text:
Semir Zeki

Semir Zeki FMedSci FRS (born 8 November 1940) is a British and French neurobiologist who has specialised in studying the primate visual brain and more recently the neural correlates of affective states, such as the experience of love, desire and beauty that are generated by sensory inputs within the field of neuroesthetics. He was educated at University College London (UCL) where he was Henry Head Research Fellow of the Royal Society before being appointed Professor of Neurobiology. Since 2008 he has been Professor of Neuroesthetics at UCL.

Early work
Zeki's early work was mainly anatomical in nature and consisted in charting visual areas in the primate (monkey) brain by studying their connections, leading him to define several visual areas lying anterior to the primary visual cortex (area V1) of the brain. This was followed by recording from single cells in these areas, which led him to the view (a) that there is a functional specialisation in the visual cortex, with different visual areas undertaking different visual tasks, such as the processing of colour, motion and form and (b) that the visual brain processes these different attributes in parallel.

Time at University College London
He later showed, using brain imaging techniques, that the same principles apply to the organisation of the human visual brain. In recent work he has shown that parallel processing appears to extend beyond the mere processing of visual signals to their grouping in parietal cortex. His work on colour vision was influenced by the work and methods of Edwin H. Land, whose techniques he employed in his physiological and brain imaging experiments, and which led him to the view that colour is constructed by the brain and that a specialised visual area, area V4, is critical to this process.

These findings raised the question of how the signals processed in these separate visual areas are integrated to give a unified picture of the visual world. In psychophysical experiments undertaken with colleagues, he showed that we perceive, and become aware of, different visual attributes at different times, with colour preceding motion by about 80 ms and form (orientation) by about 40 ms, leading to the view that there is a temporal asynchrony in vision which is the result of different processing speeds for different attributes. This in turn led him to suggest that visual consciousness is not unified; rather there are many visual micro-consciousness which are distributed in time and space, and that activity in each visual area can acquire a conscious correlate without the necessity of reporting to another cortical area, though acknowledging that there must be other enabling systems, possibly located in the reticular formation. Thus, functional specialisation manifests itself in the temporal sequence with which we see different attributes such as colour

More recently he has also studied the brain reaction to affective states generated by sensory inputs, such as the experience of love and hate. His studies of the experience of visual and musical beauty has led him to suggest that a specific part of the emotional brain, field A1 of the medial orbito-frontal cortex, is critical for such experiences.

Public engagement
He has lectured widely across the world, giving over 60 named lectures, including the Ferrier Lecture (Royal Society 1995); The Philip Bard Lecture (Johns Hopkins University, 1992); The Woodhull Lecture (Royal Institution, London, 1995); The Humphry Davy Lecture (Académie des Sciences, Paris, 1996); The Grass Foundation Forbes Lectures (Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, USA 1997; Carl Gustave Bernhard Lecture (Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm, 1996; and the Tizard Lecture (Westminster School, London, 2004) among others.

He has published three books, A Vision of the Brain (Blackwell, Oxford 1993 – translated into Japanese and Spanish), Inner Vision: an exploration of art and the brain (OUP, 1999); Splendors and Miseries of the Brain (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford 2009) and co-authored La Quête de l'essentiel, Les Belles Lettres, Archimbaud, Paris, 1995 (with Balthus, Count Klossowski de Rola) and La bella e la bestia, 2011, Laterza, Italy (with Ludovica Lumer).

He held an exhibition of his own art work at the Pecci Museum of Contemporary Art in Milan in 2011 (Bianco su bianco: oltre Malevich).

Posts, honours and awards
He was Editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B) from 1997 to 2004.

He has been a Trustee of Fight for Sight, a Guarantor of the neurological journal Brain, a member and then Chairman of the Wellcome Trust Vision Panel and a member of the National Science Council of France (1998–2002).

He has been a Visiting Fellow or Professor at St Andrews University; Ludwig-Maxilmilians University, Munich; Duke University, USA, University of California (Berkeley), among other institutions. He has conducted a number of public dialogues with writers, artists and art historians, including Dame Antonia Byatt, Balthus, Hans Belting, Peter Sellars, Michelangelo Pistoletto and Tetsuo Miyajima.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Society (1990), Member of the Academia Europaea (1991), Member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts (Salzburg) (1993), Foreign Member of the American Philosophical Society (1998), Founding Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (1998), Fellow of University College London (2000) and Honorary Member of the Physiological Society (2013).

D.Sc. (honoris causa) from Aston University, University of Aberdeen, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and an MD (honoris causa) from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Prizes include The Golden Brain Award (1985), Prix Science pour l'art (1991), Rank Prize in Opto-Electronics (1992) (jointly with A. Movshon and T. Adelson), Zotterman Prize (1993); Koetser Foundation Prize (1997), Award in Electronic Imaging (2002); King Faisal International Prize in Biology (2004), Erasmus Medal (Academia Europaea, 2008), Aristotle Gold Medal (2011), Rome Prize (Atena Onlus) (2012) and the BMI-Kaloy Prize (Kaloy Foundation) 2015. He received the 38th TS Srinivasan Endowment Oration Award 2018, during the TS Srinivasa NIMHANS Conclave. The conclave coincides with the 11th International Congress of the International Neuropsychiatric Association.

Scientific achievements
Zeki's scientific achievements include:
 * Discovery of the many visual areas of the brain and their functional specialisation for different visual attributes such as colour, motion and form.
 * Finding neurons in a part of the monkey visual system that would respond only when a particular colour, rather than a particular wavelength, was in their receptive fields. For example, he showed that a red-sensitive neuron would continue to respond to a red stimulus, even when it was illuminated mainly by green light. This was the first study relating colour perception to single cell physiology in the brain.
 * Showing that processing sites in the visual brain are also perceptual sites.
 * Showing that we see different attributes of visual input at different times.
 * Charting the activity of the brain in time and showing that different visual areas have different activity time courses.
 * Studying the neural correlates of subjective mental states, such as love and beauty, and more recently, hate.

title: Semir Zeki


text:
Misty Eyed Adventures

Misty Eyed Adventures is a music album by Irish musician Máire Brennan, now known as Moya Brennan. This was the second solo outing for her and features many of her family and friends on the recording. It was released in 1995.

Recordings were made in Scotland during 1995:

Additional recordings
 * Castle Sound Studio, Pencaitland, Scotland – (Engineer Calum Malcolm)
 * Windmill Lane Studios, Dublin, Ireland – (Engineer Charles Byrne) (for Big Yellow Taxi)
 * Barrymore Studios, Co. Clare, Ireland – (Engineer Colin Boland) (for A Place Among The Stones)

Track listing

 * 1) "The Days of the Dancing" – 5:26
 * 2) "A Place Among the Stones" – 6:45 (produced by Davy Spillane & Greg Boland)
 * 3) "The Watchman" – 5:46
 * 4) "An Fharraige" – 5:04
 * 5) "Pilgrim's Way" – 4:17
 * 6) "Big Yellow Taxi" – 4:10 (produced by The Blue Nile)
 * 7) "The Mighty One" – 4:34
 * 8) "Heroes" – 6:20
 * 9) "Misty Eyed Adventures" – 5:34
 * 10) "Dream On" – 4:38
 * 11) "Éirigh Suas a Stóirín" – 4:02

Band

 * Moya Brennan – vocals, harp, keyboards
 * Deirdre Brennan – vocals
 * Olive Brennan – vocals
 * Brídín Brennan – vocals
 * Nigel Thomas – drums
 * Nico Bruce – bass
 * Davy Spillane – Uilleann pipes, low whistles
 * Dónal Lunny – acoustic & electric bouzouki, bodhrán, keyboards
 * Calum Malcolm – keyboards, synth bass

Additional musicians

 * Paul Buchanan – Acoustic Guitar (on Big Yellow Taxi)
 * P.J. Moore – Keyboards (on Big Yellow Taxi)
 * Robert Bell – Bass, Keyboards (on Big Yellow Taxi)
 * Greg Boland – Electric Guitar (on A Place Among The Stones)
 * Noel Eccles – Percussion (on A Place Among The Stones)
 * James Delaney – Keyboards (on A Place Among The Stones)
 * Eoghan O'Neill – Bass (on A Place Among The Stones)

Promotional singles

 * 1) "Big Yellow Taxi"
 * 2) "The Days of the Dancing"

Release details

 * 1994, UK, BMG Records 7432 123355 2, Release Date ? November 1994, CD
 * 1994, UK, BMG Records 7432 123355 4, Release Date ? November 1994, Cassette
 * 1994, USA, Atlantic Records 82701 2, Release Date ? November 1994, CD
 * 1994, Japan, BMG Records BVCP 784, Release Date ? November 1994, CD

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

title: Misty Eyed Adventures


text: User talk:24.19.152.87

title: User talk:24.19.152.87


text:
One Step Closer (The Doobie Brothers album)

One Step Closer is the ninth studio album by American rock band the Doobie Brothers. The album was released on September 17, 1980, by Warner Bros. Records. The album included the hit "Real Love", which reached #5 on the Billboard Hot 100. This album is the band's last studio album with Michael McDonald in the lineup until 2014's Southbound, and also the first studio album to feature John McFee as a member of the band.

Personnel
The Doobie Brothers
 * Patrick Simmons – guitars, lead and backing vocals
 * John McFee – guitars, backing vocals
 * Michael McDonald – keyboards, synthesizers, lead and backing vocals
 * Cornelius Bumpus – tenor saxophone, soprano saxophone, organ, lead and backing vocals
 * Tiran Porter – bass
 * Keith Knudsen – drums, backing vocals
 * Chet McCracken – drums, vibraphone, marimbas

Additional personnel
 * Bobby LaKind – congas, bongos, backing vocals
 * Nicolette Larson – backing vocals on "Real Love", "Dedicate This Heart", and "Just In Time"
 * Patrick Henderson – keyboards on "Real Love", "One By One", and "Keep This Train A-Rollin'"
 * Lee Thornburg – trumpet on "South Bay Strut" and "Keep This Train A-Rollin'", flugelhorn for "Dedicate This Heart"
 * Chris Thompson – backing vocals on "No Stoppin' Us Now"
 * Ted Templeman – tambourine, cowbell, maracas, backing vocals on "One Step Closer"
 * Jerome Jumonville – tenor saxophone, horn arrangements on "Keep This Train A-Rollin'"
 * Joel Peskin – baritone saxophone on "Keep This Train A-Rollin'"
 * Bill Armstrong – trumpet on "Keep This Train A-Rollin'"
 * Jimmie Haskell – string arrangements on "Real Love" and "South Bay Strut"

Production

 * Producer – Ted Templeman
 * Production Assistant – Joan Parker
 * Production Coordination – Susyn Schope
 * Engineer – James Isaacson
 * Second Engineer – Gene Meros
 * Mastering – Kent Duncan and Tim Dennan at Kendun Recorders (Burbank, CA).
 * Photography – Norman Seeff
 * Art Direction and Design – Jim Welch


text:
Sung-Hi Lee

Sung-Hi Lee (Korean:이승희) is a South Korean model and actress based in North America. She has been featured in Playboy magazine as well as in many other magazines and some commercial advertising.

Early life and education
Born in Gija-chon, Eunpyeong District of Seoul, Lee moved to the United States in 1978. She attended Ohio State University on a scholarship for three years.

Career
Lee has worked as an actress, appearing in films such as A Night on the Water (1998), Error in Judgment (1998), Chain of Command (2000), Nurse Betty (2000), This Girl's Life (2003), National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003), and as Ferrari in The Girl Next Door (2004). She has also appeared on television, in the Queen of Swords episode "The Dragon" (2001) and landing roles such as DC Comics villain Lady Shiva in 2002's Birds of Prey and the waitress Sophie on the soap opera Days of Our Lives. She also starred on The King of Queens in the 2002 episode "Holy Mackerel". In 2007 she played Tricia Tanaka in the Lost episode "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead" and also appeared in the series premiere of the FOX sitcom Back to You. In 2009, Lee appeared in the action film The Art of War III: Retribution (2009) as Sun Yi, and as Crystal in the comedy Tripping Forward (2009).

Lee has also had a career in modeling, ranging from high-profile adult magazines such as Playboy (in which she was the first Asian model to feature on the cover) to advertisements for Acer Computers, Chrysler, Brut, Miller Beer, Mountain Dew, Maxwell House and Sunkist Juice.

title: Sung-Hi Lee


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Gzornenplatz | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
Gzornenplatz has engaged in frequent edit wars on many pages, including Nagaland and George W. Bush. He has refused, on various notes, to discuss these edits with his edit war counterparts, and has therefore disrupted the Wikipedia (by forcing protection on several articles on which he edit warred). I am, therefore, most respectfully requesting your comments.

Additionally, as I added on October 5, 2004 (around 20:38, UTC), he made a personal attack on Sam Spade's request for adminship, and have therefore modified the diffs and policies involved to include that.

As of 21:38, 6 Oct, 2004, he has also deleted my (Simonides') request for page protection on Requests_for_page_protection and replaced it with a request to unprotect the page though the current debate on the Talk page is not yet resolved. I believe I called this vandalism, but it may simply be a very bad breach of Wikiquette.

As of 7 Oct, 2004, User:Gzornenplatz has hit four reverts on an article without making use of the Talk page, for the third time in four days, this time on India where a discussion was ongoing.

As of 8 Oct, 2004, this user continues to make reverts on image pages, and continues to make false claims about his behaviour, mostly recently on Requests for page protection, e.g.: he states that he explained his reverts on Talk:India when in fact he joined the discussion a day after it started, and well after the article was protected, and only about 20 mins before posting that claim on the former page. Further, this user never co-operates or contributes in any way to the articles/images that he criticizes, effectively using constant reverts as an MO to get his POV enforced without any editorial effort on his part.

As of 23:12, 11 Oct 2004, this user continues to revert the following images which have reached consensus among other users:, , and has stated he will no longer engage in further discussion at Talk:India.

As of 18 Oct, 2004, this user has returned to edit warring on India despite consensus on the Talk page among other users, and despite an abritation request (Requests_for_arbitration) commenced against him and other users for the same behaviour.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * India 3 reverts again, more rude remarks, once again no use of the Talk page despite a request.
 * - many reverts on Empire of Atlantium
 * India - Nagaland, India - Numbered - constant reverts, no attempts at offering own version, has ceased previous, frugal discussion.
 * - four reverts within seven hours, no attempts at discussion despite requests.
 * deletion of Protection Request, replaced with unprotect request while page unresolved
 * Another breach of 3 revert rule within a 24 hour period, resulting in 2nd page protection of Nagaland
 * (20:38, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)) - (personal attack on User:Sam Spade on his request for adminship)
 * (20:21, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)) - (six reverts [and one de facto revert] between 09:42, 4 Oct 2004 and 15:54, 4 Oct 2004 on Pila, now protected)
 * ,, , (four reverts between 23:32, 2 Oct 2004 and 20:40, 3 Oct 2004 on Nagaland, now protected) - no use of the Talk page until protection enforced
 * (seven reverts between 21:18, 2 Oct 2004 and 18:19, 3 Oct 2004 on Empire of Atlantium, now protected)
 * (seven reverts between 18:17, 2 Oct 2004 and 21:33, 2 Oct 2004; two reverts [related to the previous] between 19:13, 1 Oct 2004 and 20:28, 1 Oct 2004 at and ; six reverts between 13:32, 28 Sept 2004 and 20:40, 28 Sept 2004; at George W. Bush; protected then unprotected as a result of the first war, still protected due to the most recent war)
 * (three reverts between 22:35, 30 Sept 2004 and 01:13, 1 Oct 2004; three reverts between 05:39, 28 Sept 2004 and 08:50, 28 Sept 2004; three reverts between 00:36, 18 Sept 2004 and 03:45, 18 Sept 2004 on List of island nations)
 * (six reverts between 10:16, 27 Sept 2004 and 18:56, 28 Sept 2004; five reverts between 05:24, 23 Sept 2004 and 05:00, 24 Sept 2004; several partial and complete reverts [three, to be specific] between 04:54, 22 Sept 2004 and 10:43, 22 Sept 2004 at Template:Sep11)
 * (five reverts between 04:07, 22 Sept 2004 and 06:37, 23 Sept 2004 on Enclave, now protected)
 * (five reverts between 17:54, 1 Sept 2004 and 18:39, 1 Sept 2004 on Henry Kissinger)
 * (three reverts between 09:31, 29 Aug 2004 and 14:03, 30 Aug 2004; reversions of likely wrong removals by User:Gene Poole, so may not be applicable as "edit wars"; on Sealand)
 * Piła: (six reverts on October 4 which lead to the page being protected), immediately after the protection has been lifted on October 11 another 21 reverts (which lead to the page being protected again).
 * Bystrzyca Klodzka: 5 reverts on Oct. 14, without taking part in the discussion or justifying the edits
 * Poznań - four reverts in a row, the page now protected
 * Toruń attempts to insert the disputed version and concealing it as a minor change (no comments on the talk page whatsoever).
 * - personal remarks and signs of incivility
 * Attempted to initiate yet another edit war on Sealand . Ignored talk page statement supporting retention of deleted content and reverted without comment.
 * Started a revert war over the disputed version (see: Talk:Pila, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues, WikiProject Cities/German names, Talk:Gdansk, edit summaries of the pages in question) despite being asked (and here) several times to participate in the discussion. The pages affected: Hel, Poland, Legnica, Grudziądz, Katowice, Bydgoszcz, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Gdansk, Elblag, Klodzko, Kolobrzeg, Torun, Olsztyn, Lidzbark Warminski, Malbork, Opole, Puck, Poland, Rumia, Slupsk (hidden as minor), Sopot, Walbrzych, Wyrzysk, Zielona Góra

 * These are really shameless lies by Halibutt. I have discussed this over and over, and it's Halibutt who just refuses to acknowledge elementary facts. Also, how do you figure who starts an edit war? If it's the first who reverts, then Halibutt started them. Gzornenplatz 22:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Also, you might've discussed it over and over again, but why the heck not on the talk pages of the articles you were constantly reverting? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]
 * Because it's one and the same issue. Why would I repeat that a hundred times? And I am just as "constantly reverting" those articles as you, obviously. Gzornenplatz 23:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Because you were asked to 2) because in several cases even your disputed methodology shows that you're wrong 3) Because I declined to play your revert game. Perhaps it would be better to wait until you're banned just like in the German wiki and then revert. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, I don't have to repeat something a hundred times for no good reason. 2) Then raise the issue in those cases. So far you have shown only one. 3) I'm not banned in the German wiki, I was merely blocked without process by a rogue partisan sysop. Don't get any hopes here. Gzornenplatz 11:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Comment in reference to 16 above: Use of the phrase "likely wrong removals" relating to my edits of the Sealand article is incorrect. I have almost completely re-written this article, and in so doing I have extensively added - not removed - valid content. Gzornenplatz has added no valid content at all, but instead has instituted edit warring by repeatedly deleting valid content or introducing prolific unneccessary instances of scare quotes. --Gene_poole 22:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just plain nasty remarks (for example ) about User:Daeron in the discussions over Papua. Absolutely counterproductive in a situation where except for Gzornenplatz people seem to be moving (with difficulty) toward consensus on how we can proceed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Three revert rule
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Wikiquette (not really a policy, I suppose)
 * No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * (22:24, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)) - (removal of Sam Spade's request for Gzornenplatz to remove the "troll" reference on RFA; refusal to follow "no personal attacks")
 * , history edit summaries (Nagaland),
 * , (George W. Bush)
 * Talk:List of island nations, various pieces of evidence that Australia is, in fact, an island nation
 * Template_talk:Sep11
 * Talk:Enclave
 * Talk:Katowice - Gzornenplatz failed to respond to my questions and objections (5 days old now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * ugen64 02:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) - I warned Gzornenplatz about the personal attack, and pleaded with him to stop the revert wars at George W. Bush and Nagaland. However, his remarks were to the extent of "if the other user doesn't stop, I won't either." This is, incidentally, in contrast with some other users, who have unilaterally (and most respectably) stopped editing a controversial page that they were previously edit warring on, to take a breath and try to come up with a consensus.
 * GeneralPatton 02:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * V V 02:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)  It's only fair to add however that the 3RR still (contrary to name) merely has the status of a guideline.
 * Sam [Spade] 22:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) Personal attacks make the wiki a less pleasent place to be a volunteer. Deleting my complaint on his talk page only compounds the insult.
 * -- Simonides 20:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) - a rude user who ritually avoids mutual work or discussion on an article, or Wikipedia protocol, and prefers reverts to constructive/ correctional editing.

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:11, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * Mike H 06:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Space Cadet 19:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I would be all too happy to follow the three-revert rule, provided it is enforced against everyone. I did follow it for months, only to see that nothing happened to those who don't, such as VeryVerily and Gene Poole. The description above is false, it is not me who has refused to discuss things. On Template:Sep11, for example, I explained my edit, I responded to comments by others, but my opponent in the edit war, VeryVerily, did not explain his edits in the slightest. On Nagaland, Simonides, without doing the slightest to explain his edit (i.e. he didn't say what he thought was wrong about the map which he insisted on describing as inaccurate), instead asked me to prove a negative (when I said there is nothing wrong with it, he said "prove it")! Gzornenplatz 02:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC) Ugen64 is now on a strange crusade against me. The supposed "personal attack" is my stated opinion that Sam Spade is a troll. The same opinion of course has been expressed in an even stronger way by sysop RickK, which Ugen apparently doesn't mind. Gzornenplatz 20:53, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) V V 06:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)  Mostly agree.  I stopped following the 3RR in April when it was not enforced against 172 while I was complying with it, and that was when we had quickpolls to enforce it!  Gz's assessment of Nagaland seems sound; I don't know what the hell Simonides was on about.  Of course we part on T:Sep11 (where (a) his edit was absurd and (b) I knew from experience all the discussion in the world wouldn't stop his edit warring - I guess part of this complaint), and he didn't try to defend the others.
 * 2) Ambi 12:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) I have my differences with Gz, but most of the others are at least as guilty, if not more so, and it seems things have only descended this far due to the lack of enforcement of the 3-revert rule. The rest of the evidence here is appears to be a bit of a stretch.
 * 3) If "SamSpade" is involved I am with Gzornenplatz. Thank you. IZAK 22:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) 172 18:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

It is never proper to engage in edit wars and Gzornenplatz shows a history of doing just that, so I do not disagree with the main complaint. That being said, other users have exacerbated the problem by themselves participating in edit wars with Gzornenplatz. Frustration is no call for exhibiting the same behaviour as what Gzornenplatz is being accused of.

 * User:VeryVerily in Empire of Atlantium and George W. Bush.
 * User:Gene Poole in List of island nations and Enclave.
 * User:Simonides in Nagaland.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Netoholic @ 02:28, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * 2) —No-One Jones (m) 12:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 22:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) I removed User:Davidcannon from the statement regarding Nagaland above, as it's hardly fair to lump him in based on a single revert that preceded the main edit war between Simonides and Gzornenplatz. Otherwise I agree that it generally takes two to edit war. Since some of the recurring participants say they would abide by it if it were enforced, I think it might be time to reconsider enforcing the 3-revert limit with 24-hour blocks.
 * 4) * Although I would have in the day, I would certainly oppose such a measure now. It will never be done impartially, and anyway the 3RR just gives the game to the majority (mob) with little incentive to accommodate other views (not to mention sockpuppet armies). V V  00:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Samboy 22:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) As an aside, I need to point out that User:Gene Poole is undergoing arbitration against me right now; this does not excuse Gzornenplatz's behavior, of course.
 * 6) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:48, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:37, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 23:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Though I think the statement above is a bit too hard on Gzornenplatz. The people who created this page are really the champion edit warriors; Gzornenplatz is hardly a match is them.)
 * 9) Tuomas 11:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia's ways of handling disruptive users don't work very well, and this is just yet another example of how indulgence for 172 led to increased problems with VV, that in turn lead to further increased problems with even more. It's soon time to find a good solution to the problem. /Tuomas 11:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what have I had to do with this? I am a professional historian who mainly writes articles, and I have had little to do with this mess. Yes, in the Spring I got into a dispute with the user whom you mentioned above about the Pinochet article, but I found that it wasn't worth my time to try to improve that article; since then I have not crossed paths with that user. I object to you drawing that association between that user and me. 172 01:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Obviously also academics are capable of inducing contempt for civilty in less experienced users. And when the damage is done, it's done. I'm sorry to have had to single out a particular academic here. /Tuomas 04:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think Tuomas makes a brilliant point RE: the issue of rogue admins. IMO this is the single greatest danger to the project, for just the reasons he mentions. Sam [Spade] 22:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Temporary injuntion by the arbitration committee
1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 11:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Iterated logarithm

In computer science, the iterated logarithm of $$n$$, written $$n$$ (usually read "log star"), is the number of times the logarithm function must be  iteratively applied before the result is less than or equal to $$1$$. The simplest formal definition is the result of this recurrence relation:

\log^* n := \begin{cases} 0                 & \mbox{if } n \le 1; \\ 1 + \log^*(\log n) & \mbox{if } n > 1 \end{cases} $$

In computer science,  is often used to indicate the binary iterated logarithm, which iterates the binary logarithm (with base $$2$$) instead of the natural logarithm (with base e). Mathematically, the iterated logarithm is well defined for any base greater than $$e^{1/e} \approx 1.444667$$, not only for base $$2$$ and base e. The "super-logarithm" function $$\mathrm {slog}_b(n)$$ is "essentially equivalent" to the base $$b$$ iterated logarithm (although differing in minor details of rounding) and forms an inverse to the operation of tetration.

Analysis of algorithms
The iterated logarithm is useful in analysis of algorithms and computational complexity, appearing in the time and space complexity bounds of some algorithms such as:

 * Finding the Delaunay triangulation of a set of points knowing the Euclidean minimum spanning tree: randomized O(n n) time.
 * Fürer's algorithm for integer multiplication: O(n log n 2O( n)).
 * Finding an approximate maximum (element at least as large as the median): n − 1 ± 3 parallel operations.
 * Richard Cole and Uzi Vishkin's distributed algorithm for 3-coloring an n-cycle: O( n) synchronous communication rounds.

The iterated logarithm grows at an extremely slow rate, much slower than the logarithm itself, or repeats of it. This is because the tetration grows much faster than iterated exponential:

$${^{y}b} = \underbrace{b^{b^{\cdot^{\cdot^{b}}}}}_y \gg \underbrace{b^{b^{\cdot^{\cdot^{b^{y}}}}}}_n$$

the inverse grows much slower: $$\log_b^* x \ll \log_b^n x$$.

For all values of n relevant to counting the running times of algorithms implemented in practice (i.e., n ≤ 265536, which is far more than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe), the iterated logarithm with base 2 has a value no more than 5.

Higher bases give smaller iterated logarithms.

Other applications
The iterated logarithm is closely related to the generalized logarithm function used in symmetric level-index arithmetic. The additive persistence of a number, the number of times someone must replace the number by the sum of its digits before reaching its digital root, is $$O(\log^* n)$$.

In computational complexity theory, Santhanam shows that the computational resources DTIME — computation time for a deterministic Turing machine — and NTIME — computation time for a non-deterministic Turing machine — are distinct up to $$n\sqrt{\log^*n}.$$

title: Iterated logarithm


text:
Stroop effect

In psychology, the Stroop effect is the delay in reaction time between congruent and incongruent stimuli.

The effect has been used to create a psychological test (the Stroop test) that is widely used in clinical practice and investigation.

A basic task that demonstrates this effect occurs when there is a mismatch between the name of a color (e.g., "blue", "green", or "red") and the color it is printed in (i.e., the word "red" printed in blue ink instead of red ink). When asked to name the color of the word it takes longer and is more prone to errors when the color of the ink does not match the name of the color.

The effect is named after John Ridley Stroop, who first published the effect in English in 1935. The effect had previously been published in Germany in 1929 by other authors. The original paper by Stroop has been one of the most cited papers in the history of experimental psychology, leading to more than 700 Stroop-related articles in literature.

Original experiment
[[File:Stroop stimuli.png|thumb|Examples of the three stimuli and colors used for each of the activities of the original Stroop article: 1. color words in black text

2. color words in incongruent colors

3. colored squares]]

The effect was named after John Ridley Stroop, who published the effect in English in 1935 in an article in the Journal of Experimental Psychology entitled "Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions" that includes three different experiments. However, the effect was first published in 1929 in Germany by Erich Rudolf Jaensch, and its roots can be followed back to works of James McKeen Cattell and Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt in the nineteenth century.

In his experiments, Stroop administered several variations of the same test for which three different kinds of stimuli were created: Names of colors appeared in black ink; Names of colors in a different ink than the color named; and Squares of a given color.

In the first experiment, words and conflict-words were used. The task required the participants to read the written color names of the words independently of the color of the ink (for example, they would have to read "purple" no matter what the color of the font). In experiment 2, stimulus conflict-words and color patches were used, and participants were required to say the ink-color of the letters independently of the written word with the second kind of stimulus and also name the color of the patches. If the word "purple" was written in red font, they would have to say "red", rather than "purple". When the squares were shown, the participant spoke the name of the color. Stroop, in the third experiment, tested his participants at different stages of practice at the tasks and stimuli used in the first and second experiments, examining learning effects.

Unlike researchers now using the test for psychological evaluation, Stroop used only the three basic scores, rather than more complex derivative scoring procedures. Stroop noted that participants took significantly longer to complete the color reading in the second task than they had taken to name the colors of the squares in Experiment 2. This delay had not appeared in the first experiment. Such interference were explained by the automation of reading, where the mind automatically determines the semantic meaning of the word (it reads the word "red" and thinks of the color "red"), and then must intentionally check itself and identify instead the color of the word (the ink is a color other than red), a process that is not automated.

Experimental findings
Stimuli in Stroop paradigms can be divided into three groups: neutral, congruent and incongruent. Neutral stimuli are those stimuli in which only the text (similarly to stimuli 1 of Stroop's experiment), or color (similarly to stimuli 3 of Stroop's experiment) are displayed. Congruent stimuli are those in which the ink color and the word refer to the same color (for example the word "pink" written in pink). Incongruent stimuli are those in which ink color and word differ. Three experimental findings are recurrently found in Stroop experiments. A first finding is semantic interference, which states that naming the ink color of neutral stimuli (e.g. when the ink color and word do not interfere with each other) is faster than in incongruent conditions. It is called semantic interference since it is usually accepted that the relationship in meaning between ink color and word is at the root of the interference. The second finding, semantic facilitation, explains the finding that naming the ink of congruent stimuli is faster (e.g. when the ink color and the word match) than when neutral stimuli are present (e.g. stimulus 3; when only a colored square is shown). The third finding is that both semantic interference and facilitation disappear when the task consists of reading the word instead of naming the ink color. It has been sometimes called Stroop asynchrony, and has been explained by a reduced automatization when naming colors compared to reading words.

In the study of interference theory, the most commonly used procedure has been similar to Stroop's second experiment, in which subjects were tested on naming colors of incompatible words and of control patches. The first experiment in Stroop's study (reading words in black versus incongruent colors) has been discussed less. In both cases, the interference score is expressed as the difference between the times needed to read each of the two types of cards. Instead of naming stimuli, subjects have also been asked to sort stimuli into categories. Different characteristics of the stimulus such as ink colors or direction of words have also been systematically varied. None of all these modifications eliminates the effect of interference.

Neuroanatomy
Brain imaging techniques including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) have shown that there are two main areas in the brain that are involved in the processing of the Stroop task. They are the anterior cingulate cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. More specifically, while both are activated when resolving conflicts and catching errors, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex assists in memory and other executive functions, while the anterior cingulate cortex is used to select an appropriate response and allocate attentional resources.

The posterior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex creates the appropriate rules for the brain to accomplish the current goal. For the Stroop effect, this involves activating the areas of the brain involved in color perception, but not those involved in word encoding. It counteracts biases and irrelevant information, for instance, the fact that the semantic perception of the word is more striking than the color in which it is printed. Next, the mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex selects the representation that will fulfill the goal. The relevant information must be separated from irrelevant information in the task; thus, the focus is placed on the ink color and not the word. Furthermore, research has suggested that left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation during a Stroop task is related to an individual's’ expectation regarding the conflicting nature of the upcoming trial, and not so much on the conflict itself. Conversely, the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex aims to reduce the attentional conflict and is activated after the conflict is over.

Moreover, the posterior dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is responsible for what decision is made (i.e. whether someone will say the written word or the ink color). Following the response, the anterior dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is involved in response evaluation—deciding whether the answer is correct or incorrect. Activity in this region increases when the probability of an error is higher.

Theories
There are several theories used to explain the Stroop effect, which are commonly known as "race models". This is based on the underlying notion that both relevant and irrelevant information are processed in parallel, but that they "race" to enter the single central processor during response selection. They are:

Processing speed
This theory, also called Relative Speed of Processing Theory, suggests there is a lag in the brain's ability to recognize the color of the word since the brain reads words faster than it recognizes colors. This is based on the idea that word processing is significantly faster than color processing. In a condition where there is a conflict regarding words and colors (e.g., Stroop test), if the task is to report the color, the word information arrives at the decision-making stage before the color information which presents processing confusion. Conversely, if the task is to report the word, because color information lags after word information, a decision can be made ahead of the conflicting information.

Selective attention
The Selective Attention Theory suggests that color recognition, as opposed to reading a word, requires more attention. The brain needs to use more attention to recognize a color than to encode a word, so it takes a little longer. The responses lend much to the interference noted in the Stroop task. This may be a result of either an allocation of attention to the responses or to a greater inhibition of distractors that are not appropriate responses.

Automaticity
This theory is the most common theory of the Stroop effect. It suggests that since recognizing colors is not an "automatic process" there is hesitancy to respond, whereas, in contrast, the brain automatically understands the meanings of words as a result of habitual reading. This idea is based on the premise that automatic reading does not need controlled attention, but still uses enough attentional resources to reduce the amount of attention accessible for color information processing. Stirling (1979) introduced the concept of response automaticity. He demonstrated that changing the responses from colored words to letters that were not part of the colored words increased reaction time while reducing Stroop interference.

Parallel distributed processing
This theory suggests that as the brain analyzes information, different and specific pathways are developed for different tasks. Some pathways, such as reading, are stronger than others, therefore, it is the strength of the pathway and not the speed of the pathway that is important. In addition, automaticity is a function of the strength of each pathway, hence, when two pathways are activated simultaneously in the Stroop effect, interference occurs between the stronger (word reading) path and the weaker (color naming) path, more specifically when the pathway that leads to the response is the weaker pathway.

Cognitive development
In the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, several variations of the Stroop task have been used to study the relations between speed of processing and executive functions with working memory and cognitive development in various domains. This research shows that reaction time to Stroop tasks decreases systematically from early childhood through early adulthood. These changes suggest that speed of processing increases with age and that cognitive control becomes increasingly efficient. Moreover, this research strongly suggests that changes in these processes with age are very closely associated with development in working memory and various aspects of thought. The stroop task also shows the ability to control behavior. If asked to state the color of the ink rather than the word, the participant must overcome the initial and stronger stimuli to read the word. These inhibitions show the ability for the brain to regulate behavior.

Uses
The Stroop effect has been widely used in psychology. Among the most important uses is the creation of validated psychological tests based on the Stroop effect permit to measure a person's selective attention capacity and skills, as well as their processing speed ability. It is also used in conjunction with other neuropsychological assessments to examine a person's executive processing abilities, and can help in the diagnosis and characterization of different psychiatric and neurological disorders.

Researchers also use the Stroop effect during brain imaging studies to investigate regions of the brain that are involved in planning, decision-making, and managing real-world interference (e.g., texting and driving).

Stroop test
The Stroop effect has been used to investigate a person's psychological capacities; since its discovery during the twentieth century, it has become a popular neuropsychological test.

There are different test variants commonly used in clinical settings, with differences between them in the number of subtasks, type and number of stimuli, times for the task, or scoring procedures. All versions have at least two numbers of subtasks. In the first trial, the written color name differs from the color ink it is printed in, and the participant must say the written word. In the second trial, the participant must name the ink color instead. However, there can be up to four different subtasks, adding in some cases stimuli consisting of groups of letters "X" or dots printed in a given color with the participant having to say the color of the ink; or names of colors printed in black ink that have to be read. The number of stimuli varies between fewer than twenty items to more than 150, being closely related to the scoring system used. While in some test variants the score is the number of items from a subtask read in a given time, in others it is the time that it took to complete each of the trials. The number of errors and different derived punctuations are also taken into account in some versions.

This test is considered to measure selective attention, cognitive flexibility and processing speed, and it is used as a tool in the evaluation of executive functions. An increased interference effect is found in disorders such as brain damage, dementias and other neurodegenerative diseases, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or a variety of mental disorders such as schizophrenia, addictions, and depression. Ergonomists could even show a relationship between the ergonomic characteristics of the educational furniture and the number of cognitive errors based on Stroop test. They found that an error percentage reduction using separated chair and desk against arm table student chair.

Variations
The Stroop test has additionally been modified to include other sensory modalities and variables, to study the effect of bilingualism, or to investigate the effect of emotions on interference.

Warped words
For example, the warped words Stroop effect produces the same findings similar to the original Stroop effect. Much like the Stroop task, the printed word's color is different from the ink color of the word; however, the words are printed in such a way that it is more difficult to read (typically curved-shaped). The idea here is the way the words are printed slows down both the brain's reaction and processing time, making it harder to complete the task.

Emotional
The emotional Stroop effect serves as an information processing approach to emotions. In an emotional Stroop task, an individual is given negative emotional words like "grief", "violence", and "pain" mixed in with more neutral words like "clock", "door", and "shoe". Just like in the original Stroop task, the words are colored and the individual is supposed to name the color. Research has revealed that individuals that are depressed are more likely to say the color of a negative word slower than the color of a neutral word. While both the emotional Stroop and the classic Stroop involve the need to suppress irrelevant or distracting information, there are differences between the two. The emotional Stroop effect emphasizes the conflict between the emotional relevance to the individual and the word; whereas, the classic Stroop effect examines the conflict between the incongruent color and word. The emotional Stroop effect has been used in psychology to test implicit biases such as racial bias via an implicit-association test. A notable study of this is Project Implicit from Harvard University which administered a test associating negative or positive emotions with pictures of race and measured the reaction time to determine racial preference.

Spatial
The spatial Stroop effect demonstrates interference between the stimulus location with the location in the stimuli. In one version of the spatial Stroop task, an up or down-pointing arrow appears randomly above or below a central point. Despite being asked to discriminate the direction of the arrow while ignoring its location, individuals typically make faster and more accurate responses to congruent stimuli (i.e., a down-pointing arrow located below the fixation sign) than to incongruent ones (i.e., an up-pointing arrow located below the fixation sign). A similar effect, the Simon effect, uses non-spatial stimuli.

Numerical
The Numerical Stroop effect demonstrates the close relationship between numerical values and physical sizes. Digits symbolize numerical values but they also have physical sizes. A digit can be presented as big or small (e.g., 5 vs. 5), irrespective of its numerical value. Comparing digits in incongruent trials (e.g., 3 5) is slower than comparing digits in congruent trials (e.g., 5 3) and the difference in reaction time is termed the numerical Stroop effect. The effect of irrelevant numerical values on physical comparisons (similar to the effect of irrelevant color words on responding to colors) suggests that numerical values are processed automatically (i.e., even when they are irrelevant to the task).

Reverse
Another variant of the classic Stroop effect is the reverse Stroop effect. It occurs during a pointing task. In a reverse Stroop task, individuals are shown a page with a black square with an incongruent colored word in the middle—for instance, the word "red" written in the color green—with four smaller colored squares in the corners. One square would be colored green, one square would be red, and the two remaining squares would be other colors. Studies show that if the individual is asked to point to the color square of the written color (in this case, red) they would present a delay. Thus, incongruently-colored words significantly interfere with pointing to the appropriate square. However, some research has shown there is very little interference from incongruent color words when the objective is to match the color of the word.

In popular culture
The Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! software program, produced by Ryūta Kawashima for the Nintendo DS portable video game system, contains an automated Stroop test administrator module translated into game form.

MythBusters used the Stroop effect test to see if males and females are cognitively impaired by having an attractive person of the opposite sex in the room. The "myth" (that is, hypothesis) was disproved. A Nova episode used the Stroop Effect to illustrate the subtle changes of the mental flexibility of Mount Everest climbers in relation to altitude.

In industry
British automotive marque MINI released a vehicle with the turn signal indicator designed as arrows that are pointing the opposite way than the indicated turn signal is blinking.

title: Stroop effect


text:
Neuroesthetics

Neuroesthetics (or neuroaesthetics) is a relatively recent sub-discipline of applied aesthetics. Empirical aesthetics takes a scientific approach to the study of aesthetic experience of art, music, or any object that can give rise to aesthetic judgments. Neuroesthetics is a term coined by Semir Zeki in 1999 and received its formal definition in 2002 as the scientific study of the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art. Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists alike have accumulated evidence suggesting that human interest in, and creation of, art evolved as an evolutionarily necessary mechanism for survival as early as the 9th and 10th century in Gregorian monks and Native Americans. Neuroesthetics uses neuroscience to explain and understand the aesthetic experiences at the neurological level. The topic attracts scholars from many disciplines including neuroscientists, art historians, artists, art therapists and psychologists.

Overview
Neuroaesthetics is a field of experimental science that aims to combine (neuro-)psychological research with aesthetics by investigating the "perception, production, and response to art, as well as interactions with objects and scenes that evoke an intense feeling, often of pleasure." The recently developed field seeks among other things the neural correlates of aesthetic judgment and creativity, and how these help humans communicate and connect. It is argued that visual aesthetics, namely the capacity of assigning different degrees of beauty to certain forms, colors, or movements, is a human trait acquired after the divergence of human and other ape lineages, rendering the experience of beauty a defining characteristic of humankind.

One core question for the field is whether art or aesthetic preferences are guided by a set of scientific laws or principles. Additionally, the evolutionary rationale for the formation and characteristics of these principles are sought. It is believed that identification of the brain circuitry involved in aesthetic judgments (e.g., by using through the use of brain imaging) can help pinpoint the origin of these responses. Many scholars, including neuroscientists, remain skeptical of the reductive approach adopted by neuroaesthetics.

The subfield of Computational Neuroaesthetics has aimed to utilize machine learning algorithms in conjunction with neuroimaging data to predict what humans would find most aesthetically pleasing. This field was pioneered by Fechner and Birkhoff in 1933; however it was years later that technology caught up enough to test, and prove, their hypotheses that aesthetics  could be measured in a mathematical way Real world applications of these models include recommending products via online advertisement. However, modeling serves the broader purpose of building scientific understanding and understanding the mechanisms guiding decision making and other cognitive processes by simulating the involved neural architecture.

Approaches of study
Researchers who have been prominent in the field combine principles from perceptual psychology, evolutionary biology, neurological deficits, and functional brain anatomy in order to address the evolutionary meaning of beauty that may be the essence of art. Involvement from both the rewards center of the brain and the Default Mode Network, once believed to only play a part in daydreaming, have been implicated in why humans  derive pleasure from viewing and creating art. It is felt that neuroscience is a very promising path for the search for the quantified evaluation of art. With the aim of discovering general rules about aesthetics, one approach is the observation of subjects viewing art and the exploration of the mechanics of vision. It is proposed that pleasing sensations are derived from the repeated activation of neurons due to primitive visual stimuli such as horizontal and vertical lines. In addition to the generation of theories to explain this, such as Ramachandran's set of laws, it is important to use neuroscience to determine and understand the neurological mechanisms involved.

Neuroaesthetics approaches can be either descriptive or experimental. Descriptive neuroaesthetics refers to the practice of mapping properties of the brain onto aesthetic experiences. For example, if color is important to the experience of Fauvist art, then it is likely that areas of the brain that process color will be engaged when looking at such art. The claims of descriptive neuroaesthetics are regarded as hypothesis-generating and are typically qualitative in nature. Experimental neuroaesthetics, like any experimental science, produces data that are quantitative and vetted statistically. Experimental neuroaesthetics tests hypotheses, predicts results, and invites replication or falsification. The typical experimental methods used are those of cognitive neuroscience: fMRI, ERP, TMS, TDCS, and neuropsychology. Critics of neuroaesthetics typically target descriptive and not experimental neuroaesthetics.

The link between specific brain areas and artistic activity is of great importance to the field of neuroesthetics. This can be applied both to the ability to create and interpret art. A common approach to uncover the neural mechanisms is through the study of individuals, specifically artists, with neural disorders such as savant syndrome or some form of traumatic injury. The analysis of art created by these patients provides valuable insights to the brain areas responsible for capturing the essence of art.

The aesthetic enjoyment of individuals can be investigated using brain imaging experiments. When subjects are confronted with images of a particular level of aesthetics, the specific brain areas that are activated can be identified. It is argued that the sense of beauty and aesthetic judgment presupposes a change in the activation of the brain's reward system.

In 2004, Helmut Leder has developed a broad research program on the psychology of aesthetics and the arts. This program was introduced as a cognitive model of the appreciation of art in a paper published in the British Journal of Psychology. This model has served to frame many studies on the cognitive foundations of art, neuroaesthetics, product design, and web design, among other fields.

A crucial aspect of research lies in whether aesthetic judgment can be thought of as a bottom-up process driven by neural primitives or as a top-down process with high level cognition. Neurologists have had success researching primitives. However, there is a need to define higher level abstract philosophical concepts objectively with neural correlates. A phenomenon called embodied cognition allows art viewers to mentally place themselves inside the artwork, and feel not only as if they were  there but feel how the creator of the art may have felt [1a]. Embodied cognition is a theory that suggests sensory experiences, motor actions, and the environment play significant roles in shaping how we think, reason, and understand the world; our material world is just that, not a projection created by the mind. It is suggested that aesthetic experience is a function of the interaction between top-down, intentional orientation of attention and the bottom-up perceptual facilitation of image construction. In other words, because untrained persons automatically apply the object-identification habit to viewing artworks, top-down control to reduce this habit may be necessary to engage aesthetic perception. This suggests that artists would show different levels of activation than non-artists.

Aesthetic responses to different types of art and techniques has recently been explored. Cubism is the most radical departure from Western forms of art, with the proposed purpose of forcing the viewer to discover less unstable elements of the object to be represented. It eliminates interferences such as lighting and perspective angle to capture objects as they really are. This may be compared to how the brain maintains an object's identity despite varying conditions. Modern, representational, and impressionistic art has also been studied for the purpose of explaining visual processing systems. Yet aesthetic judgments exists in all domains, not just art.

Neuroarchitecture
It has been proven that architecture surrounding us has the ability to impact our emotions. A study done by Trujillo and colleagues measured stress levels of participants in 20 different waiting rooms showed that the architecture of a waiting room could impact individuals stress response to be either lower or higher. Research such as this can serve the argument that compositions of aesthetics such as architecture have a direct link to our neurophysiology. Evidence for this has been shown in testing different mechanisms in response to different environment, Joel Martínez-Soto and colleagues showed that exposure to restorative environments, such as structures with natural component led to activation of the middle frontal gyrus, middle and inferior temporal gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobe, and cuneus linking these reactions to increased relaxation. Moreover, a study measuring stress response showed that the waiting room with a window versus without a window triggered less of a stress response, measured by physiological reactions of this stress state consisted of both heightened and prolonged spikes in salivary cortisol. it's unknown what exact components of architecture create more calm or stress responses in participants, or via which mechanisms they may be interacting with the nervous system to either elicit calm or stress responses, however this research serves to show how we aspects we already widely accept to be restorative and calming, such as windows, natural light or vegetation can impact us on a neurophysiological level. Research on how this varies from individual to individual along with personal style is where future research is headed in this field.

Aesthetic triad
Aesthetic experiences are an emergent property of interactions among a triad of neural systems that involve sensory-motor, emotion-valuation, and meaning-knowledge circuitry. Understanding that much of the research done on neuroaesthetics utilizes the aesthetic triad. The aesthetic triad are the components of the neural system utilized in an aesthetic experience and in research method, these components include sensory-motor, knowledge meaning and emotional valuation. The sensory- motor aspect is our automatic response to the recognition of objects and our engagement with said objects through our natural embodied reactions, while knowledge meaning establishes the understanding that our experience depends on the context and content present within the experience as shown in studies on neuroaesthetics, lastly the emotional valuation of these experiences is the component of our emotional response of either anger, fear, elation, or awe in these settings. Exploring the different subtopics of neuroaesthetics and the research being done aligns with this aesthetic triad.

The visual brain segregates visual elements like luminance, color, and motion, as well as higher order objects like faces, bodies, and landscapes. Aesthetic encounters engage these sensory systems. For example, gazing at Van Gogh's dynamic paintings evokes a subjective sense of movement and activates visual motion areas V5/MT+. Portraits activate the face area in the fusiform gyrus (FFA) and landscape paintings activate the place area in the parahippocampal gyrus (PPA). Beyond classifying visual elements, these sensory areas may also be involved in evaluating them. Beautiful faces activate the fusiform face and adjacent areas. The question of how much and what kind of valuation takes place in sensory cortices is an area of active inquiry.

Looking at paintings that depict actions also engages parts of people's motor systems. This engagement taps into the extended mirror neuron system. Mirror neurons, first discovered in monkeys, are neurons that respond to both the execution and perception of actions. A similar system exists in humans. This system resonates when people infer the intent of artistic gestures or observe the consequences of actions such as in Lucio Fontana's cut canvases. This subtle motor engagement may represent an embodied element of our empathetic responses to visual art.

The pleasure that people derive from looking at beautiful objects automatically engages general reward circuitry. For example, attractive faces activate the FFA and parts of the ventral striatum even when people are not thinking explicitly about the attractiveness of these faces. The orbito- and medial-frontal cortex, the ventral striatum, anterior cingulate and insula respond to beautiful visual images  and the medial orbitofrontal cortex and adjacent cingulate cortex respond to different sources of pleasures including music and even architectural spaces.

Kirk and colleagues investigated the effects of expectations on neural responses. People rated abstract "art-like" images as more attractive if labeled as being from a museum than labeled as generated by a computer. This preference was accompanied by greater neural activity in the medial orbitofrontal and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Thinking an image was a museum piece also produced activity in the entorhinal cortex, suggesting that people’s expectations draw on memories that enhance (or probably also diminish) visual pleasure. Similarly, Lacey and colleagues found that people’s ventral striatum and parts of the orbitofrontal cortex were more responsive to the "art status" than to the actual content of visual images. Huang and colleagues found that people have different neural responses when told that they are looking at an authentic or copied Rembrandt portrait. Authentic portraits evoked orbitofrontal activity, whereas copies evoked neural responses in the frontopolar cortex and the right precuneus.

Alternatively, according to the Neo-Kantian approach, “aesthetic pleasure arises from the fitting of predictive representations to sensory experiences”. When our predictive representations align well with our sensory experiences, it results in a sense of aesthetic pleasure. This alignment might involve things like finding coherence, harmony, or resonance between what we expected and what we actually perceive.The implication of these studies is that context and knowledge beyond the sensory qualities of visual images demonstrably affects people’s neural activity in aesthetic experiences.

Semir Zeki's laws of the visual brain
Semir Zeki, professor of neuroesthetics at the University College of London, views art as an example of the variability of the brain. Thus a neurological approach to the source of this variability may explain particular subjective experiences as well as the ranges of abilities to create and experience art. Zeki theorizes that artists unconsciously use techniques to create visual art to study the brain. Zeki suggests that "...the artist is in a sense, a neuroscientist, exploring the potentials and capacities of the brain, though with different tools. How such creations can arouse aesthetic experiences can only be fully understood in neural terms. Such an understanding is now well within our reach." He proposes two supreme laws of the visual brain:

Constancy
Despite the changes that occur when processing visual stimuli (distance, viewing angle, illumination, etc.), the brain has the unique ability to retain knowledge of constant and essential properties of an object and discard irrelevant dynamic properties. This applies not only to the ability to, for example, always see a banana as the color yellow but also the recognition of faces at varying angles.

Comparatively, a work of art captures the essence of an object. The creation of art itself may be modeled off of this primitive neural function. The process of painting for example involves distilling an object down to represent it as it really is, which differs from the way the eyes see it. Zeki also tried to represent the Platonic Ideal and the Hegelian Concept through the statement: forms do not have an existence without a brain and the ability for stored memory, referring to how artists such as Monet could paint without knowing what the objects are in order to capture their true form.

Abstraction
This process refers to the hierarchical coordination where a general representation can be applied to many particulars, allowing the brain to efficiently process visual stimuli. The ability to abstract may have evolved as a necessity due to the limitations of memory. In a way, art externalizes the functions of abstraction in the brain. The process of abstraction is unknown to cognitive neurobiology. However, Zeki proposes an interesting question of whether there is a significant difference in the pattern of brain activity when viewing abstract art as opposed to representational art.

Ramachandran's eight laws of artistic experience
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and his fellow researchers including William Hirstein, developed a highly speculative theory of human artistic experience and the neural mechanisms that mediate it. These "laws" combine to develop underlying high order concepts of the human artistic experience. Although not all encompassing as there are undoubtedly many other principles of artistic experience, the theorists claim that they provide a framework for understanding aspects of visual art, style and design. Although testing of these principles quantitatively may provide future evidence for specific areas of the brain responsible for one kind of aesthetic appeal, the theory faces substantial philosophical and historical objections.

Peak shift principle
This psychological phenomenon is typically known for its application in animal discrimination learning. In the peak shift effect, animals sometimes respond more strongly to exaggerated versions of the training stimuli. For instance, a rat is trained to discriminate a square from a rectangle by being rewarded for recognizing the rectangle. The rat will respond more frequently to the object for which it is being rewarded to the point that a rat will respond to a rectangle that is longer and more narrow with a higher frequency than the original with which it was trained. This is called a supernormal stimulus. The fact that the rat is responding more to a "super" rectangle implies that it is learning a rule.

This effect can be applied to human pattern recognition and aesthetic preference. Some artists attempt to capture the very essence of something in order to evoke a direct emotional response. In other words, they try to make a "super" rectangle to get the viewer to have an enhanced response. To capture the essence of something, an artist amplifies the differences of that object, or what makes it unique, to highlight the essential features and reduce redundant information. This process mimics what the visual areas of the brain have evolved to do and more powerfully activates the same neural mechanisms that were originally activated by the original object.

Some artists deliberately exaggerate creative components such as shading, highlights, and illumination to an extent that would never occur in a real image to produce a caricature. These artists may be unconsciously producing heightened activity in the specific areas of the brain in a manner that is not obvious to the conscious mind. A significant portion of the experience of art is not self-consciously reflected upon by audiences, so it is not clear whether the peak-shift thesis has any special explanatory power in understanding the creation and reception of art.

Isolation
Isolating a single visual cue helps the organism allocate attention to the output of a single module, thereby allowing it to more effectively enjoy the peak shift along the dimensions represented in that module. In other words, there is a need to isolate the desired visual form before that aspect is amplified. This is why an outline drawing or sketch is sometimes more effective as art than an original color photograph. For example, a cartoonist may exaggerate certain facial features which are unique to the character and remove other forms which it shares such as skin tones. This efficiency prevents non-unique features from detracting from the image. This is why one can predict that an outline drawing would be more aesthetically pleasing than a color photograph.

The viewer's attention is drawn towards this single area allowing one's attention to be focused on this source of information. Enhancements introduced by the artist more carefully noted resulting in the amplification of limbic system activation and reinforcement.

Grouping
Perceptual grouping to delineate a figure from the background may be enjoyable. The source of the pleasure may have come about because of the evolutionary necessity to give organisms an incentive to uncover objects, such as predators, from noisy environments. For example, when viewing ink blots, the visual system segments the scene to defeat camouflage and link a subset of splotches together. This may be accomplished most effectively if limbic reinforcement is fed back to early vision at every stage of visual processing leading up to the discovery of the object. The key idea is that due to the limited attentional resources, constant feedback facilitates processing of features at earlier stages due to the discovery of a clue which produces limbic activation to draw one's attention to important features. Though not spontaneous, this reinforcement is the source of the pleasant sensation. The discovery of the object itself results in a pleasant 'aha' revelation causing the organism to hold onto the image.

An artist can make use of this phenomenon by teasing the system. This allows for temporary binding to be communicated by a signal to the limbic system for reinforcement which is a source of the aesthetic experience.

Contrast
Extracting contrast involves eliminating redundant information and focusing attention. Cells in the retina, the lateral geniculate body or relay station in the brain, and in the visual cortex respond predominantly to step changes in luminance rather than homogeneous surface colors. Smooth gradients are much harder for the visual system to detect rather than segmented divisions of shades resulting in easily detectable edges. Contrasts due to the formation of edges may be pleasing to the eye. The importance of the visual neuron's varying responses to the orientation and presence of edges has previously been proven by David H. Hubel and Torsten Wiesel. This may hold evolutionary significance since regions of contrast are information rich requiring reinforcement and the allocation of attention. In contrast to the principle of grouping, contrasting features are typically in close proximity eliminating the need to link distant, but similar features.

Perceptual problem solving
Tied to the detection of contrast and grouping is the concept that discovery of an object after a struggle is more pleasing than one which is instantaneously obvious. The mechanism ensures that the struggle is reinforcing so that the viewer continues to look until the discovery. From a survival point of view, this may be important for the continued search for predators. Ramachandran suggests for the same reason that a model whose hips and breasts are about to be revealed is more provocative than one who is already completely naked. A meaning that is implied is more alluring than one that is explicit.

Generic viewpoint
The visual system dislikes interpretations which rely on a unique vantage point. Rather it accepts the visual interpretation for which there is an infinite set of viewpoints that could produce the class of retinal images. For example, in a landscape image, it will interpret an object in the foreground as obscuring an object in the background, rather than assuming that the background figure has a piece missing.

In theory, if an artist is trying to please the eye, they should avoid such coincidences. However, in certain applications, the violation of this principle can also produce a pleasing effect.

Visual metaphors
Ramachandran defines a metaphor as a mental tunnel between two concepts that appear grossly dissimilar on the surface, but instead share a deeper connection. Similar to the effects of perceptual problem solving, grasping an analogy is rewarding. It enables the viewer to highlight crucial aspects that the two objects share. Although it is uncertain whether the reason for this mechanism is for effective communication or purely cognitive, the discovery of similarities between superficially dissimilar events leads to activation of the limbic system to create a rewarding process.

Support for this view is highlighted by the symptoms of Capgras delusion, where sufferers experience reduced facial recognition due to impairments in the connections from the inferotemporal cortex to the amygdala, which is responsible for emotions. The result is that a person no longer experiences the warm fuzzy feeling when presented with a familiar face. A person's "glow" is lost through what is suggested as due to the lack of limbic activation.

Symmetry
The aesthetic appeal of symmetry is easily understandable. Biologically it is important during the detection of a predator, location of prey, and the choosing of a mate as all of these tend to display symmetry in nature. It complements other principles relating to the discovering of information rich objects. Additionally, evolutionary biologists suggest that the predisposition towards symmetry is because biologically, asymmetry is associated with infection and disease, which can lead to poor mate selection. However, departures from symmetry in visual art are also widely considered beautiful, suggesting that while symmetry may explain the judgment that a particular individual's face is beautiful, it cannot explain the judgment that a work of art is beautiful.

Areas of the brain linked to the processing of visual aesthetics
Aesthetic perception relies heavily on the processing by the visual centers in the brain such as the V1 cortex. Signals from V1 are distributed to various specialized areas of the brain. There is no single area where all specialized visual circuitry connect, reducing the chances of determining a single neural center responsible for aesthetics, rather a neural network is more likely. Therefore, the visual brain consists of several parallel multistage processing systems, each specialized in a given task such as color or motion. Functional specializations of the visual brain are already known.

Physiological phenomenon can explain several aspects of art appreciation. Different extrastriate areas of the visual cortex may have evolved to extract correlations of different visual features. The discovery and linking of various visual stimuli is facilitated and reinforced by direct connections from these areas to limbic structures. Additionally, art may be most appealing if it produces heightened activity in a single dimension rather than redundant activation of multiple modules, restricted by the allocation of attentional resources. In experimentation to determine specific areas, many researchers allow the viewer to decide the aesthetic appeal prior to the use of imaging techniques to account for the varying perceptions of beauty. When individuals contemplate the aesthetic appeal, different neural processes are engaged than when pragmatically viewing an image. However, processes of object identification and aesthetic judgment are involved simultaneously in the overall perception of aesthetics.

Prefrontal cortex
The prefrontal cortex is previously known for its roles in the perception of colored objects, decision making, and memory. Recent studies have also linked it to the conscious aesthetic experience because it is activated during aesthetic tasks such as determining the appeal of a visual stimuli. This may be because a judgment is needed, requiring visiospatial memory. In a study performed by Zeki and Kawabata, it was found that the medial orbito-frontal cortex (mOFC) is involved in the judgment of whether a painting is beautiful or not. There is high activation in this region when a person views paintings which they consider beautiful. Other evidence shows that this same area is active during the experience of beauty derived from different sources, including musical beauty and moral beauty, and even mathematical beauty. Interestingly, experience of the sublime, as opposed to the beautiful, results in a different pattern of brain activity; moreover, where it comes to judgment, although aesthetic and perceptual judgments leads t activity in the same brain areas, the pattern of activity is also different between the two, one of the most marked differences being the involvement of mOFC in aesthetic, but not in perceptual, judgments. Surprisingly, when a person views a painting which they consider ugly, no separate structures are activated. Therefore, it is proposed that changes in the intensity of activation in the orbito-frontal cortex correlate with the determination of beauty (higher activation) or ugliness (lower activation).

Conversely, activity in the motor cortex showed the opposite pattern. Additionally, the medial OFC has been found to respond aesthetics in terms of the context of which it is presented, such as text or other descriptions about the artwork. The current evidence linking the OFC to attributed hedonistic values across gustatory, olfactory, and visual modalities, suggests that the OFC is a common center for the assessment of a stimulus's value. The perception of aesthetics for these areas must be due to the activation of the brain's reward system with a certain intensity.

Additionally, the prefrontal dorsalateral cortex (PDC) is selectively activated only by stimuli considered beautiful whereas prefrontal activity as a whole is activated during the judgment of both pleasing and unpleasing stimuli. The prefrontal cortex may be generally activated for directing the attention of the cognitive and perceptual mechanisms towards aesthetic perception in viewers untrained in visual arts. In other words, related directly to a person viewing art from an aesthetic perception due to the top-down control of their cognition. The lateral prefrontal cortex is shown to be linked to higher order self-referential procession and the evaluation of internally generated information. The left lateral PFC, Brodmann area 10, may be involved in maintaining attention on the execution of internally generated goals associated with approaching art from an aesthetic orientation.

Broca's Area, also in the Prefrontal cortex is impaired in many individuals with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Dysfunction in this area leads to deficits in speech production; in this case the inability to verbally process a traumatic event(s). The process of making art allows those affected to “access pre-language areas of the brain” by creating their own symbolic imagery  and connecting with others through this. Directing attention towards aesthetics may have evolutionary significance.

Additional areas
Emotions play a large role in aesthetic processing. Experiments designed specifically to force the subjects to view the artwork subjectively (by inquiring of its aesthetic appeal) rather than simply with the visual systems, revealed a higher activation in the brain's emotional circuitry. Results from these experiments revealed high activation in the bilateral insula which can be attributed to the emotional experience of viewing art. This correlates with other known emotional roles of the insula. However, the correlation between the insula's varying states of activation and positive or negative emotions in this context is unknown. The emotional view of art can be contrasted with perception related to object recognition when pragmatically viewing art. The right fusiform gyrus has been revealed to show activation to visual stimuli such as faces and representational art. The neuroaesthetics of facial recognition hold particular importance, as being drawn to faces likely increased sociability, allowing tribal environments to grow, resulting in greater protection and more  availability of mates. This is likely involved in genetic fitness of offspring and child-rearing as well.

This holds importance in the field because as Ramachandran also speculated, object recognition and the search for meaning can evoke a pleasant emotional response. The motor cortex was also shown to be involved in aesthetic perception. However, it displayed opposite trends of activation from the OFC. It may be a common correlate for the perception of emotionally charged stimuli despite its previously known roles. Several other areas of the brain were shown to be slightly activated during certain studies such as the anterior cingulate cortex, previously known for its involvement in the feeling of romance, and the left parietal cortex, whose purpose may be to direct spatial attention.

Different artistic styles may also be processed differently by the brain. In a study between filtered forms of abstract and representation art, the bilateral occipital gyri, left cingulate sulcus, and bilateral fusiform gyrus showed increased activation with increased preference when viewing art. However, activation in the bilateral occipital gyri may be caused by the large processing requirements placed on the visual system when viewing high levels of visual detail in artwork such as representational paintings. Several areas of the brain have been shown to respond particularly to forms representational art perhaps due to the brain's ability to make object associations and other functions relating to attention and memory. This form of stimuli leads to increased activation in the left frontal lobe and bilaterally in the parietal and limbic lobes. Also, the left superior parietal lobule, Brodmann's area 7, has been shown to play a role in active image construction during the viewing of art specifically containing indeterminate forms such as soft edge paintings. Bottom up processes such as edge detection and the exploration of visual stimuli are engaged during this type of aesthetic perception. These roles are consistent with previously known parietal lobe responsibilities in spatial cognition and visual imagery.

Criticism
There are several objections to researchers' attempts to reduce aesthetic experience to a set of physical or neurological laws. It is questionable whether the theories can capture the evocativeness or originality of individual works of art. Experiments performed may not account for these theories directly. Also, current experimentation measures a person's verbal response to how they feel about art which is often selectively filtered. Ramachandran suggests the use of galvanic skin response to quantify the judgment associated viewing aesthetics. Overall, it can be argued that there is lack of proportion between the narrow approach to art taken by researchers versus the grand claims they make for their theories.

Additional research carries the assumption that our emotions are engaged when viewing or interacting with something related to aesthetics such as architecture, fashion or art however, the argument has been made by Alexis Makin, a researcher on visual neuroscience, that we can not yet encapsulate the neuroscience and psychological experience that occurs when having an aesthetic experience. Thus insinuating that we can not attribute our experience of aesthetics to that of something on the neurophysiological level. In negation to this, Skov and his colleagues make the argument that he emotional response elicited and the perceptual cues engaged in aesthetic experiences is enough evidence to ascertain the existence of empirical aesthetics. The majority of studies on neuroaesthetics have measured neural responses to traditional and Western art styles. One journal suggested rerunning these experiments using “traditional Chinese painting, Tang poetry, Chinese courtyard landscapes”. Limiting the scope of cultural stimuli creates bias in results because factors such as familiarity may affect participant responses.

Future directions and related fields
Since 2005 the notion of bridging brain science and the visual arts has blossomed into a field of increasing international interest. In his 2008 book, Neuroarthistory: from Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki, Professor John Onians of the University of East Anglia considers himself to be at the forefront of the field of neural scientific biased art historical research, although such a "history" is much shorter than Onians would have us believe. Many historical figures he deals with as precursors for neuroarthistory (Karl Marx, for example) have very little to do with modern neuroscience as it is understood today. Contemporary artists like Mark Stephen Smith (William Campbell Gallery, US), Guillaume Bottazzi and others have developed extensive bodies of work mapping the convergence of brain science and painting. Smith's work explores fundamental visual analogies between neural function and self-expression in abstract art. The past decade has also seen a corresponding growth in the aesthetics of music studied from neuroscientific approaches. Psychological and social approaches to art help provide other theories of experience.

Art and music therapy are two proposed clinical applications for neuroaesthetics. Individuals with a variety of conditions including, but not limited to, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and  Neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinsons, have shown symptom improvement after many  types of art therapy and art exposure.

The advancements of biotechnology over time should allow neurophysiological responses to be recorded outside of the laboratory setting[4a]. Future directions should measure these responses while participants take part in immersive exhibits, especially those involving immersive multimedia exhibits such as TeamLab Planets TOKYO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeamLab_(art_collective)

title: Neuroesthetics


text:
Martin Bernal

Martin Gardiner Bernal (10 March 1937 – 9 June 2013 ) was a British scholar of modern Chinese political history. He was a Professor of Government and Near Eastern Studies at Cornell University. He is best known for his work Black Athena, a controversial work which argues that the culture, language, and political structure of Ancient Greece contained substantial influences from Egypt and Syria-Palestine.

Early life and education
Bernal was born and grew up in Hampstead, London, the son of the physicist John Desmond Bernal and artists' patron Margaret Gardiner, both of whom were from families of Jewish origin who converted to Christianity. He was educated at Dartington Hall School and then at King's College, Cambridge, where he was awarded a degree in 1961 with first-class Honours in the Oriental Studies Tripos. At that time he specialised in the language and history of China, and spent some time at the Peking University. He carried on as a graduate student at Cambridge, and with the assistance of the Harkness Commonwealth Fellowship also at University of California, Berkeley and Harvard University, finishing his PhD in Cambridge in 1965 with thesis titled Chinese Socialism to 1913 when he was elected a fellow at King's.

Career
In 1972 Bernal moved to Cornell University in New York, United States. There he resided in the Telluride House as a faculty fellow, and became a full professor in 1988. He taught there for the rest of his career, retiring in 2001.

Initially he taught Government Studies at Cornell, and continued his research on modern Chinese history. Under the impact of the Vietnam War he had also developed an interest in Vietnamese history and culture, and learned the Vietnamese language.

From about 1975, however, Bernal underwent a radical shift in his interests. In his own words: "The scattered Jewish components of my ancestry would have given nightmares to assessors trying to apply the Nuremberg Laws, and although pleased to have these fractions, I had not previously given much thought to them or to Jewish culture. It was at this stage that I became intrigued—in a Romantic way—in this part of my 'roots'. I started looking into ancient Jewish history and— being on the periphery myself—into the relationship between the Israelites and the surrounding peoples, particularly the Canaanites and the Phoenicians. I had always known that the latter spoke Semitic languages, but it came as quite a shock to learn that Hebrew and Phoenician were mutually intelligible and that serious linguists treated both as a dialect of a single Canaanite language.""During this time, I was beginning to study Hebrew and I found what seemed to me a number of striking similarities between it and Greek ..."

Bernal came to the conclusion that ancient Greek accounts of Egyptian influence on their civilisation should be taken seriously. He had been interested in ancient Egypt since childhood, in part inspired by his grandfather Sir Alan Gardiner. Bernal's new direction was strengthened by his discovery of the work of Cyrus Gordon and Michael Astour. In due course he wrote Black Athena.

Bernal also wrote the book Cadmean Letters, devoted to the origins of the Greek alphabet. He devoted his next twenty years to writing the next two volumes of Black Athena, with the second volume devoted to archaeological and documentary evidence, and the third to linguistic evidence. He also spent considerable time defending his work.

He became Professor Emeritus upon his retirement in 2001.

Personal life
In 1961, Bernal married Judy Pace (later known as Judith Dunn). Together, they had one daughter and twin sons. They later divorced. His second wife, Leslie Miller-Bernal, and his five children survived him.

Books

 * (pamphlet)

Responses

 * (critical response)

title: Martin Bernal


text:
Berezovsky

Berezovsky or Berezowski (Polish pronunciation: ) is a surname of Slavic-language origin. Family nest of Berezovsky (gentry) is Bereziv village (nowadays 4 villages) in Ivano-Frankivsk region, Ukraine.

People

 * Antoni Berezowski (1847–1916), Polish revolutionary
 * Barbara Berezowski (born 1954), Canadian ice-dancer
 * Boris Berezovsky (businessman) (1946–2013), Russian businessman
 * Boris Berezovsky (pianist) (born 1969), Russian pianist
 * David Berezovski (1896–1943), Polish-Jewish journalist and writer
 * Denis Berezovsky (born 1974), Ukrainian and Crimean Navy officer
 * Ekaterina Berezovskaya (born 1990), Russian journalist and TV presenter
 * Igor Berezovsky (1942–2007), Russian painter, printmaker, and graphic designer
 * Liliana Berezowsky (born 1944), Canadian sculptor
 * Maja Berezowska (1893/8–1978), Polish painter
 * Maxim Berezovsky (1745–1777), Ukrainian composer, opera singer, and violinist
 * Maksymilian Berezowski (1923–2001), Polish author, journalist, and erudite scholar
 * Mikhail Mikhailovich Berezovsky (1848-1912), Russian naturalist, ethnologist, and explorer
 * Nicolai Berezowsky (1900–1953), American violinist and composer born in Russia
 * Roman Berezovsky (born 1974), Armenian international football player
 * Shaul Berezovsky (1908–1975), Polish and Israeli composer and orchestra director
 * Vitali Berezovski (born 1984), Ukrainian football player
 * Sholom Noach Berezovsky (1911-2000), Slonimer Rebbe
 * Березовський Лесь one of the leaders of the anti-Polish uprising of 1648
 * Арсенич-Березовський Микола Васильович (1910-1947), The 2nd head and the actual creator of military counter-intelligence of the OUN is the SB of the OUN, one of the nine generals of the UPA and the only general of the security of the UPA, a fighter for the independence of Ukraine in the 20th century

title: Berezovsky


text:
3Xtrim Aircraft Factory

The 3Xtrim Aircraft Factory, or Zakłady Lotnicze 3Xtrim Sp.z o.o.in Polish, was an aircraft manufacturer located in the city of Bielsko-Biała, in southern Poland.

The company was established by former SZD sailplane engineer Adam Kurbiel in 1996 under the name Wytwórnia i Naprawa Konstrukcji Lekkich - A. Kurbiel. The company hired many of the out-of-work aerospace workers who had been employed at the sailplane manufacturer. The company name was changed to Zakłady Lotnicze 3Xtrim Sp.z o.o. in November 1999. The company seems to have gone out of business in 2014.

3Xtrim concentrated on the design and production of the 3X55 and 3X47 ultralight aircraft, which first flew in prototype form in 1996.

The company name 3Xtrim was intended to be a double entendre, referring to the aircraft designs being "triple trimmed" (or more exactly "triple-tested") during the design, prototype and production stages and also that the aircraft are designed for "extreme conditions". In English the company name is pronounced "Three-Extreme".

title: 3Xtrim Aircraft Factory