The Aphasia Mash Up Project - 1271 Words

This aphasia mash-up project is intended to remediate lexical retrieval at the discourse level in a variety of communication settings and communication partners relevant to the patient’s interests. People with Aphasia often have difficulty with word retrieval which limits discourse capacity. This in turn negatively effects communication interactions with others and increases isolation. Therefore, therapy is often centered around improving word retrieval that will facilitate communication with others. Unfortunately, trained skills in therapy have demonstrated varying levels of generalization. There are several treatment approaches that have demonstrated efficacy for individuals with aphasia such as Semantic Feature Analysis. A limitation with this method is that it focuses on nouns and has not shown limited generalization to generalize to discourse and hashave not shown significant evidence for maintenance (Kiran Bassetto 2008). Another approach used in therapy is the use of v erbs. Verbs are central to syntax, semantics and event memory. Therefore, VNeST is effective because it targets semantic networks based around verbs, which also targets things such as nouns, syntax, and thematic roles. Verbs are expected to activate more neural networks in comparison to targeting nouns alone. Furthermore, previous studies have used VNeST and shown to be beneficial to patients with moderate fluent and non-fluent aphasia (Edmonds et al. 2009). The first article used investigated the

French Impersonal Verbs - Verbes impersonnels

The Effect of Neurotransmission on Human Behavior Free Essays

1. 2: Using one or more examples, explain effects of neurotransmission on human behavior: Our nervous systems consist of between 10 to 100 billion neurons; each of which making 13 trillion connections with each other through electrochemical messages that allow people to respond to stimuli, from the environment or from internal changes in a person’s body. The neurons send these electrochemical messages through neurotransmission. We will write a custom essay sample on The Effect of Neurotransmission on Human Behavior or any similar topic only for you Order Now Electrical impulses traveling down the axon (body) of a neuron, instigates the release of neurotransmitters, which travel over the synapse, which is the gap between two neurons. Once the neurotransmitters cross the synapse, they go into receptor sites on the post-synaptic membrane of a neuron, and after having passed on the message, they are either broken down or reabsorbed by the terminal buttons of the neuron, in a process known as reuptake. Neurotransmission has been shown to affect a large range of human behaviors. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that effects sleep, arousal levels, and emotion. In a 1999 study at Tokyo University, its effects were seen. Kasamatsu and Hirai conducted this study in order to examine the way that sensory deprivations affects the brain. They studied a group of monks going on a 72-hour pilgrimage without food or water. The monks endured the weather without shelter from the cold, and didn’t speak among themselves. Two thirds of the way through the pilgrimage, the hallucinations began, taking the shape of ancient ancestors, or just a presence at their side. Blood samples, taken immediately after the monks reported their hallucinations, were compared to blood samples taken prior to the pilgrimage, and showed increased serotonin levels. These increased serotonin levels activated the hypothalamus and the frontal cortex, causing the monk’s hallucinations. Kasamatsu and Hirai were able to conclude that sensory deprivation caused increase in serotonin levels, which altered the monks’ perception and behavior. Neurotransmitters, like serotonin, can play a large role in human behavior. However, it is considered reductionist to rely solely on them to explain human behavior; they only play a role and can’t be held fully responsible for behavior. Research and increased knowledge of neurotransmission has led to the development of drugs that can either simulate a neurotransmitter in the case of a deficiency, or block a receptor site if there are excessive neurotransmitters. Understanding how neurotransmitters can affect behavior has led to the development of these drugs, which have helped many people. How to cite The Effect of Neurotransmission on Human Behavior, Essay examples

Provided Scenario Legal Position Mactools †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Provided Scenario Legal Position Mactools? Answer: Introducation Torts of negligence are actions which are not deliberate, but attract a claim when an organization or an individual is not able to take precautions as a reasonable person had taken in same situation. It may also be defined as the failure to consider ethical or appropriate care expected to be used in specific circumstances. Negligence is an area of tort law which includes harm being caused because of a failure to act in a prudent manner. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 522 is the land mark British case related to the tort of negligence in the legal world. However the provisions of the law had been injected into the Australian justice system through another landmark judgment in the case of Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v.Grant50 C. L. R. 387 (1935). The neighbor principle is the most significant concept in the history of negligence. According to the principle it is the duty of a neighbor to observe due care in towards any person which can be injured by his actions fore see ably. This is known as the principle of the duty of care. As provided by the case of Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane[2017] QSC 103 it was ruled by the court that not having proper mechanism in place for the purpose of protecting the employees from injury accounted to negligence on the part of the employer. In order to institute a negligence claim three elements have to be identified namely the duty of care, no taking reasonable precautions (breach of duty) and actual harm caused to the injured person. If any of the three elements are absent a claim in relation to negligence cannot be constituted as per the case of Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25) According to the case of Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor[2014] NSWCA 394 if the harm can be foreseen a duty of care is established. If a reasonable person deemed to adopt more caution in same situation the duty is violated. Finally, if the harm is resulted out of the violation of the duty a claim of negligence is identified. Usually the but for test is uses to locate the reason of caution of harm to constitute negligence which as provided by the British case Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital[1969] 1 QB 428. However there is also a concept which is known as CONTRABUTORY NEGLIGENCE which a negligent person may use in form of a defense against a claim of negligence. In case it can be established by the plaintiff that the defendant had some contribution in the harm suffered by him the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff can be reduced in accordance to the percentage of contributory negligence. The concept was recently used in Australia in the case of Jackson v McDonald'sAustraliaLtd [2014] NSWCA 162 where the plaintiff was himself liable for the fall suffered by him as he did not take support of the hand rail. The court in this case only allowed 30% of compensation to the plaintiff and the rest 70% was discarded due to contributory negligence. As per the rules of remoteness only those harms which can be foreseeable by a reasonable person are liable to be compensation by the negligent party as provided by the case of Caparo Industriesplcv Dickman[1990]UKHL 2. Application The first step which would be required to find out the legal position of MacTools Ltd would be to analyze the existence of a duty of care. In the Donoghue case it was provided that manufacturers have a duty to care to the consumers. In the same way it can be provided that MacTools Ltd had a duty of care towards Mulan and any person who uses the drill. Now as a duty of care has been found, whether or not MacTools Ltd falied to take reasonable action in relation to the duty has to be analyzed. There was a 1% chance that if the drill is used for more than five minutes it might malfunction. MacTools Ltd failed to provide this fact to Mulan as they feared that recalling the drills would result in a loss for them. Mulan further provided the drill to Aurora for use. Unaware of the fact the drill was used for ten minutes by Aurora and as a result it exploded. In similar situation a reasonable person being aware of such fact must have notified the consumer about the defect or would have recalled the drills. Thus it can evidently be provided that the duty of care was actually violated by MacTools Ltd. Finally, the reason for causation of harm has to be analyzed through applying the But for test. In the given situation if it would have been notified by MacTools Ltd to Mulan about the defects he would have notified the same to Aurora and she would have not used the drill for an extended period and if the drill was taken back the accident would have been prevented. Thus there exists a claim for negligence. However, as Aurora was instructed to use glasses while using the drill which he did not his act would fall under the scope of contributory negligence. It is irrelevant whether he actually read the instructions or not. The compensation to be provided to him would be revised in accordance to the amount of contributory negligence. According to the principles of foreseeability a duty of care only exists when the harm can be foreseen. The loss which was faced by Jessie due to the obstruction in power line and the breaking of the glass cannot be said to be reasonably foreseeable as it does not pass the proximity test. Thus MacTools Ltd is not liable to the loss faced by Jessie. Conclusion MacTools Ltd is liable for the tort of negligence but the compensation would be reduced due to contributory negligence on the part of Aurora. However MacTools Ltd is not liable to Jessie. References Arcy v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane[2017] QSC 103 Australian Knitting Mills, Ld. v.Grant50 C. L. R. 387 (1935). Barnett v Chelsea Kensington Hospital[1969] 1 QB 428. Caparo Industriesplcv Dickman[1990]UKHL 2. Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 25) Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 522 Jackson v McDonald'sAustraliaLtd [2014] NSWCA 162 Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd v Moor[2014] NSWCA 394