'Blue Book' Roadcraft, and Hazards

Do you remember the old 'Blue Book' definition of 'hazards', from before DSA altered 'hazard' into 'ignore' and 'react' [to 'developing hazards'] for the hazard perception test?

"Anything which contains an element of actual or potential danger"

NB From memory, so humour me if it's slightly wrong.

And it went on to list:
What can be seen
What can't be seen
What may reasonably be expected to happen

So with that in mind, have a look at this picture:



OK, list of the hazards. Bit of help: no-one visible in the cars, no brake lights or exhaust smoke, etc. No-one on the pavements or nearby.

What can you see?

What can't you see?

What may you reasonably expect?

A little extra detail:
The photo was taken within a one-way system.

Q: So which way is the camera pointing? A: Correct direction of travel.

So why can you se the back of signs?

Yup, this is where the one-way ends. Note the signs warning drivers of two-way traffic . . . Nope, there aren't any.

Note the change in white line system . . . Nope, there aren't any.

I know the wheels of bureacracy turn slowly, but the hospital/Foundation's admin were aware of this in Feb. Which, perhaps, shows that signs aren't needed, because no-one's crashed yet.


Ah well, A&E is only a short ambulance ride away if needed.

.

BMW GS Power Boost

As I closed up to the bike park . . . my eyes behold an eerie sight . . .

A rocket-assisted BMW GS!

What was this machine? Had Bond's 'Q' allowed this bike to escape onto Berkshire's roads?



No.

It was a folding ladder!

But I wasn't the only person fooled - the next bloke along had though exactly the same!


.

Going Feral

It's long been known that traffic cones and trolleys, when able to escape from their usual habitats, will go feral.

But now, recently sighted in Newbury . . . the two are inter-breeding! What mule-equivalent will result from this union?


.

Discoveries shed new light on how the brain processes what the eye sees

Researchers at the Center for Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience (CMBN) at Rutgers University in Newark have identified the need to develop a new framework for understanding "perceptual stability" and how we see the world with their discovery that visual input obtained during eye movements is being processed by the brain but blocked from awareness.

The process of seeing requires the eyes to move so light can hit the photoreceptors at the center of each retina, which then pass that information to the brain. If we were cognizant of the stimulus that passes before the eyes during the two to three times they move every second, however, vision would consist of a series of sensations of rapid motion rather than a stable perception of the world. To achieve perceptual stability, current theory has held that visual information gained during an eye movement is eliminated, as if cut off by a camera's shutter, and removed from processing.

As published in Current Biology (http://www.cell.com/current-biology), significant new research conducted by assistant professor Bart Krekelberg and post-doctoral researcher Tamara L. Watson now shows that theory of saccadic suppression is incorrect and what the brain is doing instead is processing information gained during eye movement but blocking it from being reported.

"Rather than completely suppressing inputs during eye movements, the brain is processing that as information it does not need to report back to awareness," says Krekelberg.

The findings were obtained by making use of a visual illusion in which the presentation of a horizontal line makes a subsequent circle look like an ellipse. In Watson and Krekelberg's study, the line was presented to research participants immediately before an eye movement. Under current theory, the line would be eliminated from visual processing and one would expect participants to report a subsequently presented circle to look like a circle. While the research participants did not recall seeing the line, the image they reported seeing was not a circle but rather an ellipse. In other words, the participants experienced the illusion, even though they were not aware of the line that causes the illusion.

"Although they did not recall seeing the line, the brain apparently did process the line," says Watson. "What this shows is that perceptual stability is not accomplished by suppressing stimuli encountered during an eye movement, or removing them from processing, but rather that those signals are prevented from reaching awareness at a later stage of processing. Some suppression is also happening, but suppression is not enough to explain perceptual stability; it is not the whole story."

One reason why the brain does not discard visual input during eye movements could be that it provides useful information about eye movements. "We speculate that the visual signals generated by eye movement may be important for determining how much and how fast the eye moved so the brain can maintain perceptual stability," says Watson. "It may be that these signals are useful for improving perceptual stability as long as they do not enter into awareness."

The findings also show that a new approach is needed to gain additional understanding into the cognitive and neural functions involved in visual processing and perceptual stability. Until now, research largely has focused on pinpointing those areas of the brain that show lower activity during an eye movement. "What we are seeing now is that things are much more complex than we suspected," says Krekelberg. "We shouldn't just be looking at areas of reduced activity in the brain during eye movement, but for areas that may change their processing to make use of the input that arises during eye movements."

Providing a better understanding of those changes in processing could pave the way for earlier detection and more effective treatments for those who suffer from deficits associated with eye movements. For example, schizophrenic patients sometimes report a lack of perceptual stability. And while dyslexia traditionally has been interpreted as a deficit in language development, it also has been found to be associated with deficits in the control of eye movements.



From:
http://www.physorg.com/news163177022.html





.

Good Teaching

Good teaching (or training, if you prefer) often boils down to the same format whatever the context.

West Berkshire Council have just prodiced an excellent DVD for helping children with autism, particularly during the transition to secondary school. The DVD was made with help from several groups and agencies, including the famous Priors Court School.

To accompany the DVD, there's a credit card-sized concertina prompt sheet.

Awareness
Understanding
Tolerance
Interaction
Socialisation
Making School Work

On one side.

On the other (precid):

Communication - keep language simple
Social Understanding - unwritten social rules
Organisation - What, where, in what Order, what Next
Coping with Change - prepare in advance
Homework - what, how long


Now I'd say that was all 'good teaching' - and much of that list applies to rider training asmuch as anything else!


.

Looking through rose-tinted specs

People who wear rose-colored glasses see more, study shows

A University of Toronto study provides the first direct evidence that our mood literally changes the way our visual system filters our perceptual experience suggesting that seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses is more biological reality than metaphor.

"Good and bad moods literally change the way our visual cortex operates and how we see," says Adam Anderson, a U of T professor of psychology. "Specifically our study shows that when in a positive mood, our visual cortex takes in more information, while negative moods result in tunnel vision. The study appears today in the Journal of Neuroscience at www.jneurosci.org.

The U of T team used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine how our visual cortex processes sensory information when in good, bad, and neutral moods. They found that donning the rose-coloured glasses of a good mood is less about the colour and more about the expansiveness of the view.

The researchers first showed subjects a series images designed to generate a good, bad or neutral mood. Subjects were then shown a composite image, featuring a face in the centre, surrounded by "place" images, such as a house. To focus their attention on the central image, subjects were asked to identify the gender of the person's face. When in a bad mood, the subjects did not process the images of places in the surrounding background. However, when viewing the same images in a good mood, they actually took in more information -- they saw the central image of the face as well as the surrounding pictures of houses. The discovery came from looking at specific parts of the brain -- the parahippocampal "place area" -- that are known to process places and how this area relates to primary visual cortical responses, the first part of the cortex related to vision.

"Under positive moods, people may process a greater number of objects in their environment, which sounds like a good thing, but it also can result in distraction," says Taylor Schmitz, a graduate student of Anderson's and lead author of the study. "Good moods enhance the literal size of the window through which we see the world. The upside of this is that we can see things from a more global, or integrative perspective. The downside is that this can lead to distraction on critical tasks that require narrow focus, such as operating dangerous machinery or airport screening of passenger baggage. Bad moods, on the other hand, may keep us more narrowly focused, preventing us from integrating information outside of our direct attentional focus."


From:
http://www.physorg.com/news163244296.html





.

Out of sight, out of mind?

Out of sight, out of mind? Not really

By playing a trick on the brain, neuroscientists at MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research have discovered one way that humans naturally recognize objects.

The work, reported in the Aug. 7 online issue of Nature Neuroscience, may have implications for artificial vision systems and provide insight into problems in visual recognition that are often associated with dyslexia and autism.

"We all have an uncanny ability to recognize familiar objects and faces even though we never see the same image on our eye twice," said James DiCarlo, head of the research team and an assistant professor in MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS). "For example, even when viewing a stable scene, the image striking our eyes changes up to 200 times a minute-each time our eyes move. Somehow the brain recognizes commonalities among the ever-changing stream of images coming into our eyes." Instead of seeing the world as if in strobe light with objects jumping in and out of existence, we perceive objects to be stable.

Although one theory holds that this ability is hardwired in the brain, the current study supports the opposing hypothesis, indicating that the brain learns to recognize objects by merging images produced while our eyes explore the visual world.

"Our study focused on how eye movements might contribute to our effortless ability to recognize objects at different locations," DiCarlo said. "Because each eye movement rapidly brings each object from one location on our eye to another, we hypothesized that the movements help us learn to recognize an object, regardless of its location." In other words, these movements might enable the brain to learn that Jane is still Jane even when we are not looking directly at her.

"To test this hypothesis, we played a trick on the brain," explained lead author David Cox, a BCS graduate student. "We created an artificial visual world where objects on a computer screen did not stay the same, but were replaced by another object while the subjects' eyes were moving."

Subjects were shown one object in their peripheral vision. While they were moving their eyes to focus directly on that object, the researchers substituted a slightly different object.

Because the brain is effectively blind during the one-twentieth of a second of each eye movement, subjects could not see the object substitutions being made and were completely unaware that the altered visual world behaved any differently than the real world.

But their brains detected the difference.

In tests following one or two hours of exposure to the altered world, subjects confused objects that had been swapped-in reliable and predictable ways. Subjects judged different objects to be the same object at different locations, as if their brains used their eye movements to learn what images belong together to make an "object."

This study provides more evidence of the brain's continuing plasticity, or adaptability, and the role of experience in forming neural circuits for tasks as seemingly simple as recognizing objects in different locations.

"The real world has structure, and the brain works by discovering that structure. It makes sense that the brain adapts to the external reality, even if we manipulate it," DiCarlo said.


From:
http://www.physorg.com/news5979.html



.

BMW Indicators

I've been riding BMWs since my mid-20s . . . some sort of premature ageing, I suppose ;)

First an R65, then R100RT, before I moved onto the K bikes (100RT, 100LT, 100RT, 75RT), then an R850RT. I know what I like, OK? :)

I also like the flappy paddle, Lego-look, indicator switches, and it was with some dismay that I saw the bikes at shows last year with a 'normal' slidey, one-part, indicator switch for the 2009 range of bikes.

And it was with some amusement that I read today's MCN, about BMW quality control and poor design - giving the new indicator switch as a typical example of poor design!

He-He. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!


.

Where's Wally? [or Where's Waldo?]

Tiny eye motions help us find where Waldo is

To recognize faces in a crowd, the brain employs tiny eye movements called saccades and microsaccades to help us search for objects of interest. While researchers know that these movements are involuntary and vary in magnitude, they still do not fully understand how saccades and microsaccades work.

Now, a recent study by researchers at the Barrow Neurological Institute led by Susana Martinez-Conde has taken an important step toward understanding how the brain uses saccades and microsaccades in order to "sharpen" a scene. Previously, it has been unclear whether saccades and microsaccades have inherent differences or not. Here, the researchers found that both movements are likely generated by the same neural mechanism in the brain's strategy for optimal visual sampling.

In experiments, participants viewed various visual scenes ranging from blank images to complex pages of the Where's Waldo? books by Martin Handford. Then, the researchers measured the amount of saccades and microsaccades produced by the eyes when participants were either fixating on a specific point in an image or freely viewing the entire image.

Because microsaccades are operationally defined as movements that occur when fixating on a scene, the researchers looked for the same small magnitude of these movements when participants were freely viewing the scene. The researchers defined saccadic movements relative to microsaccades, with saccades having higher magnitudes than microsaccades.

The results showed that, when participants were freely viewing images, they produced more microsaccades when looking at the complex scenes than when viewing the blank and duller scenes. Specifically, more microsaccades occurred when participants were viewing an object of interest, such as when they found Waldo. Since participants stared longer at fixed points in the blank scenes than in the Waldo scenes, the increase in microsaccades could not be attributed to viewers fixating on Waldo for long times.

Instead, as the scientists explained, these results may support the proposal that microsaccades significantly re-sharpen an image and improve spatial resolution, as suggested in a recent study. While microsaccades occurred when participants viewed target objects, saccades occurred more often when participants freely viewed complex images as a whole. But rather than differentiating between microsaccades and saccades, the researchers suggested that both movements belong on a continuum of eye movements, which may together reflect an optimal sampling method by which the brain discretely acquires visual information.

The researchers hope that these findings may help understand the neural mechanisms underlying search behavior, both in the normal brain and in patients with eye movement deficits. In addition, understanding saccades and microsaccades could also help researchers design future neural prosthetics for patients with brain damage, as well as help to create intelligent machines that can see as well as humans.



From:
http://www.physorg.com/news154327802.html






.

HGVs - the 'No Zone'

The California DMV have a series of videos on Youtube, including this one on the 'No Zone':



There's another: 'Sharing the road with motorcyclists' - but they've disabled embedding. Have a URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxxG2guvYLw&feature=channel


.

Visual Search

Study reveals we seek new targets during visual search, not during other visual behaviors

When we look at a scene in front of us, we need to focus on the important items and be able to ignore distracting elements. Studies have suggested that inhibition of return (in which our attention is less likely to return to objects we've already viewed) helps make visual search more efficient - when searching a scene to find an object, we have a bias toward inspecting new regions of a scene, and we avoid looking for the object in already searched areas. Psychologists Michael D. Dodd from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Stefan Van der Stigchel of Utrecht University, and Andrew Hollingworth from the University of Iowa examined if inhibition of return is specific for visual search or if it applies more generally in visual behavior.

The researchers tracked eye movements of volunteers as they viewed various scenes and recorded the location where the eyes were focused (i.e., fixated) at each moment. The volunteers were divided into four groups, with each group receiving different instructions for scene viewing. They were told to search the scenes for a specific target, memorize each scene, rate how pleasant the scenes were, or free-view the scenes (i.e., view the scenes however they wanted). During viewing, a target appeared in the scene, and participants shifted their eyes as quickly as possible to the target. The target either appeared in an old location (previously fixated by the eyes) or a new location (not yet fixated).

The results, reported in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, indicate that inhibition of return occurs during visual search tasks, but not during other visual tasks. That is, the volunteers in the search group were slower to shift their eyes to previously fixated locations than to new locations, consistent with earlier findings of inhibition of return. However, volunteers from the other three groups exhibited the opposite pattern of eye movements: They were faster to shift their eyes to previously fixated locations than to new locations. The authors suggest that this "facilitation of return" effect may be "the default setting of the visual system, with inhibition of return representing an exception implemented during visual search."


From:
http://www.physorg.com/news158943465.html


.

Vision and Perception Posts

If you're a regular reader, you may have seen several posts around the theme of vision and perception. If you're not and haven't, I'll leave you to read through the archives as well as read the next few posts.

While looking for something totally - almost, anyway - different, I happened across a site full of news links and short science/vision news.

Posting once, with text and links together won't make them easy to read, so I'll post them over the next few days.



.

Search

Study discovers clues into how eyes search

Like the robots in the "Terminator" movies, our eyes move methodically through a scene when seeking out an object. If we don't immediately find what we're searching for, our attention leaves the already-scanned area behind and moves on to new, unexplored regions of a scene, still seeking the target.

"Inhibition of return" -- in which our attention rarely or slowly returns to objects we've already looked at -- is what many believe makes visual search so efficient. But how do our eyes behave when we're not specifically hunting for something? A University of Nebraska-Lincoln-led research team recently found clues suggesting our vision, unlike those "Terminator" machines, can lock in on certain targets more quickly if they're not in search mode.

Mike Dodd, a UNL professor of psychology, worked with researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the University of Iowa in tracking eye movements as subjects viewed various scenes. Using high-tech equipment that followed eye movements in real time, researchers recorded where their subjects' attention was focused at each moment.

The participants were divided into four groups: One searched scenes for a specific target; one memorized each scene; one rated how pleasant the scenes were; and one was told to "free-view" the scenes -- to look anywhere they liked.

When a target would appear in the participants' line of sight -- either in an old location or in a spot where their eyes had yet to focus upon -- all four groups were instructed shift their eyes to the target. But the study's findings, published this month in Psychological Science, suggest that "inhibition of return" happens during visual search and not during other visual tasks.

That is, those in the group told to search for a specific object were slower to shift their eyes back to areas they had already examined. Those in the other three groups, however, had the opposite reaction. They shifted their eyes back much faster to areas they had already looked at than to new locations.

"This was surprising because people have often talked about inhibition of return being the default setting for attention," Dodd said. "Our results indicate that the exact opposite is true. People are actually faster to go back to previously viewed locations when they are doing anything other than search."

The practical importance of knowing how attention behaves is key to thinking about how to arrange the world around us. Simple applications could mean rethinking how to arrange maps, where to place street signs, or how to configure warning lights in cars or airplanes, he said. The information could also be applied to the design of vehicles and equipment to make them as user-friendly as possible.

"Anything we know about visual attention in the big picture is useful, making our findings important since it is in direct opposition to how people usually think attention works in most settings," Dodd said


From:
http://www.physorg.com/news164469120.html




.

Motorcycle 'Safety' Web Sites

Did I say that one day I'll put a list of sites together?

Well, no real need - someone's already done it.

'Someone' is the IHIE - the Institue of incorporated Highway Engineers. And on a separate site they provide the IHIE Guidelines for Motorcycling, and a lot more information.

There's also a good summary of some of the varied bike safety campaigns and web sites that of been in place over the last few years.

More here.


.

Bare Bones

One day I'll get around to compiling a list of all the various rider-oriented web sites.

Until then, here's Bare Bones.

Be warned: *Damage limitation: Be aware, graphic images are included on this website

The site is mainly about preventing injury. Not directly by preventing crashes, but by encouraging younger riders to be aware of the potential for injury from bike crashes.


.