Photoshop常用抠图工具比较

抠图是Photoshop软件应用中最基本的功能之一,本文介绍了抠图的概念,分析比较了实际工作中常用的几种抠图方法以及它们各自的特点。     

Do null phonemic masking effects reflect strategic control of phonology?

Verstaen, Humphreys, Olson and D'Ydewalle [(1995) Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 335–356] reported null phonemic masking effectswith homophone targets under conditionsdiscouraging reliance on phonology. Theyattributed these null effects to the absence ofreliance on phonology, concluding that relianceon phonology may be strategically controlled. Two studies using Verstaen et al.'s methodoccasionally replicate these null phonemicmasking effects, but challenge theirinterpretation. The emergence of null phonemicmasking effects was unrelated to the strategymanipulation. Conversely, evidence forphonology emerged in homophone errorsregardless of the strategy manipulation anddespite null phonemic masking effects. Ourfindings reflect an inherent instability in theperception of homophones. We demonstrate thatthis instability is directly due to reliance onphonology, rather than to its control.     

基于边界的图像质量评价方法

图像边界是图像质量评价的主要因素。提出了一种结合图像边界的各向异性和奇异性等因素定义边界强度,利用边界的正规性定义边界保持度,然后结合人眼视觉的掩蔽效应和凸效应来建立数学模型,以此度量图像质量。实验结果表明,该方法在对模糊图像和对图像边缘、纹理要求高的领域,其质量评价优于现有的评价方法。     

浅谈混沌通信

本文介绍了基于混沌理论的通信技术,包括混沌掩盖技术、混沌码分多址技术及混沌扩频技术、混沌通信系统中的同步的发展现状等等。     

Unmasking the unasked: correcting the record about assessor masking as an explanation for effect size differences

Ainsworth et al.’s paper “Sources of Bias in Outcome Assessment in Randomised Controlled Trials: A Case Study” examines alternative accounts for a large difference in effect size between 2 outcomes in the same intervention evaluation. It argues that the probable explanation relates to masking: Only one outcome measure was administered by those aware of participants’ treatment assignment. This paper shows this conclusion is not substantiated by the evidence: The original paper fails to exclude alternative explanations, and what it takes as positive evidence for the preferred explanation is actually negative. While accepting the importance of masking in randomised controlled trials, this paper concludes that the original question was based on a misconception about effect sizes: Seen correctly as a measure of whole study design, the question of effect size difference between different outcome measures does not need asking.