A new potential quality assurance (QA) method is explored (including assessment of depth dose, dose linearity, dose rate linearity and beam profile) for clinical electron beams based on imaging Cerenkov light. The potential of using a standard commercial camera to image Cerenkov light generated from electrons in water for fast QA measurement of a clinical electron beam was explored and compared to ionization chamber measurements. The new method was found to be linear with dose and independent of dose rate (to within 3%). The uncorrected practical range measured in Cerenkov images was found to overestimate the actual value by 3 mm in the worst case. The field size measurements underestimated the dose at the edges by 5% without applying any correction factor. Still, the measured field size could be used to monitor relative changes in the beam profile. Finally, the beam-direction profile measurements were independent of the field size within 2%. A simulation was also performed of the deposited energy and of Cerenkov production in water using GEANT4. Monte Carlo simulation was used to predict the measured light distribution around the water phantom, to reproduce Cerenkov images and to find the relation between deposited energy and Cerenkov production. The camera was modelled as a pinhole camera in GEANT4, to attempt to reproduce Cerenkov images. Simulations of the deposited energy and the Cerenkov light production agreed with each other for a pencil beam of electrons, while for a realistic field size, Cerenkov production in the build-up region overestimated the dose by +8%.
Colour naming by panels of British and Taiwanese subjects (speaking English and Mandarin, respectively) was used to study colour categorization, and the results applied to investigate differences of usage between the two languages. Fifty British and 40 Chinese subjects took part in experiments using an unconstrained method with 200 ISCC-NBS colour samples. Data analysis was performed to calculate the frequency and codability of each colour name in each group and subgroup. These names were then grouped using 7-category and 4-category methods to find the culture and gender differences. It was confirmed that the 11 basic names found by Berlin and Kay were the most widely used for both languages. The results showed a close agreement between the two languages in terms of colour categories, but a large discrepancy in the use of secondary names due to cultural differences. The cross-cultural comparison revealed a clear pattern of the linkage between language and concepts of colour.
In an unconstrained colour naming experiment conducted over the web, 330 participants named 600 colour samples in English. The 30 most frequent monolexemic colour terms were analyzed with regards to frequency, consensus among genders, response times, consistency of use, denotative volume in the Munsell and OSA colour spaces and inter-experimental agreement. Each of these measures served for ranking colour term salience; rankings were then combined to give a composite index of basicness. The results support the extension of English inventory from the 11 basic colour terms of Berlin and Kay to 13 terms by the addition of lilac and turquoise.
Gender differences in colour naming were explored using a web-based experiment in English. Each participant named 20 colours selected from 600Munsell samples, presented one at a time against a neutral background.Colour names and typing onset response times were registered. For the eleven basic colour terms, elicitation frequency was comparable for both genders. Females demonstrated though more elaborated colour vocabulary, with more descriptors in general and more non-basic monolexemic terms; they also named colours faster than males. The two genders differ in the repertoire of frequent colour terms: a Bayesian synthetic observer revealed that women segment colour space linguistically more densely in the "warm" area whereas men do so in the 'cool' area. Current "nurture" and "nature" explanations of why females excel in colour naming behaviour are considered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.