Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Burnham D, Singh L, Mattock K, Woo PJ, Kalashnikova M
    Front Psychol, 2017;8:2190.
    PMID: 29354077 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02190
    This study compared tone sensitivity in monolingual and bilingual infants in a novel word learning task. Tone language learning infants (Experiment 1, Mandarin monolingual; Experiment 2, Mandarin-English bilingual) were tested with Mandarin (native) or Thai (non-native) lexical tone pairs which contrasted static vs. dynamic (high vs. rising) tones or dynamic vs. dynamic (rising vs. falling) tones. Non-tone language, English-learning infants (Experiment 3) were tested on English intonational contrasts or the Mandarin or Thai tone contrasts. Monolingual Mandarin language infants were able to bind tones to novel words for the Mandarin High-Rising contrast, but not for the Mandarin Rising-Falling contrast; and they were insensitive to both the High-Rising and the Rising-Falling tone contrasts in Thai. Bilingual English-Mandarin infants were similar to the Mandarin monolinguals in that they were sensitive to the Mandarin High-Rising contrast and not to the Mandarin Rising-Falling contrast. However, unlike the Mandarin monolinguals, they were also sensitive to the High Rising contrast in Thai. Monolingual English learning infants were insensitive to all three types of contrasts (Mandarin, Thai, English), although they did respond differentially to tone-bearing vs. intonation-marked words. Findings suggest that infants' sensitivity to tones in word learning contexts depends heavily on tone properties, and that this influence is, in some cases, stronger than effects of language familiarity. Moreover, bilingual infants demonstrated greater phonological flexibility in tone interpretation.
  2. Pei J, Amanvermez Y, Vigo D, Puyat J, Kessler RC, Mortier P, et al.
    Psychiatr Serv, 2024 Jan 31.
    PMID: 38291886 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.20230414
    OBJECTIVE: College students have high rates of mental health problems and low rates of treatment. Although sociodemographic disparities in student mental health treatment seeking have been reported, findings have not been synthesized and quantified. The extent to which differences in perceived need for treatment contribute to overall disparities remains unclear.

    METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, PsycInfo, and Embase was conducted. Studies published between 2007 and 2022 were included if they reported treatment rates among college students with mental health problems, stratified by sex, gender, race-ethnicity, sexual orientation, student type, student year, or student status. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled prevalence ratios (PRs) of having a perceived need for treatment and of receiving treatment for each sociodemographic subgroup.

    RESULTS: Twenty-one studies qualified for inclusion. Among students experiencing mental health problems, consistent and significant sociodemographic differences were identified in perceived need for treatment and treatment receipt. Students from racial-ethnic minority groups (in particular, Asian students [PR=0.49]) and international students (PR=0.63) reported lower rates of treatment receipt than White students and domestic students, respectively. Students identifying as female (sex) or as women (gender) (combined PR=1.33) reported higher rates of treatment receipt than students identifying as male or as men. Differences in perceived need appeared to contribute to some disparities; in particular, students identifying as male or as men reported considerably lower rates of perceived need than students identifying as female or as women.

    CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need for policy makers to address barriers throughout the treatment-seeking pathway and to tailor efforts to student subgroups to reduce treatment disparities.

  3. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links