Pulse-coupled networks or pulse-coupled neural networks (PCNNs) are neural models proposed by modeling a cat's visual cortex, and developed for high-performance biomimetic image processing. In 1989, Eckhorn introduced a neural model to emulate the mechanism of cat's visual cortex. The Eckhorn model provided a simple and effective tool for studying small mammal’s visual cortex, and was soon recognized as having significant application potential in image processing. In 1994, Johnson adapted the Eckhorn model to an image processing algorithm, calling this algorithm a pulse-coupled neural network. The basic property of the Eckhorn's linking-field model (LFM) is the coupling term. LFM is a modulation of the primary input by a biased offset factor driven by the linking input. These drive a threshold variable that decays from an initial high value. When the threshold drops below zero it is reset to a high value and the process starts over. This is different than the standard integrate-and-fire neural model, which accumulates the input until it passes an upper limit and effectively "shorts out" to cause the pulse. LFM uses this difference to sustain pulse bursts, something the standard model does not do on a single neuron level. It is valuable to understand, however, that a detailed analysis of the standard model must include a shunting term, due to the floating voltages level in the dendritic compartment(s), and in turn this causes an elegant multiple modulation effect that enables a true higher-order network (HON). A PCNN is a two-dimensional neural network. Each neuron in the network corresponds to one pixel in an input image, receiving its corresponding pixel's color information (e.g. intensity) as an external stimulus. Each neuron also connects with its neighboring neurons, receiving local stimuli from them. The external and local stimuli are combined in an internal activation system, which accumulates the stimuli until it exceeds a dynamic threshold, resulting in a pulse output. Through iterative computation, PCNN neurons produce temporal series of pulse outputs. The temporal series of pulse outputs contain information of input images and can be used for various image processing applications, such as image segmentation and feature generation. Compared with conventional image processing means, PCNNs have several significant merits, including robustness against noise, independence of geometric variations in input patterns, capability of bridging minor intensity variations in input patterns, etc. A simplified PCNN called a spiking cortical model was developed in 2009. == Applications == PCNNs are useful for image processing, as discussed in a book by Thomas Lindblad and Jason M. Kinser. PCNNs have been used in a variety of image processing applications, including: image segmentation, pattern recognition, feature generation, face extraction, motion detection, region growing, image denoising and image enhancement Multidimensional pulse image processing of chemical structure data using PCNN has been discussed by Kinser, et al. They have also been applied to an all pairs shortest path problem.
BeReal
BeReal (stylized on the app logo as BeReal.) is a French social-networking app released in 2020, developed by Alexis Barreyat and Kévin Perreau. Currently, it is owned by Voodoo. Its main feature is a daily notification that encourages users to share photos of themselves in their day-to-day life, on any randomly selected two-minute window every day. Critics noted its emphasis on authenticity, which some felt crossed the line into the mundane. The primary reference of its name relates to its focus on users uploading unpolished photos, with it being a pun of the term B-reel. According to the app's description on Apple's App Store, BeReal encourages its users to "show their friends who they really are, for once," by removing filters and opportunities to stage or edit photos. After a couple of years of relative obscurity, it rapidly gained popularity in early and mid-2022 growing from 21.6 million to 73.5 million users between July and August, before experiencing a decrease in use in 2023 and continuing to decline to 23 million users at the beginning of 2024. == History == The app was developed by Alexis Barreyat, a former employee at GoPro, and Kévin Perreau, a graduate from 42 in Paris. Initially released in 2020, it first gained widespread popularity in early 2022. It first spread widely on college campuses, partially due to a paid ambassador program. In late August 2022, the application had over 10 million active daily users and 21.6 million active monthly users. As of February 2023, the app has grown to 13 million active daily users and 47.8 million active monthly users. In June 2021, BeReal received a $30 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz and Accel. In May 2022, BeReal secured $85 million in a funding round led by Yuri Milner's DST Global, increasing its valuation to about $600 million. On July 25, 2022, BeReal topped Apple's free app list in the iOS App Store, and remained until September 2022. BeReal also received Apple's iPhone App of the Year in 2022. By late spring 2023, the app's momentum was waning, as daily users dropped to about 6 million, from 15 million in October 2022. In August 2024, there was a resurgence after a campaign at the Paris Olympics 2024, with the app reportedly gaining 1000 users. In June 2024, BeReal was acquired by the French company Voodoo for a reported €500 million. Alexis Barreyat is set to step down after a transition period. == Features == Once per day, BeReal notifies all users that a two-minute window to post is open. It asks users to create a post (known eponymously as a "BeReal") which, using mandatory simultaneous photos and now short videos from both the front and back cameras, provides a visual depiction of what they are doing at that moment, with an option to caption their post. The given window varies from day to day, and is not known to users before the notification is received. Once the daily notification is sent, users lose the ability to see others' BeReals from the previous day. Furthermore, users cannot see any of the current day's BeReals until they upload their own. On-time BeReals show the time it was uploaded, meanwhile, late BeReals uploaded after the two-minute window shows how late the BeReal was taken, but the user has to long-press the BeReal to reveal the time it was uploaded. Other users can also see how many attempts the poster took to take the BeReal, as well as their location when the BeReal was taken. Users only get one chance to delete their BeReal and post another one, and they used to not be able to post more than one at any time. However, in 2023, a feature was added that allowed users to post up to two extra BeReals on days when they posted their first BeReal within the 2-minute window. In July 2024, the number of bonus BeReals was increased to 5. [1] BeReal also features a "Discovery" section, wherein users are given the option to share to a much wider, public audience. This feature, however, is limited, as users are not able to interact with the posts through commenting—unlike the "My Friends" feature. In August 2023, in an attempt to make BeReal more social, another feature was added so that users are now able to see their friends of friends' BeReal. The app reportedly uses HiveAI to automate its image moderation process. However, there is also a report function that allows users to report a photo or another user if they are posting inappropriate content. === Comparison to other platforms === Because of its daily cycle of engagement, it has been compared to Wordle, which gained popularity earlier in 2022. It also supports a platform similar to Snapchat with a theme of impermanence and brevity. BeReal has been described as designed to compete with Instagram while simultaneously de-emphasising social media addiction and overuse. The app does not allow any photo filters or other editing, and has no follower counts. Marketing material from the company said that the app "can be addictive" and that "BeReal won't make you famous." Jacob Arnott, managing director of social agency We the People, describes BeReal as "an anti-Instagram" due to its raw and unedited nature. The app's foundation on friends rather than followers resembles Facebook's platform of adding friends, which comprise the content of a user's feed. This also resembles Instagram's "close friends" story feature. Further, rather than "liking" posts, BeReal uses "RealMojis" which involves taking a photo to interact with other posts. With the popularity of BeReal, other providers have launched similar features. In July 2022, Instagram launched a "Dual Camera" feature similar to BeReal, and in August 2022 it began testing a feature called "IG Candid Challenges", where users are prompted to post once a day within two minutes. As of September 2022, TikTok has also launched a feature called TikTok Now, following the same concept. In December 2022, similar to Spotify's "Wrapped," BeReal launched a feature involving a video of a compilation of users' BeReal posts of 2022. == User characteristics == BeReal is considered to be targeted towards Generation Z users, and attempts to minimise "social media fatigue", a feeling of numbness and disconnection from reality caused by constant interaction with an idealised version of others. This is a "core generational value" that this demographic holds compared to Millennials. Further, BeReal's users have been particularly strong across universities and university-aged students, and the majority of users are in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. In 2022, the majority of users were female, with 43.2% of users falling within the age range of 16 to 25 and 55.1% of users being 26 to 44 years old. BeReal, the platform encourages users to share their real time moments by sending a daily notification that gives a least two minutes to post a unedited photo using bot the front and back camera, although users can post later and retake photos from when the notification happens, this action are still visible to friends, reinforcing transparency and genuine in the moment sharing. == Reception == Jason Koebler, a writer for Vice, wrote that in contrast to Instagram, which presents an unattainable view of people's lives, BeReal instead "makes everyone look extremely boring". Niklas Myhr, a professor of social media at Chapman University, argued that depth of engagement may determine whether the app is a passing trend or has "staying power". Kelsey Weekman, a reporter for BuzzFeed News, noted that the app's unwillingness to "glamorise the banality of life" made it feel "humbling" in its emphasis on authenticity. Niloufar Haidari for The Guardian comments similarly that where the app succeeds in being "drab" in perhaps a positive way, it fails in potentially "un-inspiring" users. Likewise, Dr. Brad Ridout, a behavioral psychologist at the University of Sydney, emphasizes that the "boring" experience is what the creators are targeting for the app and, in response to Instagram's platform of flawlessness, that "perfection is the enemy of happiness". === Criticisms === Some people regularly post after the two-minute notification expires, leading to some criticism of the app, as the ability to post late undermines its aims of authenticity. In addition, BeReal's daily two-minute window has been argued to contribute to social media fatigue and a need for self-exposure, as well as constant access to phones.
Glottochronology
Glottochronology (from Attic Greek γλῶττα 'tongue, language' and χρόνος 'time') is the part of lexicostatistics which involves comparative linguistics and deals with the chronological relationship between languages. The idea was developed by Morris Swadesh in the 1950s in his article on Salish internal relationships. He developed the idea under two assumptions: there indeed exists a relatively stable basic vocabulary (referred to as Swadesh lists) in all languages of the world; and, any replacements happen in a way analogous to radioactive decay in a constant percentage per time elapsed. Using mathematics and statistics, Swadesh developed an equation to determine when languages separated and give an approximate time of when the separation occurred. His methods aimed to aid linguistic anthropologists by giving them a definitive way to determine a separation date between two languages. The formula provides an approximate number of centuries since two languages were supposed to have separated from a singular common ancestor. His methods also purported to provide information on when ancient languages may have existed. Despite multiple studies and literature containing the information of glottochronology, it is not widely used today and is surrounded with controversy. Glottochronology tracks language separation from thousands of years ago but many linguists are skeptical of the concept because it is more of a 'probability' rather than a 'certainty.' On the other hand, some linguists may say that glottochronology is gaining traction because of its relatedness to archaeological dates. Glottochronology is not as accurate as archaeological data, but some linguists still believe that it can provide a solid estimate. Over time many different extensions of the Swadesh method evolved; however, Swadesh's original method is so well known that 'glottochronology' is usually associated with him. == Methodology == The original method of glottochronology presumed that the core vocabulary of a language is replaced at a constant (or constant average) rate across all languages and cultures and so can be used to measure the passage of time. The process makes use of a list of lexical terms and morphemes which are similar to multiple languages. Lists were compiled by Morris Swadesh and assumed to be resistant against borrowing (originally designed in 1952 as a list of 200 items, but the refined 100-word list in Swadesh (1955) is much more common among modern day linguists). The core vocabulary was designed to encompass concepts common to every human language such as personal pronouns, body parts, heavenly bodies and living beings, verbs of basic actions, numerals, basic adjectives, kin terms, and natural occurrences and events. Through a basic word list, one eliminates concepts that are specific to a particular culture or time period. It has been found through differentiating word lists that the ideal is really impossible and that the meaning set may need to be tailored to the languages being compared. Word lists are not homogenous throughout studies and they are often changed and designed to suit both languages being studied. Linguists find that it is difficult to find a word list where all words used are culturally unbiased. Many alternative word lists have been compiled by other linguists and often use fewer meaning slots. The percentage of cognates (words with a common origin) in the word lists is then measured. The larger the percentage of cognates, the more recently the two languages being compared are presumed to have separated. === Glottochronologic constant === Determining word lists rely on morpheme decay or change in vocabulary. Morpheme decay must stay at a constant rate for glottochronology to be applied to a language. This leads to a critique of the glottochronologic formula because some linguists argue that the morpheme decay rate is not guaranteed to stay the same throughout history. American Linguist Robert Lees obtained a value for the "glottochronological constant" (r) of words by considering the known changes in 13 pairs of languages using the 200 word list. He obtained a value of 0.8048 ± 0.0176 with 90% confidence. For his 100-word list Swadesh obtained a value of 0.86, the higher value reflecting the elimination of semantically unstable words. === Divergence time === The basic formula of glottochronology proposed by Morris Swadesh is: t = − ln ( c ) 2 ln ( r ) {\displaystyle t=-{\frac {\ln(c)}{2\ln(r)}}} t = a given period of time from one stage of the language to another (measured in millennia), c = proportion of wordlist items retained at the end of that period and r = rate of replacement for that word list. By testing historically verifiable cases in which t is known by nonlinguistic data (such as the approximate distance from Classical Latin to modern Romance languages), Swadesh arrived at the empirical value of approximately 0.14 for L, (c?) which means that the rate of replacement constitutes around 14 words from the 100-wordlist per millennium. This is represented in the table below. === Results === Glottochronology was applied to a range of language families, including Salishan, Indo-European, Japonic, Afro-Asiatic, Chinese and Mayan and other American languages. For Amerind, correlations have been obtained with radiocarbon dating and blood groups as well as archaeology. === Example Wordlist === Below is an example of a basic word list composed of basic Turkish words and their English translations. == Discussion == The concept of language change is old, and its history is reviewed in Hymes (1973) and Wells (1973). In some sense, glottochronology is a reconstruction of history and can often be closely related to archaeology. Many linguistic studies find the success of glottochronology to be found alongside archaeological data. Glottochronology itself dates back to the mid-20th century. An introduction to the subject is given in Embleton (1986) and in McMahon and McMahon (2005). Glottochronology has been controversial ever since, partly because of issues of accuracy but also because of the question of whether its basis is sound (for example, Bergsland 1958; Bergsland and Vogt 1962; Fodor 1961; Chrétien 1962; Guy 1980). The concerns have been addressed by Dobson et al. (1972), Dyen (1973) and Kruskal, Dyen and Black (1973). The assumption of a single-word replacement rate can distort the divergence-time estimate when borrowed words are included (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). The presentations vary from "Why linguists don't do dates" to the one by Starostin discussed below. Since its original inception, glottochronology has been rejected by many linguists, mostly Indo-Europeanists of the school of the traditional comparative method. Criticisms have been answered in particular around three points of discussion: Criticism levelled against the higher stability of lexemes in Swadesh lists alone (Haarmann 1990) misses the point because a certain amount of losses only enables the computations (Sankoff 1970). The non-homogeneity of word lists often leads to lack of understanding between linguists. Linguists also have difficulties finding a completely unbiased list of basic cultural words. it can take a long time for linguists to find a viable word list which can take several test lists to find a usable list. Traditional glottochronology presumes that language changes at a stable rate. Thus, in Bergsland & Vogt (1962), the authors make an impressive demonstration, on the basis of actual language data verifiable by extralinguistic sources, that the "rate of change" for Icelandic constituted around 4% per millennium, but for closely connected Riksmal (Literary Norwegian), it would amount to as much as 20% (Swadesh's proposed "constant rate" was supposed to be around 14% per millennium). That and several other similar examples effectively proved that Swadesh's formula would not work on all available material, which is a serious accusation since evidence that can be used to "calibrate" the meaning of L (language history recorded during prolonged periods of time) is not overwhelmingly large in the first place. It is highly likely that the chance of replacement is different for every word or feature ("each word has its own history", among hundreds of other sources:). That global assumption has been modified and downgraded to single words, even in single languages, in many newer attempts (see below). There is a lack of understanding of Swadesh's mathematical/statistical methods. Some linguists reject the methods in full because the statistics lead to 'probabilities' when linguists trust 'certainties' more. A serious argument is that language change arises from socio-historical events that are, of course, unforeseeable and, therefore, uncomputable. == Modifications == Somewhere in between the original concept of Swadesh and the rejection of glottochronology in its entirety lies the idea that glottochronology as a formal method of linguistic
The Best Free AI Customer-support Bot for Beginners
Shopping for the best AI customer-support bot? An AI customer-support bot is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI customer-support bot slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
The Best Free AI Analytics Tool for Beginners
Trying to pick the best AI analytics tool? An AI analytics tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI analytics tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Imaging phantom
An imaging phantom, or simply phantom (less commonly spelled fantom), is a specially designed object that is scanned or imaged in the field of medical imaging to evaluate, analyze, and tune the performance of various imaging devices. A phantom is more readily available and provides more consistent results than the use of a living subject or cadaver, while also avoiding direct risks to living subjects. Phantoms were originally employed in 2D x-ray–based imaging techniques such as radiography or fluoroscopy, but more recently phantoms with desired imaging characteristics have been developed for 3D techniques such as SPECT, MRI, CT, ultrasound, PET, and other imaging modalities. == Design == A phantom used to evaluate an imaging device should respond in a similar manner to how human tissues and organs would act in that specific imaging modality. For instance, phantoms made for 2D radiography may hold various quantities of x-ray contrast agents with similar x-ray absorbing properties (such as the attenuation coefficient) to normal tissue to tune the contrast of the imaging device or modulate the patient's exposure to radiation. In such a case, the radiography phantom would not necessarily need to have similar textures and mechanical properties since these are not relevant in x-ray imaging modalities. However, in the case of ultrasonography, a phantom with similar rheological and ultrasound scattering properties to real tissue would be essential, but x-ray absorbing properties would not be relevant. The term "phantom" describes an object that is designed to resemble human tissue and can be evaluated, analyzed or manipulated to study the performance of a medical device. Phantoms are created using a digital file that is rendered through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computer-aided design (CAD). The digital files allow for quick modifications that are read by the 3D printer. The 3D printer will create the product in successive layers using polymeric materials. There are several types of phantoms including tissue-mimicking, radiological phantoms, dental phantoms, BOMABs (used to calibrate whole-body counters), and more.
Emergent (software)
Emergent (formerly PDP++) is a biologically-based neural simulation software that is primarily intended for creating models of the brain and cognitive processes. Development initially began in 1995 at Carnegie Mellon University, and as of 2014, continues at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The 3.x release of the software, which was known as PDP++, is featured in the textbook Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience. == Features == Emergent features a modular design, based on the principles of object-oriented programming. It runs on Microsoft Windows, Darwin / macOS and Linux. C-Super-Script (variously, CSS and C^C), a built-in C++-like interpreted scripting language, allows access to virtually all simulator objects and can initiate all the same actions as the GUI, and more. Version 4 and upward features a full 3D environment for visualizations, based on Qt and Open Inventor. Robotics simulations are made possible by integration with the Open Dynamics Engine. A plugin system allows for expanding the software in many ways. Version 5 introduced parallel threading support, numerous speed improvements, a help browser featuring an interface to the project's Wiki and auto-generated documentation, undo and redo using diffs and a definable undo depth. In addition, 5.0.2 introduced a built-in plugin source code editor, and plugins can now be compiled from the main interface, enabling full development of plugins within Emergent. Emergent also provides an implementation of Leabra which was developed by Randall C. O'Reilly in his PhD thesis.