Michael Kohlhase

Michael Kohlhase (born 13 September 1964, in Erlangen) is a German computer scientist and professor at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, where he is head of the KWARC research group (Knowledge Adaptation and Reasoning for Content). == Academic Positions == Michael Kohlhase is president of the OpenMath Society and a trustee of the Interest Group for Mathematical Knowledge Management (MKM). He was a trustee of the Conference on Automated Deduction and the CALCULEMUS Interest Group. He has been Conference Chair of CADE-21 and Program Chair of the KI-2006, MKM-2005, and CALCULEMUS-2000 conferences and has served on the Programme Committees of more than three dozen international conferences. Kohlhase holds an adjunct associate professorship at Carnegie Mellon University and was (2006–2008) vice director of the Department of Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems at German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) Lab Bremen. In 2014, he became a member of the Global Digital Mathematics Library Working Group of the IMU. == Academic career == Michael Kohlhase obtained a degree in Mathematics (1989) from University of Bonn, a doctorate (1994) and habilitation (1999) in Computer Science at Saarland University. He has pursued his doctoral and post-doctoral research in extended research visits at Carnegie Mellon University, University of Amsterdam, the University of Edinburgh, and SRI International. From 2000–2003, he has conducted research and taught at the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, where he was appointed to an adjunct associate professor. In September 2003 he was appointed as Professor of Computer Science at Jacobs University Bremen (International University Bremen until 2007), and 2006–2008 he was vice director of the Department of Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems of the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) Bremen. Since September 2016 he holds the Professorship for Knowledge Representation and Processing at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. He has authored or edited four books and published almost 100 peer-reviewed papers. == Awards and Scholarships == 2000 3-year Heisenberg-Stipend of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). 1996 AKI-prize, dissertation prize of the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher KI-Institute (AKI)" 1991 dissertation stipend of the Studienstiftung (German National Academic Foundation) 1986 masters stipend of Studienstiftung == Research interests == Michael Kohlhase's current research interests include Automated theorem proving and knowledge representation for mathematics, inference-based techniques for natural language processing and semantics, and computer-supported education. Much of his concrete work is based on web-based content markup formats like MathML, OpenMath, and OMDoc and systems for managing this data, e.g. semantic search engines for mathematical formulae, semantic extensions to LaTeX, or converting legacy LaTeX documents from the arXiv.

Knowledge graph embedding

In representation learning, knowledge graph embedding (KGE), also called knowledge representation learning (KRL), or multi-relation learning, is a machine learning task of learning a low-dimensional representation of a knowledge graph's entities and relations while preserving their semantic meaning. Leveraging their embedded representation, knowledge graphs can be used for various applications such as link prediction, triple classification, entity recognition, clustering, and relation extraction. == Definition == A knowledge graph G = { E , R , F } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}=\{E,R,F\}} is a collection of entities E {\displaystyle E} , relations R {\displaystyle R} , and facts F {\displaystyle F} . A fact is a triple ( h , r , t ) ∈ F {\displaystyle (h,r,t)\in F} that denotes a link r ∈ R {\displaystyle r\in R} between the head h ∈ E {\displaystyle h\in E} and the tail t ∈ E {\displaystyle t\in E} of the triple. Another notation that is often used in the literature to represent a triple (or fact) is ⟨ head , relation , tail ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle {\text{head}},{\text{relation}},{\text{tail}}\rangle } . This notation is called the Resource Description Framework (RDF). A knowledge graph represents the knowledge related to a specific domain; leveraging this structured representation, it is possible to infer a piece of new knowledge from it after some refinement steps. However, nowadays, people have to deal with the sparsity of data and the computational inefficiency to use them in a real-world application. The embedding of a knowledge graph is a function that translates each entity and each relation into a vector of a given dimension d {\displaystyle d} , called embedding dimension. It is even possible to embed the entities and relations with different dimensions. The embedding vectors can then be used for other tasks. A knowledge graph embedding is characterized by four aspects: Representation space: The low-dimensional space in which the entities and relations are represented. Scoring function: A measure of the goodness of a triple-embedded representation. Encoding models: The modality in which the embedded representation of the entities and relations interact with each other. Additional information: Any additional information coming from the knowledge graph that can enrich the embedded representation. Usually, an ad hoc scoring function is integrated into the general scoring function for each additional piece of information. == Embedding procedure == All algorithms for creating a knowledge graph embedding follow the same approach. First, the embedding vectors are initialized to random values. Then, they are iteratively optimized using a training set of triples. In each iteration, a batch of size b {\displaystyle b} triples is sampled from the training set, and a triple from it is sampled and corrupted—i.e., a triple that does not represent a true fact in the knowledge graph. The corruption of a triple involves substituting the head or the tail (or both) of the triple with another entity that makes the fact false. The original triple and the corrupted triple are added in the training batch, and then the embeddings are updated, optimizing a scoring function. Iteration stops when a stop condition is reached. Usually, the stop condition depends on the overfitting of the training set. At the end, the learned embeddings should have extracted semantic meaning from the training triples and should correctly predict unseen true facts in the knowledge graph. === Pseudocode === The following is the pseudocode for the general embedding procedure. algorithm Compute entity and relation embeddings input: The training set S = { ( h , r , t ) } {\displaystyle S=\{(h,r,t)\}} , entity set E {\displaystyle E} , relation set R {\displaystyle R} , embedding dimension k {\displaystyle k} output: Entity and relation embeddings initialization: the entities e {\displaystyle e} and relations r {\displaystyle r} embeddings (vectors) are randomly initialized while stop condition do S b a t c h ← s a m p l e ( S , b ) {\displaystyle S_{batch}\leftarrow sample(S,b)} // Sample a batch from the training set for each ( h , r , t ) {\displaystyle (h,r,t)} in S b a t c h {\displaystyle S_{batch}} do ( h ′ , r , t ′ ) ← s a m p l e ( S ′ ) {\displaystyle (h',r,t')\leftarrow sample(S')} // Sample a corrupted fact T b a t c h ← T b a t c h ∪ { ( ( h , r , t ) , ( h ′ , r , t ′ ) ) } {\displaystyle T_{batch}\leftarrow T_{batch}\cup \{((h,r,t),(h',r,t'))\}} end for Update embeddings by minimizing the loss function end while == Performance indicators == These indexes are often used to measure the embedding quality of a model. The simplicity of the indexes makes them very suitable for evaluating the performance of an embedding algorithm even on a large scale. Given Q {\displaystyle {\ce {Q}}} as the set of all ranked predictions of a model, it is possible to define three different performance indexes: Hits@K, MR, and MRR. === Hits@K === Hits@K or in short, H@K, is a performance index that measures the probability to find the correct prediction in the first top K model predictions. Usually, it is used k = 10 {\displaystyle k=10} . Hits@K reflects the accuracy of an embedding model to predict the relation between two given triples correctly. Hits@K = | { q ∈ Q : q < k } | | Q | ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle ={\frac {|\{q\in Q:q

Human–robot collaboration

Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology. Industrial applications of human-robot collaboration involve Collaborative Robots, or cobots, that physically interact with humans in a shared workspace to complete tasks such as collaborative manipulation or object handovers. == Collaborative Activity == Collaboration is defined as a special type of coordinated activity, one in which two or more agents work jointly with each other, together performing a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal. The process typically involves shared plans, shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. Although collaboration and cooperation are often used interchangeably, collaboration differs from cooperation as it involves a shared goal and joint action where the success of both parties depend on each other. For effective human-robot collaboration, it is imperative that the robot is capable of understanding and interpreting several communication mechanisms similar to the mechanisms involved in human-human interaction. The robot must also communicate its own set of intents and goals to establish and maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate its actions to execute the shared plan. In addition, all team members demonstrate commitment to doing their own part, to the others doing theirs, and to the success of the overall task. == Theories Informing Human-Robot Collaboration == Human-human collaborative activities are studied in depth in order to identify the characteristics that enable humans to successfully work together. These activity models usually aim to understand how people work together in teams, how they form intentions and achieve a joint goal. Theories on collaboration inform human-robot collaboration research to develop efficient and fluent collaborative agents. === Belief Desire Intention Model === The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model is a model of human practical reasoning that was originally developed by Michael Bratman. The approach is used in intelligent agents research to describe and model intelligent agents. The BDI model is characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs (the knowledge of the world, state of the world), desires (the objective to accomplish, desired end state) and intentions (the course of actions currently under execution to achieve the desire of the agent) in order to deliberate their decision-making processes. BDI agents are able to deliberate about plans, select plans and execute plans. === Shared Cooperative Activity === Shared Cooperative Activity defines certain prerequisites for an activity to be considered shared and cooperative: mutual responsiveness, commitment to the joint activity and commitment to mutual support. An example case to illustrate these concepts would be a collaborative activity where agents are moving a table out the door, mutual responsiveness ensures that movements of the agents are synchronized; a commitment to the joint activity reassures each team member that the other will not at some point drop his side; and a commitment to mutual support deals with possible breakdowns due to one team member's inability to perform part of the plan. === Joint Intention Theory === Joint Intention Theory proposes that for joint action to emerge, team members must communicate to maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate their actions towards the shared plan. In collaborative work, agents should be able to count on the commitment of other members, therefore each agent should inform the others when they reach the conclusion that a goal is achievable, impossible, or irrelevant. == Approaches to Human-Robot Collaboration == The approaches to human-robot collaboration include human emulation (HE) and human complementary (HC) approaches. Although these approaches have differences, there are research efforts to develop a unified approach stemming from potential convergences such as Collaborative Control. === Human Emulation === The human emulation approach aims to enable computers to act like humans or have human-like abilities in order to collaborate with humans. It focuses on developing formal models of human-human collaboration and applying these models to human-computer collaboration. In this approach, humans are viewed as rational agents who form and execute plans for achieving their goals and infer other people's plans. Agents are required to infer the goals and plans of other agents, and collaborative behavior consists of helping other agents to achieve their goals. === Human Complementary === The human complementary approach seeks to improve human-computer interaction by making the computer a more intelligent partner that complements and collaborates with humans. The premise is that the computer and humans have fundamentally asymmetric abilities. Therefore, researchers invent interaction paradigms that divide responsibility between human users and computer systems by assigning distinct roles that exploit the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of both partners. == Key Aspects == Specialization of Roles: Based on the level of autonomy and intervention, there are several human-robot relationships including master-slave, supervisor–subordinate, partner–partner, teacher–learner and fully autonomous robot. In addition to these roles, homotopy (a weighting function that allows a continuous change between leader and follower behaviors) was introduced as a flexible role distribution. Establishing shared goal(s): Through direct discussion about goals or inference from statements and actions, agents must determine the shared goals they are trying to achieve. Allocation of Responsibility and Coordination: Agents must decide how to achieve their goals, determine what actions will be done by each agent, and how to coordinate the actions of individual agents and integrate their results. Shared context: Agents must be able to track progress toward their goals. They must keep track of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. They must evaluate the effects of actions and determine whether an acceptable solution has been achieved. Communication: Any collaboration requires communication to define goals, negotiate over how to proceed and who will do what, and evaluate progress and results. Adaptation and learning: Collaboration over time require partners to adapt themselves to each other and learn from one's partner both directly or indirectly. Time and space: The time-space taxonomy divides human-robot interaction into four categories based on whether the humans and robots are using computing systems at the same time (synchronous) or different times (asynchronous) and while in the same place (collocated) or in different places (non-collocated). Ergonomics: Human factors and ergonomics are one of the key aspects for a sustainable human-robot collaboration. The robot control system can use biomechanical models and sensors to optimize various ergonomic metrics, such as muscle fatigue.

Corel VideoStudio

Corel VideoStudio (formerly Ulead VideoStudio) is a video editing software package for Microsoft Windows. == Features == === Basic editing === The software allows storyboard and timeline-oriented editing. Various formats are supported for source clips, and the resulting video can be exported to a video file. DVD and AVCHD DVD authoring capabilities are included, and Blu-ray authoring is available via a plug-in. VideoStudio supports direct DV and HDV capture and burning. === Overlay === Users can overlay videos, images, and text. Using the overlay track, up to 50 clips can be displayed simultaneously. It can handle videos in MOV and AVI formats, including alpha channel, and images in PSP, PSD, PNG, and GIF formats. Clips that do not contain an alpha channel can have specific colours removed from the overlay video so that the required background or image is displayed in the foreground. === Proxy video files === VideoStudio supports high-definition video. Proxy files are smaller versions of the video source that stand in for the full-resolution source during editing to improve performance. === Plug-ins/bundles === VideoStudio supports VFX-type plug-ins from providers, including NewBlue and proDAD. proDAD plug-ins Roto-Pen, Script, Vitascene, and Mercalli-Stabilizer are bundled with X4 and later Ultimate Editions. == Version history == Ulead VideoStudio 4 (1999) Ulead VideoStudio 5 (2001) Ulead VideoStudio 6 (2002) Ulead VideoStudio 7 (2003) Ulead VideoStudio 8 (2004) Ulead VideoStudio 9 (2005) Ulead VideoStudio 10 plus. (2006) Corel Ulead VideoStudio 11 plus. (2007) Corel VideoStudio Pro X2 (v12, 2008) Corel VideoStudio Pro X3 (v13, 2010) 2011: Corel VideoStudio Pro X4 (v14, 2011) Adds support for stop motion animation, time-lapse mode photography, 3D movies, and 2nd generation Intel Core. Corel VideoStudio Pro X5 (v15, March 9, 2012): Adds HTML5 export (Comparison of HTML5 and Flash). Corel VideoStudio Pro X6 (v16, April 25, 2013): Windows 8 compatible. Adds UHD 4K support. Corel VideoStudio Pro X7 (v17, March 5, 2014): Software becomes 64-bit. Corel VideoStudio Pro X8 (v18, May 8, 2015): Several improvements. Corel VideoStudio Pro X9 (v19, February 16, 2016): Windows 10 compatible. Adds H.265 support, Multi-Camera Editor, and Match moving. Corel VideoStudio Pro X10 (v20, February 15, 2017): Adds Mask Creator, Track Transparency, and 360-degree video support. Corel VideoStudio Pro 2018 (v21, February 13, 2018): Adds split screen Video, Lens Correction, and 3D Title Editor. Corel VideoStudio Pro 2019 (v22, February 12, 2019): Adds Color Grading, Morph Transitions, and MultiCam Capture Lite. Corel VideoStudio Pro 2020 (v23, February 25, 2020). Corel VideoStudio Pro 2021 (v24, March 26, 2021): Adds Instant Project Templates, AR Stickers, and performance improvements (particularly regarding hardware acceleration). Corel VideoStudio Pro 2022 (v25, March 6, 2022): Adds face effects, GIF Creator, transitions for Camera Movements, a speech to text converter, and ProRes Smart Proxy.

Verbal overshadowing

Verbal overshadowing is a phenomenon where giving a verbal description of sensory input impairs formation of memories of that input. This was first reported by Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) where it was shown that the effects can be observed across multiple domains of cognition which are known to rely on non-verbal knowledge and perceptual expertise. One example of this is memory, which has been known to be influenced by language. Seminal work by Carmichael and collaborators (1932) demonstrated that when verbal labels are connected to non-verbal forms during an individual's encoding process, it could potentially bias the way those forms are reproduced. Because of this, memory performance relying on reportable aspects of memory that encode visual forms should be vulnerable to the effects of verbalization. == Initial findings == Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) were the first to report findings of verbal overshadowing. In their study, participants watched a video of a simulated robbery and were instructed to either verbally describe the robber or engage in a control task. Those who engaged in giving a verbal description were less likely to correctly identify the robber from a test lineup, compared to those who engaged in the control task. A larger effect was detected when the verbal description was provided 20, rather than 5, minutes after the video, and immediately before the test lineup. A meta-analysis by Meissner and Brigham (2001) supported the effects of verbal overshadowing, showing a small but reliably negative effect. == General effects of verbal overshadowing == The effects of verbal overshadowing have been generalized across multiple domains of cognition that are known to rely on non-verbal knowledge and perceptual expertise, such as memory. Memory has been known to be influenced by language. Seminal work by Carmichael and collaborators (1932) demonstrated that labels attached to, or associated with, non-verbal forms during memory encoding can affect the way the forms were subsequently reproduced. Because of this, memory performance that relies on reportable aspects of memory that encode visual forms should be vulnerable to the effects of verbalization. Pelizzon, Brandimonte, and Luccio (2002) found that visual memory representations appear to incorporate visual, spatial, and temporal characteristics. It is explained as follows: With the temporal code (where the only information available is the sequence of the stimuli), performance levels remain high, unless participants are required to retrieve the stimuli in a different order from that used at encoding (visual cue). In this case, performance is significantly impaired, even in the presence of a visual cue. The study showed that order information acts as a link between the two separate representations of figure and background, hence preventing verbal overshadowing at encoding (temporal component) or attenuating its influence at retrieval (spatial component).(p. 960) Hatano, Ueno, Kitagami, and Kawaguchi found that verbal overshadowing is likely to occur when participants verbally described targets in detail. Detailed verbal descriptions resulted in more frequently inaccurate descriptions that in turn created inaccurate representations in the memories of participants. Inaccuracies are also likely to occur when face recognition comes immediately after verbalization. Other forms of non-verbal knowledge affected by verbal overshadowing include the following: [Verbal overshadowing] has also been observed when participants attempt to generate descriptions of other 'difficult-to-describe' stimuli such as colors (Schooler and Engstler-Schooler, 1990) or abstract figures (Brandimonte et al., 1997), or other non-visual tasks such as wine tasting (Melcher and Schooler, 1996), decision making (Wilson and Schooler, 1991), and insight problem-solving. (p. 871) (Schooler et al., 1993) Verbalization of stimuli leads to the disruption of non-reportable processes that are necessary for achieving insight solutions, which are distinct from language processes. Schooler, Ohlsson, and Brooks (1993) found that face recognition requires information that cannot be adequately verbalized, giving rise to difficulty in describing factors in recognition judgments. Subjects were less effective in solving insight problems when compelled to put their thoughts in words, which suggests that language may interfere with thought. The verbal overshadowing effect was not seen when participants engaged in articulatory suppression. Performance was reduced in both the verbal and non-verbal description conditions. This is evidence that verbal encoding plays a role in face recognition. By testing with distracting faces presented between study and test, Lloyd-Jones and Brown (2008) suggested a dual-process approach to recognition memory took place, that verbalization influenced familiarity-based processes at first, but its effects were later seen on recollection, when discrimination between items became more difficult. == Verbal overshadowing in facial recognition == The verbal overshadowing effect can be found for facial recognition because faces are predominately processed in a holistic or configurable manner. (Tanaka & Farah, 1993; Tanaka & Sengco, 1997) Verbalizing one's memory for a face is done using a featural or analytic strategy, leading to a drift from the configurable information about the face and to impaired recognition performance. However, Fallshore & Schooler (1995) found that the verbal overshadowing effect was not found when participants described faces of races different from their own. A study by Brown and Lloyd-Jones (2003) found that there was no verbal overshadowing effect found in car descriptions; it was only seen in facial descriptions. The authors noted that descriptions were no different on any measure including accuracy. It is suggested that less expertise in verbalizing faces rather than cars invokes a stronger shift in verbal and featural processing. This supports the concept of a transfer inappropriate retrieval framework and addresses some limitations of the effect. Wickham and Swift (2006) suggested that the verbal overshadowing effect is not seen in describing all faces, and one aspect that determines this is distinctiveness. Results showed that typical faces produce verbal overshadowing, while distinctive faces did not. In studies of eyewitness reports, variation in response criteria given by participants influenced the quality of the descriptions generated and accuracy on identification task, known as the retrieval-based effect. Face recognition was also impaired when subjects described a familiar face, such as a parent, or when describing a previously seen but novel face. Dodson, Johnson, and Schooler (1997) found that recognition was also impaired when participants were provided with a description of a previously seen face, and they were able to ignore provided versus self-generated descriptions more easily. This finding of verbal overshadowing suggested that eyewitness recognition is not only affected by their own descriptions, but of descriptions heard from others, such other eyewitness testimonies. == Voice recognition == The verbal overshadowing effect has also been found to affect voice identification. Research shows that describing a non-verbal stimuli leads to a decrease in recognition accuracy. In an unpublished study by Schooler, Fiore, Melcher, and Ambadar (1996), participants listened to a tape-recorded voice, after which they were asked either to verbally describe it or to not do so, and then asked to distinguish the voice from 3 similar distractor voices. The results showed that verbal overshadowing impaired accuracy of recognition based on gut feeling, suggesting an overall verbal overshadowing for voice recognition. Due to the forensic relevance of voices heard over the telephone and harassing phone calls that are often a problem for police, Perfect, Hunt, and Harris (2002) examined the influence of three factors on accuracy and confidence in voice recognition from a line-up. They expected to find an effect, because voice represents a class of stimuli that is difficult to describe verbally. This meets Schooler et al.'s (1997) modality mismatch criterion, meaning that describing the speakers age, gender, or accent is difficult, making voice recognition susceptible to the verbal overshadowing phenomenon. It was found that the method of memory encoding had no impact on performance, and that hearing a telephone voice reduced confidence but did not affect accuracy. They also found that providing a verbal description impaired accuracy but had no effect on confidence. The data showed an effect of verbal overshadowing in voice recognition and provided yet another disassociation between confidence and performance. Although there was a difference in confidence level, witnesses were able to identify voices over the telephone as accurately as voices heard direc

Universal IR Evaluation

In computer science, Universal IR Evaluation (information retrieval evaluation) aims to develop measures of database retrieval performance that shall be comparable across all information retrieval tasks. == Measures of "relevance" == IR (information retrieval) evaluation begins whenever a user submits a query (search term) to a database. If the user is able to determine the relevance of each document in the database (relevant or not relevant), then for each query, the complete set of documents is naturally divided into four distinct (mutually exclusive) subsets: relevant documents that are retrieved, not relevant documents that are retrieved, relevant documents that are not retrieved, and not relevant documents that are not retrieved. These four subsets (of documents) are denoted by the letters a, b, c, d respectively and are called Swets variables, named after their inventor. In addition to the Swets definitions, four relevance metrics have also been defined: Recall refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are retrieved (a/(a+b)), and Precision refers to the fraction of retrieved documents that are relevant (a/(a+c)). These are the most commonly used and well-known relevance metrics found in the IR evaluation literature. Two less commonly used metrics include the Fallout, i.e., the fraction of not relevant documents that are retrieved (b/(b+d)), and the Miss, which refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are not retrieved (c/(c+d)) during any given search. == Universal IR evaluation techniques == Universal IR evaluation addresses the mathematical possibilities and relationships among the four relevance metrics Precision, Recall, Fallout and Miss, denoted by P, R, F and M, respectively. One aspect of the problem involves finding a mathematical derivation of a complete set of universal IR evaluation points. The complete set of 16 points, each one a quadruple of the form (P, R, F, M), describes all the possible universal IR outcomes. For example, many of us have had the experience of querying a database and not retrieving any documents at all. In this case, the Precision would take on the undetermined form 0/0, the Recall and Fallout would both be zero, and the Miss would be any value greater than zero and less than one (assuming a mix of relevant and not relevant documents were in the database, none of which were retrieved). This universal IR evaluation point would thus be denoted by (0/0, 0, 0, M), which represents only one of the 16 possible universal IR outcomes. The mathematics of universal IR evaluation is a fairly new subject since the relevance metrics P, R, F, M were not analyzed collectively until recently (within the past decade). A lot of the theoretical groundwork has already been formulated, but new insights in this area await discovery.

Resel

In image analysis, a resel (from resolution element) represents the actual spatial resolution in an image or a volumetric dataset. The number of resels in the image may be lower or equal to the number of pixel/voxels in the image. In an actual image the resels can vary across the image and indeed the local resolution can be expressed as "resels per pixel" (or "resels per voxel"). In functional neuroimaging analysis, an estimate of the number of resels together with random field theory is used in statistical inference. Keith Worsley has proposed an estimate for the number of resels/roughness. The word "resel" is related to the words "pixel", "texel", and "voxel". Waldo R. Tobler is probably among the first to use the word.