Objective To use the neural signals preceding movement and motor imagery to predict which of four movements/motor imageries is about to occur, and to access this utility for brain-computer interface (BCI) applications. Methods Eight naive subjects performed or kinesthetically imagined four movements while electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded from 29 channels over sensorimotor areas. The task was instructed with a specific stimulus (S1) and performed at a second stimulus (S2). A classifier was trained and tested offline at differentiating the EEG signals from movement/imagery preparation (the 1.5 seconds preceding movement/imagery execution). Results Accuracy of movement/imagery preparation classification varied between subjects. The system preferentially selected event related (de)synchronization (ERD/ERS) signals for classification, and high accuracies were associated with classifications that relied heavily on the ERD/ERS to discriminate movement/imagery planning. Conclusions The ERD/ERS preceding movement and motor imagery can be used to predict which of four movements/imageries is about to occur. Prediction accuracy depends on this signal’s accessibility. Significance The ERD/ERS is the most specific pre-movement/imagery signal to the movement/imagery about to be performed.

It remains controversial whether using two hands and multiple fingers provides any perceptual advantage over a single index finger. The present study examines this long-running question in the haptic-exploration literature by applying rigorous, psychophysical, and mathematical modeling techniques. We compared the performance of fourteen blindfolded sighted participants on seven tactile-map tasks using seven finger conditions. All tasks were benefited by multiple fingers, but it varied whether multiple fingers were beneficial on one hand, two hands, or both. Line-tracing tasks were performed faster when two hands were used, but not more than one finger per hand. Local and global search tasks were faster with multiple fingers, but not two hands. Distance comparison tasks were also performed faster with multiple fingers, and sometimes with two hands. Lastly, moving in a straight line was faster with multiple fingers, but was especially difficult with just two index fingers. These results provide empirical evidence that multiple hands and fingers benefit haptic perception, but the benefits are more complex than simply extending the tactile field of 'view'. This analogy between touch and vision fails to account for the autonomous movements and sensations of the fingers, which we show benefit the haptic perceptual system.

This article compares two methods of employing novice Web workers to author descriptions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics images to make them accessible to individuals with visual and print-reading disabilities. The goal is to identify methods of creating image descriptions that are inexpensive, effective, and follow established accessibility guidelines. The first method explicitly presented the guidelines to the worker, then the worker constructed the image description in an empty text box and table. The second method queried the worker for image information and then used responses to construct a templatebased description according to established guidelines. The descriptions generated through queried image description (QID) were more likely to include information on the image category, title, caption, and units. They were also more similar to one another, based on Jaccard distances of q-grams, indicating that their word usage and structure were more standardized. Last, the workers preferred describing images using QID and found the task easier. Therefore, explicit instruction on image-description guidelines is not sufficient to produce quality image descriptions when using novice Web workers. Instead, it is better to provide information about images, then generate descriptions from responses using templates.

The most common and advocated assessment approach when a child cannot access visual materials is to use the verbal subscales of a test the psychologist already has and is familiar with. However, previous research indicates that children with visual impairments experience atypical verbal development. This raises the question of whether verbal subscale scores retain their reliability and interpretation validity when given to children with visual impairments. To answer this question, we administered a vocabulary subscale from a common intelligence test along with several nonverbal subscales to 15 early-blind adolescents (onset of ≤2 years). Reliability of only the vocabulary test scores was insufficient for high-stakes testing. This finding points to the broader issue of difficulties in assessing populations of exceptional children who experience atypical development trajectories, possibly making their assessment with common tests inappropriate. (PsycINFO Database Record