title: Myths and Methodologies: Reducing scientific design ambiguity in studies comparing sexes and/or menstrual cycle phases

authors: Sims, Stacy

subjects: Science & Technology

abstract: In recent years, the increase in scientific literature exploring sex differences has been beneficial to both clinicians and allied health science professionals, although female athletes are still significantly under‐represented in sport and exercise science research. Women have faced exclusion throughout history though the complexities of sociocultural marginalization and biomedical disinterest in women's health. These complexities have contributed to challenges of studying women and examining sex differences. One underlying complexity to methodological design may be hormonal perturbations of the menstrual cycle. The biphasic responses of oestrogen and progesterone across the menstrual cycle significantly influence physiological responses, which contribute to exercise capacity and adaptation in women. Moreover, oral contraceptives add complexity through the introduction of varying concentrations of circulating exogenous oestrogen and progesterone, which may moderate physiological adaptations to exercise in a different manner to endogenous ovarian hormones. Thus, applied sport and exercise science research focusing on women remains limited, in part, by poor methodological design that does not define reproductive status. By highlighting specific differences between phases with regard to hormone perturbations and the systems that are affected, methodological inconsistencies can be reduced, thereby improving scientific design that will enable focused research on female athletes in sports science and evaluation of sex differences in responses to exercise. The aims of this review are to highlight the differences between endogenous and exogenous hormone profiles across a standard 28–32 day menstrual cycle, with the goal to improve methodological design for studies exploring sex differences, menstrual cycle phase differences and/or endogenous versus exogenous female sex hormones.

text: Myths and Methodologies: Reducing scientific design ambiguity in studies comparing sexes and/or menstrual cycle phases In recent years, the increase in scientific literature exploring sex differences has been beneficial to both clinicians and allied health science professionals, although female athletes are still significantly under‐represented in sport and exercise science research. Women have faced exclusion throughout history though the complexities of sociocultural marginalization and biomedical disinterest in women's health. These complexities have contributed to challenges of studying women and examining sex differences. One underlying complexity to methodological design may be hormonal perturbations of the menstrual cycle. The biphasic responses of oestrogen and progesterone across the menstrual cycle significantly influence physiological responses, which contribute to exercise capacity and adaptation in women. Moreover, oral contraceptives add complexity through the introduction of varying concentrations of circulating exogenous oestrogen and progesterone, which may moderate physiological adaptations to exercise in a different manner to endogenous ovarian hormones. Thus, applied sport and exercise science research focusing on women remains limited, in part, by poor methodological design that does not define reproductive status. By highlighting specific differences between phases with regard to hormone perturbations and the systems that are affected, methodological inconsistencies can be reduced, thereby improving scientific design that will enable focused research on female athletes in sports science and evaluation of sex differences in responses to exercise. The aims of this review are to highlight the differences between endogenous and exogenous hormone profiles across a standard 28–32 day menstrual cycle, with the goal to improve methodological design for studies exploring sex differences, menstrual cycle phase differences and/or endogenous versus exogenous female sex hormones.

year: 2018

title: A contrast-sensitive, redundancy reduction mechanism acting on MT neurons can explain global motion direction biases without the need for Bayesian priors

authors: Perrone, John A.

subjects: Bayesian observer model

abstract: Introduction: The perceived global direction of moving objects can be influenced by the contrast of the object (Weiss, Simoncelli & Adelson, Nature Neuroscience, 2002). There is currently no detailed, neural-based explanation for how this could occur. Weiss et al., proposed an ideal Bayesian observer model that included a physiologically unspecified ‘low speed’ prior. We have recently developed a new velocity code for extracting image velocity from small groups of MT neurons (Perrone & Krauzlis, VSS 2011). The code includes a stage of local spatial inhibition between MT neurons designed to reduce the amount of redundant signals passed onto the global motion integration stage (MST). The inhibition is made dependent upon the contrast of the stimulus by exploiting the fact that some MT neurons change their speed tuning (V shifts to ∼ .5V) at low contrast (Krekelberg et al., J. Neurosci., 2006). An inhibitory signal based on the difference in output from two such MT units tuned to V and 2V will be high at high contrast, but will switch off at low contrast when the input speed is V.
Methods: We tested our velocity code using high- and low-contrast rhombus stimuli that have been shown to produce contrast dependent biases in global motion estimates (Weiss, et al., 2002).
Results: The model produced contrast dependent estimates of global motion direction that match the perceptual results. Low contrast rhomboids tended to produce estimates orthogonal to the major axis of the rhombus whereas high contrast rhomboids produced estimates closer to the veridical direction. Our simulations indicate that at low contrast the spatial inhibitory mechanisms between MT neurons may be switching off causing an increase in the density of responses signalling motion orthogonal to the edges.
Conclusion: Our model provides a biologically plausible mechanism by which the Weiss et al., Bayesian prior could be implemented.

text: A contrast-sensitive, redundancy reduction mechanism acting on MT neurons can explain global motion direction biases without the need for Bayesian priors Introduction: The perceived global direction of moving objects can be influenced by the contrast of the object (Weiss, Simoncelli & Adelson, Nature Neuroscience, 2002). There is currently no detailed, neural-based explanation for how this could occur. Weiss et al., proposed an ideal Bayesian observer model that included a physiologically unspecified ‘low speed’ prior. We have recently developed a new velocity code for extracting image velocity from small groups of MT neurons (Perrone & Krauzlis, VSS 2011). The code includes a stage of local spatial inhibition between MT neurons designed to reduce the amount of redundant signals passed onto the global motion integration stage (MST). The inhibition is made dependent upon the contrast of the stimulus by exploiting the fact that some MT neurons change their speed tuning (V shifts to ∼ .5V) at low contrast (Krekelberg et al., J. Neurosci., 2006). An inhibitory signal based on the difference in output from two such MT units tuned to V and 2V will be high at high contrast, but will switch off at low contrast when the input speed is V.
Methods: We tested our velocity code using high- and low-contrast rhombus stimuli that have been shown to produce contrast dependent biases in global motion estimates (Weiss, et al., 2002).
Results: The model produced contrast dependent estimates of global motion direction that match the perceptual results. Low contrast rhomboids tended to produce estimates orthogonal to the major axis of the rhombus whereas high contrast rhomboids produced estimates closer to the veridical direction. Our simulations indicate that at low contrast the spatial inhibitory mechanisms between MT neurons may be switching off causing an increase in the density of responses signalling motion orthogonal to the edges.
Conclusion: Our model provides a biologically plausible mechanism by which the Weiss et al., Bayesian prior could be implemented.

year: 2012

title: An outsider's guide to public oral history in New Zealand

authors: Mahuika, Nepia

subjects: Oral history

abstract: At the beginning of this century, public history in New Zealand was considered a ‘new term’ in historical practice, described as crucial in both ‘the emergence of professional history writing’ and the assertion of ‘cultural nationalism.’¹ In the past decade, scholars here have highlighted its breadth and significance in ‘the employment of historians and the historical method outside academia; in government, private companies, the media, historical societies and museums, as well as those working in private practice.’² Oral history has also become a significant part of public history’s nation-making, key in the collecting of exceptional and ‘ordinary’ public voices.³ For Māori, current definitions of oral and public history are problematic because, as this essay suggests, both are constructed within Pākehā-centric perspectives of history, tradition, orality and what counts as ‘public.’ Public history has been called a ‘slippery process’, often shaped in a contrast between ‘people’s history’ and a ‘search for social cohesion’.4 This search for ‘cohesion’ is a familiar colonial refrain that fuels a healthy native scepticism of public history as yet another settler-centric invention that keeps us on the outside. This essay considers the ways in which public oral history in New Zealand is articulated, noting how this is done within narrow definitions and binaries that displace, ignore, or distort, indigenous perspectives. It suggests a rethinking of oral history as a movement beyond current binaries in the field, and advocates a widening of the meaning of oral sources, methods and politics, in order to include indigenous definitions as legitimately oral and public. This analysis is decolonial, not because it seeks an eradication of nationalism, but because it seeks to disrupt colonial-centric meanings of oral and public history by recentering Māori perspectives as legitimate to the New Zealand public oral history vernacular.

text: An outsider's guide to public oral history in New Zealand At the beginning of this century, public history in New Zealand was considered a ‘new term’ in historical practice, described as crucial in both ‘the emergence of professional history writing’ and the assertion of ‘cultural nationalism.’¹ In the past decade, scholars here have highlighted its breadth and significance in ‘the employment of historians and the historical method outside academia; in government, private companies, the media, historical societies and museums, as well as those working in private practice.’² Oral history has also become a significant part of public history’s nation-making, key in the collecting of exceptional and ‘ordinary’ public voices.³ For Māori, current definitions of oral and public history are problematic because, as this essay suggests, both are constructed within Pākehā-centric perspectives of history, tradition, orality and what counts as ‘public.’ Public history has been called a ‘slippery process’, often shaped in a contrast between ‘people’s history’ and a ‘search for social cohesion’.4 This search for ‘cohesion’ is a familiar colonial refrain that fuels a healthy native scepticism of public history as yet another settler-centric invention that keeps us on the outside. This essay considers the ways in which public oral history in New Zealand is articulated, noting how this is done within narrow definitions and binaries that displace, ignore, or distort, indigenous perspectives. It suggests a rethinking of oral history as a movement beyond current binaries in the field, and advocates a widening of the meaning of oral sources, methods and politics, in order to include indigenous definitions as legitimately oral and public. This analysis is decolonial, not because it seeks an eradication of nationalism, but because it seeks to disrupt colonial-centric meanings of oral and public history by recentering Māori perspectives as legitimate to the New Zealand public oral history vernacular.

year: 2017