Adam Tauman Kalai is an American computer scientist who specializes in artificial intelligence and works at OpenAI. == Education and career == Kalai graduated from Harvard University in 1996 with a BA in computer science and received a MA and PhD, both in computer science, from Carnegie Mellon University in 1999 and 2001, respectively. His doctoral advisor was Avrim Blum. After graduation, Kalai did his postdoctoral research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under Santosh Vempala until 2003. Kalai became a faculty member at the Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago from 2003 to 2006, followed by a stint as an assistant professor at Georgia Institute of Technology from 2007 to 2008. He joined Microsoft Research in 2008 and subsequently moved to OpenAI in 2023. == Contributions == Kalai is known for his algorithm for generating random factored numbers (see Bach's algorithm), for co-inventing the cooperative-competitive value (coco value), for efficiently learning learning mixtures of Gaussians, for the Blum-Kalai-Wasserman algorithm for learning parity with noise, and for the intractability of the folk theorem in game theory. More recently, Kalai is known for identifying and reducing gender bias in word embeddings, which are a representation of words commonly used in AI systems. In 2026, he coauthored a Nature paper on hallucinations in large language models. == Personal life == Kalai is the son of game theorist Ehud Kalai and is married to cryptographer Yael Tauman Kalai.
Loebner Prize
The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt
Blackmagic Design
Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd is an Australian company that develops digital cinema technology and manufactures professional video production hardware and software. Headquartered in South Melbourne, it is known for producing high-end digital movie cameras and a range of broadcast and post-production equipment. The company also develops software applications, including the DaVinci Resolve application for non-linear video editing, color correction, color grading, visual effects, and audio post-production. == History == Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd was founded on 7 September 2001 by Grant Petty. Its first product, DeckLink, introduced in 2002, was a video capture card for macOS that supported uncompressed 10-bit video, marking a shift toward professional-grade yet affordable video workflows. Subsequent versions—including the DeckLink 2, Pro SDI, HD Plus, and Multibridge—added capabilities such as color correction, Windows support, and compatibility with major editing software like Adobe Premiere Pro, to broaden the product's appeal. At the 2012 NAB Show, Blackmagic announced its first Cinema Camera, a digital movie camera. Blackmagic made several acquisitions over the next decade. In 2009, it acquired da Vinci Systems, known for its color-grading tools. In 2010, it acquired Echolab's ATEM switcher line, in 2014, it added eyeon Software (developer of the Blackmagic Fusion compositing software) and London's Cintel (film scanning and restoration), and in 2016, it acquired Fairlight, an audio technology company known for its CMI synthesizers as well as mixing consoles. == Products == List of all products developed by the company. Editing, Color Correction and Audio Post Production DaVinci Resolve (free version) and DaVinci Resolve Studio (paid version), computer software for non-linear video editing, color correction, color grading, visual effects, and audio post-production. Audio/Video Controller Consoles: Editor Keyboard, Speed Editor, DaVinci Resolve Replay Editor, Micro Panel, Mini Panel, DaVinci Resolve Micro Color Panel, Advanced Panel, Fairlight Console Channel Fader, Fairlight Console Channel Control, Fairlight Console LCD Monitor, Fairlight Console Audio Editor, Fairlight Desktop Audio Editor, Fairlight Desktop Console, Fairlight Audio Interface Cintel Film Scanner (Generations 1-3) Live Production Home Streaming: ATEM Mini, ATEM Mini Pro/ISO, ATEM Mini Extreme, ATEM Mini Extreme ISO (The ATEM Mini series has both HDMI and SDI variants) Production Switchers: ATEM 1,2 & 4 M/E Constellation HD, ATEM 1,2 & 4 M/E Constellation 4K, ATEM Constellation 8K, ATEM 1,2 & 4 M/E Production Studio 4K, ATEM Television Studio HD8 & HD8 ISO Switcher & Camera Controllers: ATEM Camera Control Panel, ATEM 1 M/E Advanced Panel, ATEM 2 M/E Advanced Panel, ATEM 4 M/E Advanced Panel Chroma Keyers: Ultimatte 12 HD Mini, Ultimatte 12 HD, Ultimatte 12 4K, Ultimatte 12 8K Recording and Storage: HyperDeck Studio HD Mini, HyperDeck Studio HD Plus, HyperDeck Studio HD Plus, HyperDeck Studio 4K Pro, HyperDeck Extreme 8K HDR, HyperDeck Extreme 4K HDR, HyperDeck Extreme Control, HyperDeck Shuttle HD, Duplicator 4K, MultiDock 10G, Video Assist 7" 12G HDR, Video Assist 5" 12G HDR Capture and Playback UltraStudio: 3G, HD Mini, 4K Mini, 4K Extreme 3 DeckLink (PCIe cards): Mini Recorder, Mini Monitor, Mini Monitor 4K, Mini Recorder 4K, Duo 2 Mini, Duo 2, Quad 2, SDI 4K, Studio 4K, 4K Extreme 12G, 8K Pro, Quad HDMI Recorder Network Storage Cloud Store Cloud Pod Broadcast Converters Micro Converter: BiDirectional SDI/HDMI 3G wPSU, HDMI to SDI 3G wPSU, SDI to HDMI 3G wPSU, BiDirectional SDI/HDMI 3G, HDMI to SDI 3G, SDI to HDMI 3G Mini Converters: Audio to SDI, Optical Fiber 12G, SDI Multiplex 4K, Quad SDI to HDMI 4K, SDI Distribution 4K, SDI to Analog 4K, Audio to SDI 4K, SDI to Audio 4K, HDMI to SDI 6G, SDI to HDMI 6G Teranex Mini: SDI Distribution 12G, SDI to HDMI 12G, Audio to SDI 12G, SDI to Analog 12G, SDI to HDMI 8K HDR, SDI to DisplayPort 8K HDR 2110 IP Converters Routing and Distribution Videohub
Automated storage and retrieval system
An automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS or AS/RS) consists of a variety of computer-controlled systems for automatically placing and retrieving loads from defined storage locations. Automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) are typically used in applications where: There is a very high volume of loads being moved into and out of storage Storage density is important because of space constraints No value is added in this process (no processing, only storage and transport) Accuracy is critical because of potential expensive damages to the load An AS/RS can be used with standard loads as well as nonstandard loads, meaning that each standard load can fit in a uniformly-sized volume; for example, the film canisters in the image of the Defense Visual Information Center are each stored as part of the contents of the uniformly sized metal boxes, which are shown in the image. Standard loads simplify the handling of a request of an item. In addition, audits of the accuracy of the inventory of contents can be restricted to the contents of an individual metal box, rather than undergoing a top-to-bottom search of the entire facility, for a single item. They can also be used in self storage places. == Overview == AS/RS systems are designed for automated storage and retrieval of parts and items in manufacturing, distribution, retail, wholesale and institutions. They first originated in the 1960s, initially focusing on heavy pallet loads but with the evolution of the technology the handled loads have become smaller. The systems operate under computerized control, maintaining an inventory of stored items. Retrieval of items is accomplished by specifying the item type and quantity to be retrieved. The computer determines where in the storage area the item can be retrieved from and schedules the retrieval. It directs the proper automated storage and retrieval machine (SRM) to the location where the item is stored and directs the machine to deposit the item at a location where it is to be picked up. A system of conveyors and or automated guided vehicles is sometimes part of the AS/RS system. These take loads into and out of the storage area and move them to the manufacturing floor or loading docks. To store items, the pallet or tray is placed at an input station for the system, the information for inventory is entered into a computer terminal and the AS/RS system moves the load to the storage area, determines a suitable location for the item, and stores the load. As items are stored into or retrieved from the racks, the computer updates its inventory accordingly. The benefits of an AS/RS system include reduced labor for transporting items into and out of inventory, reduced inventory levels, more accurate tracking of inventory, and space savings. Items are often stored more densely than in systems where items are stored and retrieved manually. Within the storage, items can be placed on trays or hang from bars, which are attached to chains/drives in order to move up and down. The equipment required for an AS/RS include a storage & retrieval machine (SRM) that is used for rapid storage and retrieval of material. SRMs are used to move loads vertically or horizontally, and can also move laterally to place objects in the correct storage location. The trend towards Just In Time production often requires sub-pallet level availability of production inputs, and AS/RS is a much faster way of organizing the storage of smaller items next to production lines. The Material Handling Institute of America (MHIA), the non-profit trade association for the material handling world, and its members have categorised AS/RS into two primary segments: Fixed Aisle and Carousels/Vertical Lift Modules (VLMs). Both sets of technologies provide automated storage and retrieval for parts and items, but use different technologies. Each technology has its unique set of benefits and disadvantages. Fixed Aisle systems are characteristically larger systems whereas carousels and Vertical Lift Modules are used individually or grouped, but in small to medium-sized applications. A fixed-aisle AS/R machine (stacker crane) is one of two main designs: single-masted or double masted. Most are supported on a track and ceiling guided at the top by guide rails or channels to ensure accurate vertical alignment, although some are suspended from the ceiling. The 'shuttles' that make up the system travel between fixed storage shelves to deposit or retrieve a requested load (ranging from a single book in a library system to a several ton pallet of goods in a warehouse system). The entire unit moves horizontally within an aisle, while the shuttles are able to elevate up to the necessary height to reach the load, and can extend and retract to store or retrieve loads that are several positions deep in the shelving. A semi-automated system can be achieved by utilizing only specialized shuttles within an existing rack system. Another AS/RS technology is known as shuttle technology. In this technology the horizontal movement is made by independent shuttles each operating on one level of the rack while a lift at a fixed position within the rack is responsible for the vertical movement. By using two separate machines for these two axes the shuttle technology is able to provide higher throughput rates than stacker cranes. Storage and Retrieval Machines pick up or drop off loads to the rest of the supporting transportation system at specific stations, where inbound and outbound loads are precisely positioned for proper handling. In addition, there are several types of Automated Storage & Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) devices called Unit-load AS/RS, Mini-load AS/RS, Mid-Load AS/RS, Vertical Lift Modules (VLMs), Horizontal Carousels and Vertical Carousels. These systems are used either as stand-alone units or in integrated workstations called pods or systems. These units are usually integrated with various types of pick to light systems and use either a microprocessor controller for basic usage or inventory management software. These systems are ideal for increasing space utilization up to 90%, productivity levels by 90%, accuracy to 99.9%+ levels and throughput up to 750 lines per hour/per operator or more depending on the configuration of the system. == Horizontal carousels == Robotic Inserter/Extractor devices can be used for horizontal carousels. The robotic device is positioned in the front or rear of up to three horizontal carousels tiered high. The robot grabs the tote required in the order and often replenishes at the same time to speed up throughput. The tote(s) are then delivered to a conveyor, which routes it to a work station for picking or replenishing. Up to eight transactions per minute per unit can be done. Totes or containers up to 36" x 36" x 36" can be used in a system. On a simplistic level, horizontal carousels are also often used as "rotating shelving". With simple "fetch" command, items are brought to the operator and otherwise wasted space is eliminated. AS/RS Applications: Most applications of AS/RS technology have been associated with warehousing and distribution operations. An AS/RS can also be used to store raw materials and work in process in manufacturing. Three application areas can be distinguished for AS/RS: (1) Unit load storage and handling, (2) Order picking, and (3) Work in process storage. Unit load storage and retrieval applications are represented by unit load AS/RS and deep-lane storage systems. These kinds of applications are commonly found in warehousing for finishing goods in a distribution center, rarely in manufacturing. Deep-lane systems are used in the food industry. As described above, order picking involves retrieving materials in less than full unit load quantities. Minilpass, man-on board, and items retrieval systems are used for this second application area. Work in process storage is a more recent application of automated storage technology. While it is desirable to minimize the amount of work in process, WIP is unavoidable and must be effectively managed. Automated storage systems, either automated storage/retrieval systems or carousel systems, represent an efficient way to store materials between processing steps, particularly in batch and job shop production. In high production, work in process is often carried between operations by conveyor system, which this serve both storage and transport functions. === Inventory Category-specific AS/RS === Each inventory category—raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods—requires its own specialized Automated Storage and Retrieval System (AS/RS). Particularly for work-in-process (WIP) inventories, due to variations in manufacturing processes, the AS/RS systems are significantly different in design and function, tailored specifically to match unique handling, storage, and retrieval requirements === Installed applications === Installed applications of this technology can be wide-ranging. In some librarie
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
Texture artist
A texture artist is an individual who develops textures for digital media, usually for video games, movies, web sites and television shows or things like 3D posters. These textures can be in the form of 2D or (rarely) 3D art that may be overlaid onto a polygon mesh to create a realistic 3D model. Texture artists often take advantage of web sites for the purposes of marketing their art and self-promotion of their skills with the goal of gaining employment from a professional game studio or to join a team working on a "mod" (modification) of an existing game in hopes of establishing industry or trade credentials.
HTK Limited
HTK Limited is a software-as-a-service company that provides mobile phone messaging and IVR services. Founded in 1996, HTK is headquartered in Ipswich, Suffolk, UK. HTK provide mass notification services. Specifically, the "Police Direct" messaging service to Suffolk and Norfolk Constabularies. In 2010 the HTK Horizon SaaS platform was selected by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) for their Floodline Warnings Direct service. == History == HTK was founded in 1996 by Marlon Bowser and Adrian Gregory and from the outset focused on what has now become commonly known as Software-as-a-Service. in 2004, according to the Deloitte Fast 50 (UK), HTK was the 17th fastest growing company in the East of England. In 2005 The Times listed HTK 65th nationally and 4th in the East of England in the Sunday Times & Microsoft "Tech Track 100" awards. In 2009 the company was approved as a supplier to UK Government under a new framework agreement. In 2010 HTK launched version 2.2 of its Horizon platform, with a feature set that signals a shift from mass notification into the customer service automation market.