audibly would have (Newman, 2002). Other major brain areas have just recently been suggested to aid speech production. Having so many distinct brain areas activated in speech production has provided evidence that rather than focusing on localization, that speech production is more about the network connections. Studies have shown that the articulo-phonological brain network is much more dynamic that once proposed. Here is a small summary of the important secondary brain regions involved in speech production as studied using fMRI technology:

Motor & Pre-Motor Areas: quite obviously the motor areas are involved in speech production, as they are the centers of control for all the muscles and cranial nerves involved. Results from an fMRI study on speaking shows that these areas a bilaterally activated. Thalamus & Basal Ganglia: there are distinct parallel circuits between the basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum. Initiation and control of voluntary movement has been seen to activate the basal ganglia. It has been suggested that the thalamus is involved in the preparation of the movements of speech. Cerebellum: studies have shown that in order to carryout speech production the cerebellum is one of the most important regions. The cerebellum also shows activation with vertical movements of the tongue and lip modulations. Insula: it has been proposed that the involvement of the posterior insula in speech production is to contribute to the conscious awareness of your own speaking. The left anterior insula, comparatively, has been shown to be involved in the formulation of an articulatory plan.

Newer studies have shown the involvement of many other aspects of the brain in speech production. In a meta-analysis it was found that in basic speech production the posterior, middle, and superior temporal gyrus are activated, compared to in more complex speaking tasks the left inferior frontal gyrus, cerebellum, and left caudate nucleus (Soros et al., 2006). This means that with varying intensity of cognitive effort toward speech production, the neural activation map changes. To conclude many areas of the brain are activated in speech production and more research needs to be done to specify the role of each of these areas. The next part of this chapter takes the neural areas mentioned and structures them into a map cross-listed with a classic cognitive model of speech production.

Interesting Findings from PET Imaging Studies
An analysis of PET scans revealed that when speaking there is bilateral activation the facial neurons, both motor and sensory. Interestingly when speaking verbs the areas of activation are; the frontal lobe, posterior temporal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and the cerebellum (Petersen, 1988). This suggests that when speaking an action word aloud the brain is not only considering it verbally but also activating the motor regions involved in partaking that action.

Weaver Model Linked with the Neural Regions in the Brain
The Weaver model was designed to show, at a conceptual level, the processes and the outputs from each cognitive level within the brain. This section will attempt to link the classic Weaver model with newer research to propose locations and regions that these processes and outputs are taking place neutrally. This linkage was summarized nicely in a article by Gregory Hickok in 2010.

 * 1) The first process in Weavers model is conceptualization. At a neural level it is hard to definitively outline the area that this process activates. Studies show that conceptualization is widely distributed in the human brain. The output from this process is the lexical concept.
 * 2) The second process is lexical selection. The output of this level is lemma, which is the mental wordedness. The lemma is found by using abstract conceptualizations to find a word that you aspire to use by only taking into account the meaning you are attempting to suggest and not the sound. This lexical interface has been shown to have weak bias in left hemisphere and activation in the posterior medial temporal gyrus and the posterior inferior temporal sulcus.
 * 3) Morphological encoding is the third process in the Weaver model. Its output is the morphemes needed. The specific region of the brain responsible for morphemes has not been well defined.
 * 4) Phonological encoding, more specifically syllabification, is the fourth process involved, and its output is the phonological word. The main brain area involved in this process is Wernicke’s area (in the superior temporal gyrus in the left hemisphere).
 * 5) The fifth process is phonetic coding (syllabary). The output from the process is phonetic gestural scores. It has been determined that the area involved in phonological network is the middle posterior superior temporal sulcus. It has been proposed that the dorsal pathway maps phonological representations onto articulatory motor maps and a ventral stream take the phonological representations into lexical conceptual representations.
 * 6) The final process in Weaver’s model of speech production is articulation. The output of this process is sound waves. The main outlined areas for articulatory networks are the posterior inferior frontal gyrus and the anterior insula, both being left lateralized.

Disorders of Speech Production
Speech production aphasia is a defect or loss of the ability to express or produce speech. There are many different symptoms that can accompany aphasia's of this type. The main symptoms that are present in speech disorders are; poor articulation, anomia (word-finding defect), paraphrasia (unintentional phrases), loss of grammar or syntax, inability to repeat, defects in verbal fluency, and aprosodia (loss of tone in voice). Aphasic Syndromes regarding speech production can be classified in two categories; fluent and non-fluent.

Fluent Aphasia
This type of aphasia means that the individual’s speech is still fluent and they do not make articulatory mistakes. They do however; have poor comprehension, poor ability to repeat, and frequent anomias or paraphrasias. Aphasias of this nature include:
 * 1) Wernicke’s Aphasia: Also called sensory aphasia. This is the inability to arrange speech sounds or to comprehend speech. Develops due to damage to Wernicke’s area.
 * 2) Transcortical Aphasia: Also called isolation syndrome. This is the inability to speak spontaneously or to comprehend words, although their speech is still defined as fluent and their ability to repeat words is intact.
 * 3) Conduction Aphasia: This is an interesting aphasia in that individuals with this would be able to speak fluently, understand, and name but are not able to repeat words. Develops due to damage or disconnection between the word image and the motor system to produce the word.
 * 4) Anomic Aphasia: this type of aphasia, as the name suggests, is the inability to name objects with all other speech properties intact. Interestingly people with this disorder are only unable to name nouns. If the word they are trying to express is also a verb they can usually mentally find and dictate it. Develops due to damage to the temporal cortex.

Non-Fluent Aphasia
This type of aphasia means that the individual’s comprehension is correct but they have trouble initiating, producing, and articulating speech. It is interesting to note that most individuals with these types of aphasias do know what they want to express and can structure it in their minds correctly; they just are challenged by their inability to convert those thoughts into words. Aphasias of this nature include:
 * 1) Severe Broca’s Aphasia: This is the complete inability to actively produce speech. Aphasias of this nature also show problems with repetition.
 * 2) Mild Broca’s Aphasia: A less severe form of Broca’s aphasia. This syndrome shows noticeable articulation problems, anomia, agrammatism, dysprosody.
 * 3) Transcortical Motor Aphasia: this includes the intact ability to repeat and name, but difficulties with spontaneous speech production.
 * 4) Global Aphasia: this is the most severe type of aphasia it symptoms include speechlessness, poor comprehension, and laborious articulation.

Conclusion
The human brains ability to produce speech is a well researched area of psycholinguistics. Although there is so definitive map that outlines the regions clearly it appears that science is moving in the right direction by use of fMRI and lesion studies. The neural precision needed to produce even basic speech activates many regions in the brain. Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area are the most mentioned but newer studies have placed emphasis on other regions to aid in speech production. Without the combined efforts of the physiological, neural, and cognitive processes humans would not be able to communicate in such effective ways. It is also important to understand the mechanisms of action by recording how damages or lesions affect the brain. At the completion of this chapter the reader should have a better understanding of the neural components of speech production.

Instructions Part 1
'''For this exercise you need to correctly identify the certain type of aphasia to each passage presented. Taking what you have learned about Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia in the chapter, read aloud the below passages to a partner and:'''

 * mm tommmato.. fry-paan. Tuessday….ahh Anne Jacob Tom… mmm lettuce an’ cheese. table Ahhhh six Tuesday family. Ahhhh meat spice. Ya ahhh

 *  Sharon high school was Pennsylvania. Penguins and poppies. Mothers flower was a lily she likes read they eat apples. Kids go on in directions with cars. Traveling not comforting never talking to each other. Talk sing and they’re balancing. I whale and water jumps.

1. State the type of aphasia. Be specific and correctly identify the brain region that is associated with the disorder (which hemisphere, anatomical location including adjacent major sulcus’ and gyrus’). (4 points each)

2.Attempt to decipher the meaning of the passages or what is trying to be communicated. Is this harder to deceiver for the first passage or the second? (2 points)

3.Now that you can understand fluent and non-fluent aphasia try to communicate with each to your partner (or just aloud) in a similar way. For non -fluent Broca’s aphasia you could try reading an excerpt from a book but only saying the nouns. To generate a thought pattern like a fluent Wernicke’s aphasic write one random word on a piece of paper and think about its associates with other words and write down the first that comes to (for example fire truck, red, apples, trees, smells good, rain…). (1 point)

Instructions Part 2
'''Talking what you know about anatomical areas of speech production and the physiology of speech attempt to diagnose these patients. Be sure to clearly outline why you made each diagnoses. (3 points each).'''

1..John is a 47-year-old lawyer. Two months ago and MRI showed a large tumor that was encroaches on his left middle cerebral artery. John has trouble initiating speech and sometimes says the wrong words. Most of the time he accurately comprehends what others are trying to communicate but reciprocal speech is challenging and takes a lot of effort. John can actively name objects presented and repeat them. John has also noticed some changes in his motor control.

2.Susan suffered a temporal lobe stroke last year. She has had a lot of speech therapy but is now speaking fluently although with some notable problems. She has a hard time finding the names of objects. For example when she is showed a picture of a pear she responds by saying a delicious green fruit, but if you asked what do shoes come in? She would respond pairs.

3.Timmy took a direct blow to his head at practice on Monday. He was hit on his left side in the fontal-parietal junction. Timmy’s speech is very confusing to understand and it sounds like gibberish. What are some possible reasons for this?

Instructions Part 3
Taking what you have learned in this chapter about the Weaver model and its associated brain regions, challenge yourself to a matching task! Print off the below exercise and see if you can match the Weaver model with its brain area! (6 marks)


text: File:Egm5526.s11.team2.oztekin.HW3.11.n=3.png


text:
Talk:Psycholinguistics/The Mental Lexicon

This page provides a detailed review and suggested recommendations for the mental lexicon page. This review is of the page as a whole, however I make specific mention to areas that may still require further revisions. I have not edited the actual page but have provided feedback and personal suggestions to this author in the form of examples

The introduction provides a good starting point for readers like myself who are newly familiarized to the mental lexicon. In this paragraph, the author uses a number of adjectives, (i.e. systematic, easily accessible; long and labourious; perfectly ordered, robotic). Although the purpose of using multiple adjectives is to provide readers with a detailed description, I would recommend that the author choose the best-suited adjective to reduce wordiness (i.e. the linguistic production would be labourious). Secondly, I’m left feeling a bit uncertain of what the precise definition of the mental lexicon is. I would recommend a sentence which explicitly states what “the mental lexicon is…”, similar to the first sentence of this paragraph. (i.e. “the mental lexicon is commonly referred to as the mental dictionary and is the system of vocabulary which is stored in the mind in the form of lexical entries for each item…”). Lastly, some words are used several times in this paragraph. For example the word “however” is mentioned three times in this paragraph and “some” is used twice in the last sentence. This becomes repetitive and impedes sentence flow. A few recommendations to remedy this concern are to either use an alternative word to however (i.e. but, in contrast, although) or reposition the word at the beginning of the sentence so there isn’t a sudden break when reading (i.e. An analogy that is often used to illustrate this mental organization is that of a printed dictionary. However, this analogy breaks down very quickly since the use of language in humans does not occur in an ordered robotic fashion). In the last sentence, the second “some” can be removed (i.e. we will discuss some of these models and the issues associated with them below).

The section entitled “developing a model of the mental lexicon” includes a variety of information from various sources other than the Jay text. Overall, the section provides readers with a good degree of knowledge regarding the mental lexicon. My suggestions for the author is to focus on punctuation as some sentence have unnecessary commas and others are in need of one. I would also recommend that they condense the wordiness in their sentences – rather than referring to the participants as “he or she”, simply use “they”. Lastly, I would suggest that author is mindful of using the same word repeatedly in a single sentence (i.e. rather than saying “a “yes or no” decision in terms of the similarity of their meanings”…this could be summed up into …“in terms of semantic similarities”. Thoroughly proofreading this page will remedy these concerns.

In the section entitled “The Hierarchical Network Model”, I suggest the author cuts down unnecessary words as they reduce sentence clarity. (i.e. “one such” can be remove – “the foundational example is Collin’s and Quillian’s….”). The detailed explanation of how the hierarchical model breaks down provides readers with a good visualization.

In the section entitled “The ACT and WordNet Models”, the author provides a well written explanation of what the ACT Model is and how it differs from the previously mentioned models. There are a number of key terms in this paragraph such as declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, etc. In the attempt to ensure readers understand the definitions of these words, the author commonly includes the definition within the sentence through the use of a comma break. Although this works for some sentences in the paragraph, including the definition here can make the sentences excessively long. I would suggest that the author remove the definitions from within the sentence, bold the key words, and include a glossary at the bottom of the page.

The section entitled “neuroimaging and the mental lexicon” provides readers with detailed information regarding which areas of the brain are affected by the mental lexicon. To further enhance this section, I would recommend that the author include visual examples of the brain activity results mentioned from fMRI studies.

The first sentence of the conclusion section had some punctuation concerns and does not flow smoothly. It is recommended to reduce the number of commas in that sentence. The last sentence was also quite long – it is recommended to either separate it into two thoughts or condense the thought into a more cohesive sentence.

I thought the external links of this page provided readers with a good segue to more information on research relating to the mental lexicon. Both links are supported by reputable institutions (Princeton University and the Canadian government) therefore the information provided appears to derive from evidence-based research. In relationship to the detailed information on the WordNet project provided, the Words in the Mind project could be further explained. I would recommend that the author provide a brief 1-2 sentence explanation under this section or above where the project is mention of the types of tasks used for developing models. (i.e. “The Words in the Mind project will provide more information of tasks such as word and picture naming, list recall, and segmentation.”

Overall, this page provides readers with a well-organized abundance of information regarding the mental lexicon. The references provided were from a variety of academic sources other than the Jay text and this page was able to adhere to the 4000-word count limit. Upon reviewing the rubric provided, this page may need continued work relating to the structure and writing style sections (i.e. the improper use of commas throughout this page and clarity issues at certain points). My largest recommendation would be to proofread this page multiple times to help reduce grammatical/structural concerns and improve clarity. By doing so, easily overlooked mistakes as seen in the section of “morphological (rule-based) approach” will be eliminated (i.e. “then, in in a series”).

(Renee Boudakian 02:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)).


text:
UCNISS/Sport Wiki Academy/Mediawiki tricks

Mediawiki is one of the most popular pieces of wiki software. It powers Wikipedia, Wikicommons, Wikiversity and several other wikis. Mediawiki is getting closer and closer to having a what you see if what you get editor. Most of the time beginners will not have to deal with wiki source code. If you do have to use it, the following resource developed by the Wikimedia Foundation gives you some guidance to help with very basic formatting.

Converting
If you would like to convert html to wiki code, you may find Seapine's html to wiki tool helpful.


text:
UCNISS/Sport Wiki Academy/Wikipedians in residence

Getting Wikipedians to help
For most sport organizations, there would be little need for a Wikipedian in residence because the potential content related to their organization would be rather limited. If you are an athlete or a rural sport team, you may be lucky to be mentioned in Wikipedia, even luckier if there is an article about you. If you are a larger sport organization such as Australian Rugby Union or the Australian Football League, there may be several hundred articles that relate to your organization on some level. These include season summaries, team and athlete related articles, articles about the league or federation, an article about the sport your organization is involved with. If that is the case, you may want help improving the content related to your organization and Wikimedia Australia may be able to help by you get a Wikipedian in residence.

Things to remember about Wikipedia before seriously considering this:
 * Wikipedians work for free and most support the ethos of free culture;
 * Paying for work to be done on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon by Wikipedian culture;
 * As many sport organizations are not non-profits, Wikipedians will respond differently to you than they would to a non-profit organization; and
 * You ultimately cannot control the content on Wikipedia as it belongs to the community.

If your organization understands those issues and can live with those issues, if there is enough content related to your organization to justify getting involved, Wikimedia Australia can help set you up with a Wikipedian in residence for a weekend, a week or even a month. When Wikimedia Foundation in the USA did this with the British Museum in London, Wikipedia:GLAM/BM the Wikipedian in residence helped the organization use Wikipedia in several ways:

 * Set up a workshop where Wikipedians could see behind the scenes of the organization and let the Wikipedians see some of the unique artifacts they have that might be worthy of articles and the work that the organization did. This was coupled with another workshop where local Wikipedians showed people inside the organization how to edit Wikipedia in a way that did not conflict Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia:GLAM/BM
 * Found volunteers who would help translate content about materials relevant to the organization into content other language Wikipedias. Often this involved school groups. Wikipedia:GLAM/BM
 * Created a contest offering gift vouchers if content in a category about artifacts related to that organization appeared on the main page of any language Wikipedia. Wikipedia:GLAM/BM
 * Created a photos wanted listing, for people who wanted images to help enhance articles related to the organization. Wikipedia:GLAM/BM

Wikimedia Australia can try to assist sports organizations in accomplishing this by using their contact network to see if any editors would be interested in helping your sport organization accomplish similar goals.


text:
UCNISS/Sport Wiki Academy/Glossary

Creative Commons: A type of copyright license that Wikimedia Foundation projects require content hosted on their servers to be licensed under. Additional details can be found at http://creativecommons.org.au/

Fork: When part of an existing wiki community break away from that wiki to create a new one. This may be done by creating wholly new content or importing a large number of articles from the existing wiki into the new one.

MediaWiki: A popular open source wiki software that powers Wikipedia.

Wikia: A popular wiki host.

Wikimedia Australia: An Australian organization dedicated to support the wiki community in Australia.

title: UCNISS/Sport Wiki Academy/Glossary


text:
UCNISS/Sport Wiki Academy/Copyright licenses

When dealing with wikis and other content related to your sport organization on the web, always consider the copyright implications. Ask yourself:

 * Who owns the content I post?
 * Who has a right to repost content I share?
 * Who has a right to modify, remix or make derivatives of content I publish?

Different wikis and websites have different policies regarding copyright. You want to make sure that the content you share complies with copyright policies inside your sport organization.

What are free licenses?
The following table was created on Freedom Defined and gives an idea as to what several free licenses allow:

What copyright does Wikipedia use?
Wikipedia uses the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License copyright. This means that any contributions you make to Wikipedia, others are allowed to: Anyone doing that must do so under the following conditions:
 * to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
 * to Remix—to adapt the work
 * Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
 * Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.


text:
UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy

UCNISS plans to host a series of half day (3 hour( sport wiki academies in Australia and New Zealand in 2011. This page will contain information about these academies and all instructional materials related these courses. The academies will be free to attend.

Purpose
The purpose of these academies is to engage the Australian and New Zealand sport community in order to encourage them to use social media to help meet institutional goals, to start thinking about how the UCNISS as an organization that can help them accomplish their institutional objectives, and to reach out to an under-served Australian sport population that may not have considered the many social media tools available that can help them accomplish their goals.

Attendees
In each city, an attempt will be made to get sport people and organizations of all levels to attend. This includes grassroots clubs like Aussie rules, roller derby, netball and swimming clubs. It also includes leagues like WNBL, W-League, ANZ Championship, NBL, A-League, AFL and NRL clubs. It also includes organizations like State and National branch institutes of sport and universities that have programs in sport studies/management/physiology/history and culture. Beyond this, local sport fans that edit Wikipedia and Commons will be invited. University and state institutes of sport may be the primary group targeted as they likely have the best facilities to host half day events.

Academy content
The focus of the academy will depend on who is involved. In general, the broad general scope will be aimed at teaching three things:

 * 1) Why sport interest groups and organisations should be more engaged in social media.
 * 2) How to create a social media strategy; and
 * 3) How to use YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare and other social media sites to help promote your sport related organisation.

The content for these academies will be created and will be made available on either UCNISS, Laura Hale's website or on Wikiversity. It will all be licensed using the Creative Commons Attribution and Share Alike license.

Sport Social Media Academy Instructional Booket
The instructional booklet for this course is being created using Microsoft Word. The purpose of the booklet is to be as flexible as possible in teaching a three hour session about social media to different sport organizations with different skill sets. Pages created so far: Page 2: Purpose of Sport Social Media Academy. Page 4: Define: Social Media. Page 5: State of Social Media in Australia. Page 6: Why Use Social Media. Page 7: Why Care About Social Media. Page 8: Social Media Checklist. Page 9: Creating a Social Media Strategy. Page 11: Social Media Jobs. Page 13: Athletes and Social Media. Page 14: Copyright. Page 16: Privacy. Page 17: Analytics. Page 18: Using Social Media. Page 19: Useful Links.

When the booklet is finished, the text will be copied to this page as either wiki pages, images or as a PDF file.

Sport Social Media Academy Events

 * Canberra: TBA. TBA.
 * Sydney: TBA. TBA.
 * Melbourne: TBA. TBA.
 * Brisbane: TBA. TBA.
 * Adelaide: TBA. TBA.
 * Perth: TBA. TBA.
 * Auckland: TBA. TBA.
 * Dunedin: 12 April, from 9am until 11am.

title: UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy


text: Category:UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy


text:
UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy/Why use social media

Why sport programs at universities should use social media
University sport studies programs should use social because:
 * Social media can be used to attract undergraduate and graduate students.
 * It can make it easier to share with other universities and industry professionals the type of research being done by the department.

Why state institutes of sport should social media
State institutes of sport should use social media because:


text:
UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy/Creating a social media strategy

Creating a social media strategy
Creating a social media strategy is very important. First, it lets all the stakeholders understand what using social media hopes to accomplish, and who is responsible for implementing a social media strategy. Second, it builds in accountability if something goes wrong. Third, it helps establish benchmarks to measure success.

There are three important steps in creating a social media strategy. They are:
 * 1) Define the purpose of using social media, how this aligns with institutional objectives, and who will be in charge of implementing the strategy;
 * 2) Identify the group that you will be marketing to on social media; and
 * 3) Determine where your market is located online.


text:
UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy/Using social media

There are a lot of options when it comes to using social media. What options you chose will really depend on your purpose, market and audience location. In general, social media falls into several broad general categories:

 * Blogging;
 * Chat;
 * Geolocation and checkins;
 * Images and video;
 * Mailing lists, message boards, discussion sites and groups;
 * Microblogging;
 * Question and answer sites; and
 * Wikis.

Many social network sites include several aspects of these. MySpace has groups, blogging and video & image hosting. Facebook has blogging, chat, microblogging, geolocation, groups, and question and answer component. Bebo has groups, and image and video hosting. Some sites have only one aspect. Twitter, Yammer, identi.ca are all microblogging sites. Foursquare and Gowalla are geolocation services. Yahoo!Answers and Quora are question and answer sites. LiveJournal, Blogger and WordPress are blogging sites. YouTube and Vimeo are both video hosting sites. Wikipedia, Wikia, AboutUs and wikiHow are all wikis.

Different social networks cater to different demographic groups and different needs. They all have their own unique set of metrics that can help explain how successful you were on that site.


text:
UCNISS/Sport Social Media Academy/Glossary

 * Community Manager: The person who manages a community on a mailing list, social network, wiki, etc. The purpose of the community manager is to help grow the community, and to keep the existing community happy and active.  This work may be done solely in house on a company's own sites or may involve community management on external sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
 * Content Manager: The person who helps create and organize content for a company.
 * PPC: Pay Per Click. A type of internet advertising where the cost for an advertisement is based on how many times an advertisement is clicked on.
 * Reputation Manager: The person who monitors social media for a brand and then implements a strategy to deal with various types of reputation related issues.
 * SEO: Search Engine Optimization. There are generally three types of search engine optimization to be done: Link building, back end improvements, advertising buys.  Each type is its own specialty and requires its own unique skill set.


text:
Social Media/It's the best of times, it's the worst of times

In society generally

 * 1) Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson, with music by Aaron McLeran. EPIC2014. http://robinsloan.com/epic/ 2005.
 * 2) n+1 editors. Webism - The Internet as Social Movement. Change This, Issue 73 - 01, 2010-08-04.
 * 3) Jeffery Carino. The explosion of networking sites has opened a new can of worms in college and high school athletics. Daily Record. 2011-02-12.
 * 4) Jessica Halloran. AOC to use Monaghan, Rice as examples to avoid medal twits. The Sunday Telegraph 2011-02-20.
 * 5) Andrew Keen. The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture.  Currency 2007.
 * 6) Clay Shirky. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.  Penguin Press 2008.
 * 7) Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. The Cluetrain Manifesto. Perseus Books 2000.
 * 8) Jonah Lehrer. We, Robots (A review of Sherry Turkle's new book, Alone Together. Basic Books 2011). New York Times, 2011-01-21.

In sport

 * 1) Jennifer Van Grove. Sports and Social Media: Where Opportunity and Fear Collide. Mashable.com, 2009-09-05.


text:
Social Media/The machine is us/ing us

 * 1) Michael Wesch, The Machine is Us/ing Us - Video 5min. January 2007
 * 2) Adam Curtis. All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. BBC 2011
 * 3) Bruce Sterling. What Bruce Sterling Actually Said About Web 2.0 at Webstock 09 - Reading. February 2009
 * 4) Google and privacy
 * 5) Facebook controversy
 * 6) Colonialism "on the Internet, everyone's an American"
 * 7) RSA Animate. Evgeny Morozov - The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens? - Video 11min. March 2011.

title: Social Media/The machine is us/ing us


text:
Social Media/An anthropological introduction to YouTube

 * 1) Michael Wesch, An anthropological introduction to Youtube - Video 56min. July 2008
 * 2) Tracky Birthday and My Tube Lickr
 * 3) Memes
 * 4) Youtube stars
 * 5) Youtube's business model
 * 6) Why people leave Youtube


text:
Social Media/Radical transparency

 * 1) Yochai Benkler. Open-source economics - Video 17:53 - July 2005
 * 2) Nate Harrison Video explains the world's most important 6-sec drum loop Video 18min 2004
 * 3) Lawrence Lessig. 23C3 On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code - Video 1:15:37  - Dec 2006
 * 4) Creative Commons licenses
 * 5) Crowd sourcing
 * 6) Participatory economics

title: Social Media/Radical transparency


text:
Social Media/The evolution will be socialised

"The internet as a model of free speech and access is coming to an end, says web expert Tim Wu"
 * 1) Douglas Rushkoff The evolution will be socialised
 * 2) Peer to Peer, bit torrent, PirateBay, Napster
 * 3) Net neutrality: Patrick Kingsley The Wu master guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 March 2011


text:
Dignity/why do I sometimes feel so worthless?

The short answer is: put downs are easy, they have a powerful negative effect on the victim, and they provide an apparent short-term thrill for the aggressor. The asymmetry is stunning; the aggressor gets a momentary thrill while the victim remembers the shame for a very long time.

Consider the common situation where a young child, engrossed in play, inadvertently and unintentionally knocks over a glass of milk from the breakfast table. The milk spills out over the floor and the glass breaks. The frustrated mother impatiently shouts “you are so clumsy and stupid” while she hurries to clean up the mess, displaying her contempt for the child.

Consider the impacts here:
 * The mother is physically giant compared to the child. She is large, angry, moving quickly, and shouting. She is a primary authority figure for the child. She is focusing her displeasure at the child.
 * The statement “you are stupid” criticizes the child’s being, not only his behavior. It describes what he is, not only what he does.
 * The statement “you are stupid” has an unlimited time horizon, it implies that the stupid condition will last indefinitely, perhaps forever.
 * All of this is in response to a trivial lapse by the child

This event can easily become a prototype for how we experience criticism throughout our lives. We accumulate long-lasting doubts about the worthiness of our essence. No experiences affirm our worthiness with the same power, frequency, or impact to counterbalance the insults we regularly suffer. The shame can become deeply rooted and persistent, self-doubts can easily arise.

As an antidote to these corrosive forces, work toward becoming authentically humble. Integrate humility with a constructive willfulness.

Assignment: Recall a time when you were insulted or humiliated. How did it make you feel? How long did those feelings last? Did you doubt your self-worth as a result? Try to estimate how significant and long-lasting an event this was for you, compared to the person who insulted you.

Recommended Reading


text:
User talk:Killiondude

 Hello Killiondude, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --mikeu talk 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Killiondude


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team4.ccook.hw3.problem2.fig2.png


title: File:Fe1.s11.team1.HW3.fig11.1.jpg


text:
User talk:Haddisur

 * SPIR608_Political_Simulation_and_Gaming

title: User talk:Haddisur


title: File:Fe1.s11.team1.HW3.fig11.2.jpg


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team4.ccook.hw3.problem2.fig3.png


text:
User talk:Richestorags

 Hello Richestorags, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Allama Jalaluddin Qasmi
I have tagged a page you created for "speedy deletion" as being not appropriate for Wikiversity, which is not intended for encyclopedic biographical content, except as part of specific educational materials, possibly. As an isolated page like this, my opinion is that it's not appropriate. You may contest this deletion by removing the deletion template that I placed at the top of the page. Thanks. --Abd 00:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richestorags


text:
User talk:Ankoor

 Hello Ankoor, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ankoor


text:
User talk:DudaMaximo

 Hello DudaMaximo, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DudaMaximo