Bücheler, T., & Sieg, J. H. (2011). Understanding Science 2.0: Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation in the Scientific Method. Proceedings of the 2nd European Future Technologies Conference and Exhibition 2011 (FET 11), 7, 327–329.
Abstract: The innovation process is currently undergoing significant change in many industries. The World Wide Web has created a virtual world of collective intelligence and helped large groups of people connect and collaborate in the innovation process [1]. Von Hippel [2], for instance, states that a large number of users of a given technology will come up with innovative ideas. This process, originating in business, is now also being observed in science. Discussions around “Citizen Science” [3] and “Science 2.0” [4] suggest the same effects are relevant for fundamental research practices. “Crowdsourcing” [5] and “Open Innovation” [6] as well as other names for those paradigms, like Peer Production, Wikinomics, Swarm Intelligence etc., have become buzzwords in recent years. However, serious academic research efforts have also been started in many disciplines. In essence, these buzzwords all describe a form of collective intelligence that is enabled by new technologies, particularly internet connectivity. The focus of most current research on this topic is in the for-profit domain, i.e. organizations willing (and able) to pay large sums to source innovation externally, for instance through innovation contests. Our research is testing the applicability of Crowdsourcing and some techniques from Open Innovation to the scientific method and basic science in a non-profit environment (e.g., a traditional research university). If the tools are found to be useful, this may significantly change how some research tasks are conducted: While large, apriori unknown crowds of “irrational agents” (i.e. humans) are used to support scientists (and teams thereof) in several research tasks through the internet, the usefulness and robustness of these interactions as well as scientifically important factors like quality and validity of research results are tested in a systematic manner. The research is highly interdisciplinary and is done in collaboration with scientists from sociology, psychology, management science, economics, computer science, and artificial intelligence. After a pre-study, extensive data collection has been conducted and the data is currently being analyzed. The paper presents ideas and hypotheses and opens the discussion for further input.
|
Vallortigara, G., Chiandetti, C., & Sovrano, V. A. (2011). Brain asymmetry (animal). WIREs Cogn Sci, 2(2), 146–157.
Abstract: Once considered a uniquely human attribute, brain asymmetry has been proved to be ubiquitous among non-human animals. A synthetic review of evidence of animal lateralization in the motor, sensory, cognitive, and affective domains is provided, together with a discussion of its development and possible biological functions. It is argued that investigation of brain asymmetry in a comparative perspective may favor the link between classical neuropsychological studies and modern developmental and evolutionary biology approaches. WIREs Cogni Sci 2011 2 146–157 DOI: 10.1002/wcs.100 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website
|
Peeters, M., Sulon, J., Beckers, J. - F., Ledoux, D., & Vandenheede, M. (2011). Comparison between blood serum and salivary cortisol concentrations in horses using an adrenocorticotropic hormone challenge. Equine Veterinary Journal, 43(4), 487–493.
Abstract: Reasons for performing study: In horses, serum cortisol concentration is considered to provide an indirect measurement of stress. However, it includes both free and bound fractions. The sampling method is also invasive and often stressful. This is not the case for salivary cortisol, which is collected using a more welfare-friendly method and represents a part of the free cortisol fraction, which is the biologically active form. Objectives: To compare salivary and serum cortisol assays in horses, in a wide range of concentrations, using an adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test, in order to validate salivary cortisol for stress assessment in horse. Methods: In 5 horses, blood samples were drawn using an i.v. catheter. Saliva samples were taken using swabs. Cortisol was assayed by radioimmunoassay. All data were treated with a regression method, which pools and analyses data from multiple subjects for linear analysis. Results: Mean ± s.d. cortisol concentrations measured at rest were 188.81 ± 51.46 nmol/l in serum and 1.19 ± 0.54 nmol/l in saliva. They started increasing immediately after ACTH injection and peaks were reached after 96 ± 16.7 min in serum (356.98 ± 55.29 nmol/l) and after 124 ± 8.9 min in saliva (21.79 ± 7.74 nmol/l, P<0.05). Discharge percentages were also different (225% in serum and 2150% in saliva, P<0.05). Correlation between serum and salivary cortisol concentrations showed an adjusted r2= 0.80 (P<0.001). The strong link between serum and salivary cortisol concentrations was also estimated by a regression analysis. Conclusions: The reliability of both RIAs and regression found between serum and salivary cortisol concentrations permits the validation of saliva-sampling as a noninvasive technique for cortisol level assessment in horses.
|
Baragli, P., Vitale, V., Paoletti, E., Mengoli, M., & Sighieri, C. (2011). Encoding the Object Position for Assessment of Short Term Spatial Memory in Horses (Equus caballus). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 24(3).
Abstract: In this study, the detour problem was combined with the classic delayed-response task to investigate equine short-term spatial memory. Test subjects were eight female horses, divided into two groups (A and B) of four subjects each. The motivating object was made to move and disappear behind one oftwo identical obstacles in a two-point-choice apparatus. After a 10 s (Group A) or 30 s (Group B) delay the animal was released to seek the object. Both groups made more correct (14.8 ± 1.3 forGroup A and 13.5 ± 3.1 for Group B, mean ± SD) than incorrect choices (5.3 ± 1.3 for Group A and6.5 ± 3.1 for Group B, mean ± SD) and the performance of each group was significantly above chance level (z = 4.14, p = 0.000, for Group A and z = 3.02, p = 0.002, for Group B). Therefore, tested animals were able to recover the object by approaching the correct obstacle after 10 s or 30 s delays, showing that they had encoded and recovered from memory the existence of the target object and its location.
|
