China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Seeking justice through sexual violence prosecutions
Published in Rachel E. Lovell, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Sexual Assault Kits and Reforming the Response to Rape, 2023
Jennifer Gentile Long, Patricia D. Powers, Holly Fuhrman, Jennifer Newman
This chapter was developed by AEquitas, a nonprofit organization focused on developing, evaluating, and refining strategies related to the prosecution of gender-based violence and human trafficking. This work is done by a team of experts, many of whom are experienced former prosecutors who specialized in prosecuting sexual violence and related offenses in jurisdictions across the United States. This chapter was adapted from the Model Response to Sexual Violence for Prosecutors (RSVP Model), a three-volume resource developed by AEquitas and its partners at the Urban Institute (Urban) and the Justice Management Institute (JMI).1 The RSVP Model is available at theRSVP.org.
RSVP and the Timely Experience
Published in Mark Evans, Konstantinos Thomaidis, Libby Worth, Time and Performer Training, 2019
As many people are aware, RSVP is an acronym for the different creative mindsets that can generate a cycle of creative energies. I learned it third-hand from Robert Lepage and Marie Brassard, who learned it from Jacques Lessard, who studied with Anna Halprin. The vocabulary alters as different artists adapt RSVP for different uses, and its versatility is as impressive as its effectiveness. RSVP operates uniquely in each project that applies it.
Issues and Challenges in Designing P300 and SSVEP Paradigms
Published in Chang S. Nam, Anton Nijholt, Fabien Lotte, Brain–Computer Interfaces Handbook, 2018
In addition to those discussed above, there is another type of paradigm that is based on rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) where symbols or characters are presented successively at a single location. Subjects’ attention on a single symbol of this visual presentation can elicit P300 ERP (Acqualagna et al. 2010; Acqualagna and Blankertz 2011). However, the RSVP-based BCI speller requires a high number of sequential trials to obtain a reliable output. Though the RSVP paradigm does not require eye movements as the subject focuses on a single place, the information transfer rate (ITR) is less owing to the longer time it takes for stimulus presentation. Nevertheless, absence of eye movement makes RSVP a suitable paradigm for patients with impaired oculomotor control (Acqualagna and Blankertz 2013).
A Pilot Test of the Effectiveness of an Integrated Sex Positive Education Program
Published in American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2019
Natalie M. Raymond, Ashley N. Hutchison
The RSVP program was developed by the authors in 2015 after a thorough review of the existing literature. It was piloted with a focus group of ten campus and community women, who participated in an initial version of the program, and then revised based on participant feedback. Focus group participants were recruited through flyers (on campus and in the community) and social media posts. Contact the first author for a more extensive review of the development process.
Circadian and homeostatic modulation of the attentional blink
Published in Chronobiology International, 2019
Carlos Gallegos, Aída García, Candelaria Ramírez, Jorge Borrani, Carolina V. M. Azevedo, Pablo Valdez
The AB refers to a decrease in the efficiency to detect or identify a second target (T2) occurring 200–500 ms after the first target (T1). Correct responses to T2 are only taken into account after correct detection of T1. It has been found that AB occurs because the processing of T1 requires time (200–500 ms), thus interfering with the processing and response to T2 (Lagroix et al. 2012). AB also occurs due to a failure to suppress the response to distractor stimuli present during the task (Dux and Marois 2008). The task used to assess the AB is a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) task in which an array of stimuli is presented, including two targets (T1, T2) and a group of distractors. The first (T1) and second targets (T2) are presented within different intervals to measure the percent of correct responses to T2 at each interval, between 100 and 800 ms. Typically, there is a decrease in the percent of correct responses to T2 at 200–500 ms intervals, while longer intervals (600–800 ms) show a high level of correct responses, similar to the efficiency to T1. It is important to mention that the AB occurs in either detection or identification tasks. Identifying is more difficult than detecting the events. The AB is not modified by practice (Enns et al. 2017). Some studies have documented a reduction of the AB with extended practice, but this effect seems to be transitory (Maki and Padmanabhan 1994; Nakatani et al. 2012). A high level of correct responses occurs to T2 at a very short interval (100 ms, lag 1) after T1. This is known as lag-1 sparing (Chun and Potter 1995) and has been explained as a rise of attention triggered by T1, so that T2 can still be processed during this short interval (Olivers and Meeter 2008). Processing of T2 at this interval may affect the storage of the proper order of responses, frequently resulting in correct but inverted responses to T1 and T2. Lag-1 sparing tends to remain at the same level even in conditions that modify the AB, such as practice (Enns et al. 2017) or a “diffuse state” of attention (Olivers and Nieuwenhuis 2005). We could not find any published paper studying possible homeostatic (time awake, sleep deprivation) or circadian variations in the limitation to process new information, as measured by the AB.
A screening protocol incorporating brain-computer interface feature matching considerations for augmentative and alternative communication
Published in Assistive Technology, 2020
The RSVP Keyboard™ screener outlined by Fried-Oken et al. (2013) provided a strong foundation for the development of the multi-BCI screening protocol discussed in the present paper, outlining screener requirements (e.g., maximum time for completion), and areas important for visual, RSVP-based BCI assessment such as visual perception, memory and speed of information processing, sustained visual attention, auditory comprehension, spelling, reading comprehension and literacy, levels of pain, current medications, motor function, and positioning. Our BCI screener builds upon the RSVP Keyboard™ protocol in multiple ways by 1) including assessment tasks and domains relevant to a range of BCI techniques (e.g., motor imagery, steady state visually evoked potential, auditory) that are designed to be accessible to individuals with and without severe visual or hearing impairments, and 2) providing assessment scores, which allows for comparison of participant performances across settings, and standardizess BCI assessment procedures for identifying person-centered factors influencing BCI control. As the RSVP Keyboard™ protocol does not provide a validated score, it is difficult to compare the effectiveness of the RSVP Keyboard™ screener with our own BCI screener though general comparisons can be made since both screening protocols overlap in some content. Overall, screener outcomes reported by Fried-Oken et al. (2013) are similar to those found in our protocol, as nine of twelve individuals with locked in syndrome achieved 100% RSVP screener accuracy across all tested domains, and the remaining three participants missed only a single item. For the sensory domain, across both protocols, all participants demonstrated functional hearing, and even though one individual who completed the RSVP protocol demonstrated impaired vertical oculomotor movement, all participants scored 100% accuracy on the four corners tasks. Regarding memory and attention, one participant scored 17 on the cognitive portion of our screener, and the RSVP protocol found only two participants (or their caregivers) reported a mild impairment in these areas. Finally, three participants in our study reported problems with pain as did six participants who completed the RSVP Keyboard™ screener, though both screeners suggest the level was not severe enough to interfere with participants’ ability to remember, concentrate, or process new information. The RSVP Keyboard™ screener additionally found two individuals had pain that sometimes or rarely made them feel discouraged, with one participant who indicated their pain was rarely so severe it was all they could think about. The remainder of the BCI screening protocol described in this paper incorporates tasks that are relevant for assessment across a range of BCI techniques that are not included in the RSVP Keyboard™ screener, and therefore no further comparisons are possible.