四川 | 原创| 国内| 国际| 娱乐| 体育| 女性| 图片| 太阳鸟时评| 市州联播| 财经| 汽车| 房产| 旅游| 居家| 教育| 法制| 健康| 食品| 天府新区| 慢耍四川
您当前的位置:四川新闻  >  本网原创


2019年09月21日 10:31:40

Brown Researchers Believe Gamers Are Able To Learn Visual Tasks Faster Than Non-Gamers游戏玩家的认知能力更强As gaming moves from just a casual pastime to becoming a more significant part of our lives, researchers are getting increasingly curious to find out how it affects learning. A recent study concluded that gamers have better visual skills and other cognitive abilities. Now there is some evidence that gaming not only augments visual skills, but also, helps speed up the learning process.视频游戏正从一项消遣渐渐变成我们生活中重要的一部分,研究者对其是否会影响到我们的认知能力也越来越感兴趣。近期一项实验表明,游戏玩家不仅视觉更敏锐,其他一些认知能力也更强。下面这项实验进一步明了视频游戏不仅增强玩家的视觉能力,还加速了他们的学习能力。The study conducted by Brown University Associate Professor Yuka Sasaki and graduate student Aaron Berard, pitted nine avid gamers against a control group of nine individuals who had rarely if ever, played games. The participants were subjected to two days of visual task learning. Each group was trained in two tasks (in random order). The first was to observe the design of an on-screen texture of horizontal lines and point the area with maximum irregularities as fast as possible. The second task was similar except that the lines were vertical.布朗大学副教授Yuka Sasaki和研究生Aaron Berard共同开展的这项研究,他们挑选了9位游戏玩家与9位很少玩或不玩游戏的人进行对比研究。他们都进行了为期2天的视觉任务培训。受试者按随机顺序进行两项测试,首先是在屏幕上快速(以毫秒为衡量标准)地指出水平线组成的纹理中有何异常之处。第二项测试与前一项相同,只不过换成了垂直纹理。The following day, the study participants were asked to perform the same tasks (again in randomized order) to test if there was any improvement in how quickly they noticed the irregularities. 随后的几天,受试者依然按随机顺序反复做这两项测试,主要是为了检测他们识别无规则纹理的速度是否有所改善。Sure enough, the frequent gamers showed great progress in both tasks - they improved an average of 15% on the second and 11% on the first. The non-gamers did not fare as well. Though they improved by the same amount as the gamers (15%) on the second task, their performance on the first task worsened, declining by 5%!数据显示,游戏玩家组在第一项任务中在速度和准确度方面的表现提高了15%,在第二项任务中提高了11%;非游戏玩家组在第二项任务中也提高了15%,然而在第一项任务中,他们只提高了约5%。Clearly more research needs to be done before firm conclusions can be reached, but the first indications are certainly encouraging. And for those that are still skeptical, a separate study conducted by Oxford University in 2014, concluded that children that play games are happier, more social and less hyperactive than non-gamers! But before you go all out, the study also stipulates that kids should spend no more than 60 minutes a day on this pursuit.为了获得确切的,我们需要进行更多研究,但该实验带给我们的启示还是鼓舞人心的。带着怀疑,2014年牛津大学又单独进行了一项实验,明了玩视频游戏的孩子比不玩的孩子更幸福,更社会化,并且不那么过度活泼!但在你跃跃欲试之前,这项实验也提醒了我们应该控制孩子的游戏时间在60分钟之内,否则过犹不及。译文属原创,仅供学习和交流使用,未经许可,。 /201507/384631济南市第五医院几级In the 12 days leading up to Christmas Eve, new Harry Potter content will be released daily on the site. The site’s official blog said:在平安夜的倒数12天里,新的哈利波特故事将会在官网上每日更新。官网上说道:“We’re feeling extra generous this year, so we’re bringing you early gifts this Christmas. Starting Friday, December 12, we’ll be releasing a festive surprise for you every day at 1pm GMT (8am EST).;“今年我们真是太大方了,所以要给你们提前发圣诞礼物哦。从12月12日(周五)开始,我们每天下午1点(格林威治标准时间)(东时区的早上8点)发布节日惊喜。;With wonderful writing by J.K. Rowling in Moments from Half-Blood Prince, shiny gold Galleons and even a new potion or two, make sure you don’t miss out – just visit pottermore.com and answer our rhyming riddles.J.K.罗琳现下已经写好了《混血王子》,《魔法金币》还有甚至一两剂新魔药,确保你没有错过——快来访问pottermore.com来猜猜我们押韵的谜语吧! Update: Here’s the third riddle.最新的谜语三。Spoiler: The riddle reveals new writing from Rowling, explaining why she made Snape Potions Master:剧透:谜语中暗藏罗琳的新故事,解释了为什么她让斯内普成为魔药课教师:“Chemistry was my least favourite subject at school, and I gave it up as soon as I could. Naturally when I was trying to decide which subject Harry’s arch-enemy, Severus Snape, should teach, it had to be the wizarding equivalent. This makes it all the stranger that I found Snape’s introduction to his subject quite compelling (‘I can teach you to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death…’), apparently part of me found Potions quite as interesting as Snape did; and indeed I enjoyed creating potions in the books, and researching ingredients for them.”“化学是我在学校里最讨厌的课程,而且我一可以摆脱它就马上放弃学化学了。自然的,当我想要决定哪门课会是哈利的天敌时,西弗勒斯·斯内普,必须要教授这门课,必须是魔法等效。这让一切变得更奇怪了,因为我发现斯内普为他课程所做的介绍十分吸引人(“我可以教会你们怎样提高声望,酿造荣耀,甚至阻止死亡……”),显然我发现斯内普教授的魔药学很有意思;而且我确实喜欢在书里创造药剂,为它们寻找原料。” The second riddle led to information about Florean Fortesque, owner of Diagon Alley’s ice cream parlour.第二个谜语是关于福洛林·福斯科,对角巷冰淇淋小店的店主Rowling reveals she had him kidnapped, intending him to be rescued later by Harry, but eventually cut the plot line.罗琳透露她本来打算让他被绑架之后被哈利救了,但是最终砍掉了这个情节。Rowling writes:罗琳写道:;I seemed to have had him kidnapped and killed for no reason. He is not the first wizard whom Voldemort murdered because he knew too much (or too little), but he is the only one I feel guilty about, because it was all my fault.;;我似乎本来不用给出任何原因就让他被绑架然后杀掉了。他不是被伏地魔杀掉的第一个巫师了,因为他知道的太多(或者太少),但是他是唯一一个让我有罪恶感的,因为都是我的错。;We also got a short history of the Leaky Cauldron pub.我们也能读到破釜酒吧的一小段历史。“Some people argue that the oldest pub in London is the White Hart on Drury Lane. All of these people are Muggles, and all of them are wrong. The oldest pub in London, as any wizard will tell you, is the Leaky Cauldron on Charing Cross Road.”“有人认为伦敦最古老的酒吧是德鲁里巷的白鹿酒吧。这些人都是麻瓜,而且他们都错了。伦敦最古老的酒吧,任何一个巫师都会告诉你是查令十字路的破釜酒吧。” The first riddle revealed a history of the fictional town of Cokeworth, where Lily Evans and Severus Snape grew up.第一个谜语透露了科克沃斯的一个虚构小镇的历史,是莉莉·埃文斯和西弗勒斯·斯内普长大的地方。Here’s a short excerpt from the entry:这里放一小段摘录:“Uncle Vernon has a vague idea that Cokeworth is so distinctly unmagical, the letters will not follow them there. He ought to have known better; after all Petunia’s sister, Lily, turned into a talented witch in Cokeworth.”“弗农姨夫有个含糊的概念,就是科克沃斯很明显没有魔法,信件是不会送到他们那里的。他应该了解的更详细一些;在佩妮姨妈的莉莉变成科克沃斯成为天赋异常的巫师之后。”Among the writing to come is a new short story featuring Draco Malfoy.而下一个即将放出的新故事是关于德拉科#8226;马尔福的。 /201412/349076山东省第五人民医院诊疗中心Contrary to what fairy tales may tell you, relationships take work.和童话故事描绘的截然相反,感情是需要经营的。So we collected some of the best social science findings about what makes them last.我们收集了一些有关经营感情的最佳社科研究发现。1. If you wait until you#39;re 23 to commit, you#39;re less likely to get divorced.如果等到23岁再考虑结婚,离婚几率更小。A 2014 University of Pennsylvania study found that Americans who cohabitate or get married at age 18 have a 60% divorce rate, whereas people who waited until the more mature age of 23 have a divorce rate of about 30%.2014年宾夕法尼亚大学的一项研究发现,18岁就同居或结婚的美国人离婚率为60%,然而那些等到23岁更成熟的时候才选择结婚的离婚率约为30%。2. The “in love” phase lasts about a year.“热恋”阶段通常持续一年左右。The honeymoon phase with its “high levels of passionate love” and “intense feelings of attraction and ecstasy, as well as an idealization of one#39;s partner”, doesn#39;t last forever, according to Monmouth University psychologist Gary W. Lewandowski Jr.蒙莫斯大学心理学家盖里#8226;W#8226;勒万多维斯基表示,充满“高度的爱”、“强烈的吸引力和狂喜的感觉,同时对配偶理想化”的蜜月期并不会永远持续下去。3. Eventually you realize that you#39;re not one person.最终你会意识到你不是一个人。Once you start living together, you realize that you have different priorities and tolerances-like, for instance, what does or doesn#39;t constitute a mess.一旦你们开始生活在一起,你会意识到,你们有不同的优先级和容忍度,比如说对于脏乱的定义会有所不同。4. If you get excited for your partner#39;s good news, you#39;ll have a better relationship.如果你为伴侣的好消息感到振奋,你会拥有更好的婚姻。In multiple studies, couples that actively celebrated good news (rather than actively or passively dismissed it) have had a higher rate of relationship well-being.多项研究发现,相对主动或被动地不予理会彼此好消息的夫妻而言,积极地庆祝好消息的夫妻婚姻幸福感更高。5. The happiest marriages are between best friends.最幸福的婚姻发生在最好的朋友之间。A 2014 National Bureau of Economic research study concluded that friendship could help explain the causal relationship between marriage and life satisfaction.美国国家经济研究局2014年的一项研究显示,友谊能够解释婚姻和生活满足感之间的因果关系。6. The closer a couple is in age, the less likely they are to get divorced.夫妻年龄越相近,离婚的可能性越小。An Emory University study found that couples with a five-year age difference were 18% more likely to divorce, and ones with a 10-year difference were 39% more likely.埃默里大学的一项研究发现,年龄相差5岁的夫妻离婚几率比一般的高出18%,年龄相差10岁的夫妻离婚率则要高出39%。7. Resentment builds quickly in couples that don#39;t tackle chores together.没有共同承担家务的夫妻,心中怨恨积累迅速。Over 60% of Americans say that taking care of chores plays a crucial role in having a successful marriage. You#39;ll save a lot of collective time if each person specializes in the chores they#39;re best at.超过60%的美国人表示,在一段成功的婚姻中,照料家务起着关键性的作用。如果双方都专门负责各自拿手的家务,那么夫妻双方可以节省出大量的共同时间。 /201506/383227People are divided in this throwaway society where things get abandoned easily and deleting anything is as easy as pressing a button.这是个“且用且扔”的社会,一切都可以轻易丢弃,只要点击一下按钮什么都能删除。但这并非人人所愿。While digital cameras have taken hold of the art of photography due to their ubiquity, some shooters still hold a tight emotional connection to film cameras.虽然使用数码相机的摄影爱好者人多势众,把控着摄影艺术界,但还是有一些摄影师执恋于胶片相机。In a disposable society, the choice between cameras also reflects people’s lifestyle choices.在这个用一次就扔的社会里,对于相机的选择也是人们对于生活方式的选择。Enjoying the process享受过程Shooting in film can be labor intensive, and it never offers the instant gratification of seeing the image after clicking the shutter. But vintage camera lovers view shooting film as a fun and meaningful process.用胶片拍摄是一件“苦力活”,即使在按下快门之后也不能即刻欣赏“成果”。但是,在胶片相机爱好者眼中,摄影更多的是一个过程,它趣味盎然、意义非凡。James Alan Figy,the staff writer and photographer at Angie’s List in the US sees shooting film as an exercise in surprising oneself.詹姆斯#8226;艾伦#8226;菲戈是美国本地务点评网站Angie’s List的撰稿人兼摄影师。对他而言,摄影就是一场不断取得惊喜的练习。“It’s fun because I have to adjust the shutter speed and aperture manually,” Figy said. “Seeing which photos will turn out well once developed is always a surprise.”他说:“(使用胶片相机拍摄的)乐趣在于我必须要手动调整快门速度和光圈大小。拍完后,想想哪些照片洗出来也许会成为佳作也是件不错的事。”Craftsmanship磨练技艺Digital cameras provide unprecedented efficiency. People set them to auto mode and click the shutter before, all of a sudden, hundreds of ideal photos appear on the screen. Additionally, by utilizing imaging software, photos can be easily manipulated as well as displayed online.数码相机带来了前所未有的拍摄效率。只要调整到自动模式,按下快门,分分钟就有成百上千张完美之作出现在相机屏幕中。再加上图片软件,处理和上传图片更是轻而易举之事。As a result, people see thousands of photos on social media, like they walk by all kinds of restaurants on the street, but only a few can truly impress them.于是乎,人们看见网上数以万计的照片,就像路过街上各式各样的餐馆,但真正让人印象深刻的作品少之又少。Student photographer Zhou Yuting, 25, thinks shooting on film helps him slow down.在今年25岁的学生摄影师周宇庭眼中,胶片摄影让他的生活慢下来。“This digital age makes photography relatively cheap, which deprives people of the enjoyment of the process of photography,” said the graduate business administration student at Zhejiang University of Technology. “Shooting in film allows me to put in all my thoughts and life experience before clicking the button, which gives me the feeling of being a craftsman.”作为浙江工业大学企业管理专业的一名毕业生,周宇庭说:“在这个数码摄影的时代,摄影相对不再费力,而人们却再也享受不到摄影过程所带来的乐趣。胶片摄影让我在按下快门之前,倾注思考与人生的体验,而这个过程让我觉得自己更像是一个工匠。” /201501/355244去济南无痛人流手术多少钱

济南仁济妇科医院济南历城区上环多少钱It is said that there is a correlation between the number of storks’ nests found on Danish houses and the number of children born in those houses. Could the old story about babies being delivered by storks really be true? No. Correlation is not causation. Storks do not deliver children but larger houses have more room both for children and for storks.丹麦流传着一种说法,一户人家屋檐上的鹳巢数量与这家人所生孩子的数量存在着相关性。婴儿是鹳鸟送来的古老传说是真的吗?当然不是。相关性跟因果关系不是一回事。鹳不会送来孩子,但大房子有更大的空间为孩子和鹳所用。This much-loved statistical anecdote seems less amusing when you consider how it was used in a US Senate committee hearing in 1965. The expert witness giving testimony was arguing that while smoking may be correlated with lung cancer, a causal relationship was unproven and implausible. Pressed on the statistical parallels between storks and cigarettes, he replied that they “seem to me the same”.这是一则人们喜闻乐见的统计趣闻,但如果你知道1965年在美国参议院一场听会上它是如何被用到的,你就不会觉得那么有趣了。那位做听发言的专家人辩称,尽管吸烟或许跟肺癌相关,但两者之间不存在已明的、令人信的因果关系。当被问及为何把鹳和孩子的关系与香烟和肺癌的关系进行类比,他回答说,两者“在我看来是一样的”。The witness’s name was Darrell Huff, a freelance journalist beloved by generations of geeks for his wonderful and hugely successful 1954 book How to Lie with Statistics. His reputation today might be rather different had the proposed sequel made it to print. How to Lie with Smoking Statistics used a variety of stork-style arguments to throw doubt on the connection between smoking and cancer, and it was supported by a grant from the Tobacco Institute. It was never published, for reasons that remain unclear. (The story of Huff’s career as a tobacco consultant was brought to the attention of statisticians in articles by Andrew Gelman in Chance in 2012 and by Alex Reinhart in Significance in 2014.)这位人的名字叫达莱尔#8226;哈夫(Darrell Huff),是一名自由记者,因其1954年出版的那本精、大为畅销的《统计数字会撒谎》(How to Lie with Statistics)而深受数代极客的爱戴。如果该书续集付印的话,他今天的名声或许会完全不同。《吸烟统计数字会撒谎》(How to Lie with Smoking Statistics)使用了各种鹳式论点来对吸烟与癌症的相关性提出质疑。该书得到了美国的烟草研究所(Tobacco Institute)资助,但不知出于什么原因一直没有出版。(2012年安德鲁#8226;格尔曼(Andrew Gelman)在《Chance》杂志上发表的文章,以及2014年亚历克斯#8226;莱因哈特(Alex Reinhart)在《Significance》杂志上发表的文章,使哈夫担任烟草业顾问的经历引起统计学家们的注意。)Indisputably, smoking causes lung cancer and various other deadly conditions. But the problematic relationship between correlation and causation in general remains an active area of debate and confusion. The “spurious correlations” compiled by Harvard law student Tyler Vigen and displayed on his website (tylervigen.com) should be a warning. Did you realise that consumption of margarine is strongly correlated with the divorce rate in Maine?毋庸置疑,吸烟会导致肺癌和其他多种致命疾病。但广泛意义上的相关性与因果之间的尚存疑问的关系,仍是当前一个极易引起争议和混淆的领域。哈佛大学(Harvard)法学院学生泰勒#8226;维根(Tyler Vige)编撰并发布在其网站(tylervigen.com)上的“伪相关”应算是一种警告。你知道缅因州人造奶油的消费量与离婚率之间存在很强的相关性吗?We cannot rely on correlation alone, then. But insisting on absolute proof of causation is too exacting a standard (arguably, an impossible one). Between those two extremes, where does the right balance lie between trusting correlations and looking for evidence of causation?所以,我们不能仅仅依赖相关性。但是,坚持为因果关系提供绝对据就过于苛刻了(甚至是一种不可能达到的标准)。在这两个极端之间,如何在相信相关性与寻找因果据之间达到合理的平衡呢?Scientists, economists and statisticians have tended to demand causal explanations for the patterns they see. It’s not enough to know that college graduates earn more money — we want to know whether the college education boosted their earnings, or if they were smart people who would have done well anyway. Merely looking for correlations was not the stuff of rigorous science.科学家、经济学家和统计学家倾向于要求为他们看到的现象提出因果解释。知道大学毕业生能赚更多钱还不够,我们想知道,大学教育是否提高了他们的收入,或者他们本来就是聪明人、不管接受大学教育与否都能赚更多钱。仅仅寻找相关性并非严格科学的做法。But with the advent of “big data” this argument has started to shift. Large data sets can throw up intriguing correlations that may be good enough for some purposes. (Who cares why price cuts are most effective on a Tuesday? If it’s Tuesday, cut the price.) Andy Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, recently argued that economists might want to take mere correlations more seriously. He is not the first big-data enthusiast to say so.但随着“大数据”的到来,这场争论开始发生变化。海量数据集可以产生一些有趣的相关性,在某些用途上它们就足够好用了(谁关心为何周二降价效果最好呢?如果确是这样,那就选这一天降价。)英国央行(BoE)首席经济学家安德鲁#8226;霍尔丹(Andy Haldane)不久前表示,经济学家们或许想更认真地看待纯粹相关性(mere correlation)。他不是第一个这么说的大数据热衷者。This brings us back to smoking and cancer. When the British epidemiologist Richard Doll first began to suspect the link in the late 1940s, his analysis was based on a mere correlation. The causal mechanism was unclear, as most of the carcinogens in tobacco had not been identified; Doll himself suspected that lung cancer was caused by fumes from tarmac roads, or possibly cars themselves.我们回头来讲抽烟与癌症之间的关系。20世纪40年代末,英国流行病学家理查德#8226;多尔(Richard Doll)最早开始怀疑二者之间的联系。当时他的分析基于纯粹相关性,他不清楚因果机制,因为当时还没确定烟草中的大多数致癌物。多尔本人怀疑肺癌的致病原因是柏油公路的烟气,或者可能就是汽车本身。Doll’s early work on smoking and cancer with Austin Bradford Hill, published in 1950, was duly criticised in its day as nothing more than a correlation. The great statistician Ronald Fisher repeatedly weighed into the argument in the 1950s, pointing out that it was quite possible that cancer caused smoking — after all, precancerous growths irritated the lung. People might smoke to soothe that irritation. Fisher also observed that some genetic predisposition might cause both lung cancer and a tendency to smoke. (Another statistician, Joseph Berkson, observed that people who were tough enough to resist adverts and peer pressure were also tough enough to resist lung cancer.)多尔与奥斯汀#8226;布拉德福德#8226;希尔(Austin Bradford Hill)在1950年发表了他们关于吸烟与癌症关系的早期研究结果,由于俩人的研究基于纯粹相关性,在当时果不其然遭到了批评。伟大的统计学家罗纳德#8226;费雪(Ronald Fisher)在20世纪50年代多次加入论战,指出很可能是癌症引起吸烟,毕竟癌前期病变会对肺部造成刺激,人们可能会通过吸烟来缓解这一刺激。费雪还认为有些遗传特征可能既会引发肺癌,还会引起吸烟倾向。(另一位统计学家约瑟夫#8226;伯克森(Joseph Berkson)提出,假如一个人强悍到足以抵制广告的诱惑和同龄人的压力,那么他也强悍到足以抵抗肺癌。)Hill and Doll showed us that correlation should not be dismissed too easily. But they also showed that we shouldn’t give up on the search for causal explanations. The pair painstakingly continued their research, and evidence of a causal association soon mounted.希尔和多尔的例子告诉我们,不要轻易否定相关性,但他们也以行动明,不应放弃寻找因果解释。俩人继续勤恳研究,很快就发现了更多表明因果关系的据。Hill and Doll took a pragmatic approach in the search for causation. For example, is there a dose-response relationship? Yes: heavy smokers are more likely to suffer from lung cancer. Does the timing make sense? Again, yes: smokers develop cancer long after they begin to smoke. This contradicts Fisher’s alternative hypothesis that people self-medicate with cigarettes in the early stages of lung cancer. Do multiple sources of evidence add up to a coherent picture? Yes: when doctors heard about what Hill and Doll were finding, many of them quit smoking, and it became possible to see that the quitters were at lower risk of lung cancer. We should respect correlation but it is a clue to a deeper truth, not the end of our investigations.希尔和多尔在寻找因果关系时采取了一种务实的方法。比如,是否存在一种剂量效应?是的,烟瘾大的人更可能患肺癌。烟龄长短有关系吗?有关系,吸烟者开始吸烟很久后,癌细胞开始形成。这与费舍尔设想的人们在肺癌早期阶段用烟草进行自我医疗的假设相矛盾。多个据来源凑到一起能否得到一个逻辑连贯的描述?是:能够得到。当医生们听闻希尔和多尔的发现时,许多医生开始戒烟,现实情况也表明戒烟者患肺癌的风险要更低。我们应该尊重相关性,但相关性只是通向更深层真理的一个线索,而不是研究的终点。It’s not clear why Huff and Fisher were so fixated on the idea that the growing evidence on smoking was a mere correlation. Both of them were paid as consultants by the tobacco industry and some will believe that the consulting fees caused their scepticism. It seems just as likely that their scepticism caused the consulting fees. We may never know.目前尚不清楚为什么面对越来越多的吸烟致癌的据,赫夫和费雪却执着地认为这仅是相关性。他们二人都是烟草行业的顾问,因而有些人会认为他们的怀疑动机来源于顾问费。但也很可能正是他们的怀疑带来了顾问费。到底哪个为因,哪个为果,后人可能永远不得而知。 /201504/372173莱芜无痛人流手术哪家医院最好的济南打胎多少价格

分页 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29