Patterns of Subject Mix in Higher Education Institutions : A First Empirical Analysis Using the AQUAMETH Database

Teaching and research are organised differently between subject domains: attempts to construct typologies of higher education institutions, however, often do not include quantitative indicators concerning subject mix which would allow systematic comparisons of large numbers of higher education institutions among different countries, as the availability of data for such indicators is limited. In this paper, we present an exploratory approach for the construction of such indicators. The database constructed in the AQUAMETH project, which includes also data disaggregated at the disciplinary level, is explored with the aim of understanding patterns of subject mix. For six European countries, an exploratory and descriptive analysis of staff composition divided in four large domains (medical sciences, engineering and technology, natural sciences and social sciences and humanities) is performed, which leads to a classification distinguishing between specialist and generalist institutions. Among the latter, a further distinction is made based on the presence or absence of a medical department. Preliminary exploration of this classification and its comparison with other indicators show the influence of long term dynamics on the subject mix of individual higher education institutions, but also underline disciplinary differences, for example regarding student to staff ratios, as well as national patterns, for example regarding the number of PhD degrees per 100 undergraduate students. Despite its many limitations, this exploratory approach allows defining a classification of higher education institutions that accounts for a large share of differences between the analysed higher education institutions.

Hand-in-hand advances in biomedical engineering and sensorimotor restoration.

BACKGROUND: Living in a multisensory world entails the continuous sensory processing of environmental information in order to enact appropriate motor routines. The interaction between our body and our brain is the crucial factor for achieving such sensorimotor integration ability. Several clinical conditions dramatically affect the constant body-brain exchange, but the latest developments in biomedical engineering provide promising solutions for overcoming this communication breakdown. NEW METHOD: The ultimate technological developments succeeded in transforming neuronal electrical activity into computational input for robotic devices, giving birth to the era of the so-called brain-machine interfaces. Combining rehabilitation robotics and experimental neuroscience the rise of brain-machine interfaces into clinical protocols provided the technological solution for bypassing the neural disconnection and restore sensorimotor function. RESULTS: Based on these advances, the recovery of sensorimotor functionality is progressively becoming a concrete reality. However, despite the success of several recent techniques, some open issues still need to be addressed. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Typical interventions for sensorimotor deficits include pharmaceutical treatments and manual/robotic assistance in passive movements. These procedures achieve symptoms relief but their applicability to more severe disconnection pathologies is limited (e.g. spinal cord injury or amputation). CONCLUSIONS: Here we review how state-of-the-art solutions in biomedical engineering are continuously increasing expectances in sensorimotor rehabilitation, as well as the current challenges especially with regards to the translation of the signals from brain-machine interfaces into sensory feedback and the incorporation of brain-machine interfaces into daily activities.