The Union Mission hymnal, with which is incorporated "Hymns for Heart and Life" / edited by Fredk. C. Spurr ; the harmonies of the non-copyright pieces revised by Henry C. Banister.

http://www.archive.org/details/theunionmissiony00spuruoft

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy - Copyright Considerations and Options

On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') adopted a revised Public Access Policy for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting research supported in whole or in part by NIH funds. Under the revised policy, the grantee shall ensure that a copy of the author's final manuscript, including any revisions made during the peer review process, be electronically submitted to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central ('PMC') archive and that the person submitting the manuscript will designate a time not later than 12 months after publication at which NIH may make the full text of the manuscript publicly accessible in PMC. NIH adopted this policy to implement a new statutory requirement under which: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. This White Paper is written primarily for policymaking staff in universities and other institutional recipients of NIH support responsible for ensuring compliance with the Public Access Policy. The January 11, 2008, Public Access Policy imposes two new compliance mandates. First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. The version of the article to be submitted is the final version over which the author has control, which must include all revisions made after peer review. The statutory command directs that the manuscript be submitted to PMC 'upon acceptance for publication.' That is, the author's final manuscript should be submitted to PMC at the same time that it is sent to the publisher for final formatting and copy editing. Proper submission is a two-stage process. The electronic manuscript must first be submitted through a process that requires input of additional information concerning the article, the author(s), and the nature of NIH support for the research reported. NIH then formats the manuscript into a uniform, XML-based format used for PMC versions of articles. In the second stage of the submission process, NIH sends a notice to the Principal Investigator requesting that the PMC-formatted version be reviewed and approved. Only after such approval has grantee's manuscript submission obligation been satisfied. Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author's behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires. This White Paper explains and analyzes only the scope of the grantee's copyright-related obligations under the revised Public Access Policy and suggests six options for compliance with that aspect of the grantee's obligation. Time is of the essence for NIH grantees. As a practical matter, the grantee should have a compliance process in place no later than April 7, 2008. More specifically, the new Public Access Policy applies to any article accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008 if the article arose under (1) an NIH Grant or Cooperative Agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, (2) direct funding from an NIH Contract signed after April 7, 2008, (3) direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or (4) from an NIH employee. In addition, effective May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC reference number when citing articles arising from their NIH funded research. (This includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 and subsequent due dates.) Conceptually, the compliance challenge that the Public Access Policy poses for grantees is easily described. The grantee must depend to some extent upon the author(s) to take the necessary actions to ensure that the grantee is in compliance with the Public Access Policy because the electronic manuscripts and the copyrights in those manuscripts are initially under the control of the author(s). As a result, any compliance option will require an explicit understanding between the author(s) and the grantee about how the manuscript and the copyright in the manuscript are managed. It is useful to conceptually keep separate the grantee's manuscript submission obligation from its copyright permission obligation because the compliance personnel concerned with manuscript management may differ from those responsible for overseeing the author's copyright management. With respect to copyright management, the grantee has the following six options: (1) rely on authors to manage copyright but also to request or to require that these authors take responsibility for amending publication agreements that call for transfer of too many rights to enable the author to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible ('the Public Access License'); (2) take a more active role in assisting authors in negotiating the scope of any copyright transfer to a publisher by (a) providing advice to authors concerning their negotiations or (b) by acting as the author's agent in such negotiations; (3) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License; (4) enter into a side agreement with NIH-funded authors that grants a non-exclusive copyright license to the grantee sufficient to grant NIH the Public Access License and also grants a license to the grantee to make certain uses of the article, including posting a copy in the grantee's publicly accessible digital archive or repository and authorizing the article to be used in connection with teaching by university faculty; (5) negotiate a more systematic and comprehensive agreement with the biomedical publishers to ensure either that the publisher has a binding obligation to submit the manuscript and to grant NIH permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible or that the author retains sufficient rights to do so; or (6) instruct NIH-funded authors to submit manuscripts only to journals with binding deposit agreements with NIH or to journals whose copyright agreements permit authors to retain sufficient rights to authorize NIH to make manuscripts publicly accessible.

Temporal Dynamics of Decision-Making during Motion Perception in the Visual Cortex

How does the brain make decisions? Speed and accuracy of perceptual decisions covary with certainty in the input, and correlate with the rate of evidence accumulation in parietal and frontal cortical "decision neurons." A biophysically realistic model of interactions within and between Retina/LGN and cortical areas V1, MT, MST, and LIP, gated by basal ganglia, simulates dynamic properties of decision-making in response to ambiguous visual motion stimuli used by Newsome, Shadlen, and colleagues in their neurophysiological experiments. The model clarifies how brain circuits that solve the aperture problem interact with a recurrent competitive network with self-normalizing choice properties to carry out probablistic decisions in real time. Some scientists claim that perception and decision-making can be described using Bayesian inference or related general statistical ideas, that estimate the optimal interpretation of the stimulus given priors and likelihoods. However, such concepts do not propose the neocortical mechanisms that enable perception, and make decisions. The present model explains behavioral and neurophysiological decision-making data without an appeal to Bayesian concepts and, unlike other existing models of these data, generates perceptual representations and choice dynamics in response to the experimental visual stimuli. Quantitative model simulations include the time course of LIP neuronal dynamics, as well as behavioral accuracy and reaction time properties, during both correct and error trials at different levels of input ambiguity in both fixed duration and reaction time tasks. Model MT/MST interactions compute the global direction of random dot motion stimuli, while model LIP computes the stochastic perceptual decision that leads to a saccadic eye movement.

Adaptive Neural Networks for Control of Movement Trajectories Invariant under Speed and Force Rescaling

This article describes two neural network modules that form part of an emerging theory of how adaptive control of goal-directed sensory-motor skills is achieved by humans and other animals. The Vector-Integration-To-Endpoint (VITE) model suggests how synchronous multi-joint trajectories are generated and performed at variable speeds. The Factorization-of-LEngth-and-TEnsion (FLETE) model suggests how outflow movement commands from a VITE model may be performed at variable force levels without a loss of positional accuracy. The invariance of positional control under speed and force rescaling sheds new light upon a familiar strategy of motor skill development: Skill learning begins with performance at low speed and low limb compliance and proceeds to higher speeds and compliances. The VITE model helps to explain many neural and behavioral data about trajectory formation, including data about neural coding within the posterior parietal cortex, motor cortex, and globus pallidus, and behavioral properties such as Woodworth's Law, Fitts Law, peak acceleration as a function of movement amplitude and duration, isotonic arm movement properties before and after arm-deafferentation, central error correction properties of isometric contractions, motor priming without overt action, velocity amplification during target switching, velocity profile invariance across different movement distances, changes in velocity profile asymmetry across different movement durations, staggered onset times for controlling linear trajectories with synchronous offset times, changes in the ratio of maximum to average velocity during discrete versus serial movements, and shared properties of arm and speech articulator movements. The FLETE model provides new insights into how spina-muscular circuits process variable forces without a loss of positional control. These results explicate the size principle of motor neuron recruitment, descending co-contractive compliance signals, Renshaw cells, Ia interneurons, fast automatic reactive control by ascending feedback from muscle spindles, slow adaptive predictive control via cerebellar learning using muscle spindle error signals to train adaptive movement gains, fractured somatotopy in the opponent organization of cerebellar learning, adaptive compensation for variable moment-arms, and force feedback from Golgi tendon organs. More generally, the models provide a computational rationale for the use of nonspecific control signals in volitional control, or "acts of will", and of efference copies and opponent processing in both reactive and adaptive motor control tasks.

Cortical Dynamics of Visual Motion Perception: Short-Range and Long Range Apparent Motion

This article describes further evidence for a new neural network theory of biological motion perception that is called a Motion Boundary Contour System. This theory clarifies why parallel streams Vl-> V2 and Vl-> MT exist for static form and motion form processing among the areas Vl, V2, and MT of visual cortex. The Motion Boundary Contour System consists of several parallel copies, such that each copy is activated by a different range of receptive field sizes. Each copy is further subdivided into two hierarchically organized subsystems: a Motion Oriented Contrast Filter, or MOC Filter, for preprocessing moving images; and a Cooperative-Competitive Feedback Loop, or CC Loop, for generating emergent boundary segmentations of the filtered signals. The present article uses the MOC Filter to explain a variety of classical and recent data about short-range and long-range apparent motion percepts that have not yet been explained by alternative models. These data include split motion; reverse-contrast gamma motion; delta motion; visual inertia; group motion in response to a reverse-contrast Ternus display at short interstimulus intervals; speed-up of motion velocity as interfiash distance increases or flash duration decreases; dependence of the transition from element motion to group motion on stimulus duration and size; various classical dependencies between flash duration, spatial separation, interstimulus interval, and motion threshold known as Korte's Laws; and dependence of motion strength on stimulus orientation and spatial frequency. These results supplement earlier explanations by the model of apparent motion data that other models have not explained; a recent proposed solution of the global aperture problem, including explanations of motion capture and induced motion; an explanation of how parallel cortical systems for static form perception and motion form perception may develop, including a demonstration that these parallel systems are variations on a common cortical design; an explanation of why the geometries of static form and motion form differ, in particular why opposite orientations differ by 90°, whereas opposite directions differ by 180°, and why a cortical stream Vl -> V2 -> MT is needed; and a summary of how the main properties of other motion perception models can be assimilated into different parts of the Motion Boundary Contour System design.

Cortical Dynamics of Visual Motion Perception: Short-Range and Long-Range Apparent Motion

This article describes further evidence for a new neural network theory of biological motion perception. The theory clarifies why parallel streams Vl --> V2, Vl --> MT, and Vl --> V2 --> MT exist for static form and motion form processing among the areas Vl, V2, and MT of visual cortex. The theory suggests that the static form system (Static BCS) generates emergent boundary segmentations whose outputs are insensitive to direction-ofcontrast and insensitive to direction-of-motion, whereas the motion form system (Motion BCS) generates emergent boundary segmentations whose outputs are insensitive to directionof-contrast but sensitive to direction-of-motion. The theory is used to explain classical and recent data about short-range and long-range apparent motion percepts that have not yet been explained by alternative models. These data include beta motion; split motion; gamma motion and reverse-contrast gamma motion; delta motion; visual inertia; the transition from group motion to element motion in response to a Ternus display as the interstimulus interval (ISI) decreases; group motion in response to a reverse-contrast Ternus display even at short ISIs; speed-up of motion velocity as interflash distance increases or flash duration decreases; dependence of the transition from element motion to group motion on stimulus duration and size; various classical dependencies between flash duration, spatial separation, ISI, and motion threshold known as Korte's Laws; dependence of motion strength on stimulus orientation and spatial frequency; short-range and long-range form-color interactions; and binocular interactions of flashes to different eyes.

A Neural Network of Adaptively Timed Reinforcement Learning and Hippocampal Dynamics

A neural model is described of how adaptively timed reinforcement learning occurs. The adaptive timing circuit is suggested to exist in the hippocampus, and to involve convergence of dentate granule cells on CA3 pyramidal cells, and NMDA receptors. This circuit forms part of a model neural system for the coordinated control of recognition learning, reinforcement learning, and motor learning, whose properties clarify how an animal can learn to acquire a delayed reward. Behavioral and neural data are summarized in support of each processing stage of the system. The relevant anatomical sites are in thalamus, neocortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and cerebellum. Cerebellar influences on motor learning are distinguished from hippocampal influences on adaptive timing of reinforcement learning. The model simulates how damage to the hippocampal formation disrupts adaptive timing, eliminates attentional blocking, and causes symptoms of medial temporal amnesia. It suggests how normal acquisition of subcortical emotional conditioning can occur after cortical ablation, even though extinction of emotional conditioning is retarded by cortical ablation. The model simulates how increasing the duration of an unconditioned stimulus increases the amplitude of emotional conditioning, but does not change adaptive timing; and how an increase in the intensity of a conditioned stimulus "speeds up the clock", but an increase in the intensity of an unconditioned stimulus does not. Computer simulations of the model fit parametric conditioning data, including a Weber law property and an inverted U property. Both primary and secondary adaptively timed conditioning are simulated, as are data concerning conditioning using multiple interstimulus intervals (ISIs), gradually or abruptly changing ISis, partial reinforcement, and multiple stimuli that lead to time-averaging of responses. Neurobiologically testable predictions are made to facilitate further tests of the model.

Cortical Dynamics of Feature Binding and Reset: Control of Visual Persistence

An analysis of the reset of visual cortical circuits responsible for the binding or segmentation of visual features into coherent visual forms yields a model that explains properties of visual persistence. The reset mechanisms prevent massive smearing or visual percepts in response to rapidly moving images. The model simulates relationships among psychophysical data showing inverse relations of persistence to flash luminance and duration, greaterr persistence of illusory contours than real contours, a U-shaped temporal function for persistence of illusory contours, a reduction of persistence: due to adaptation with a stimulus of like orientation, an increase or persistence due to adaptation with a stimulus of perpendicular orientation, and an increase of persistence with spatial separation of a masking stimulus. The model suggests that a combination of habituative, opponent, and endstopping mechanisms prevent smearing and limit persistence. Earlier work with the model has analyzed data about boundary formation, texture segregation, shape-from-shading, and figure-ground separation. Thus, several types of data support each model mechanism and new predictions are made.