Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Vann, Roderick G L; Brunner, Jakob; Ellis, R; Taylor, Gary; Thomas, David Allden (2016)
Languages: English
Types: Article
The Synthetic Aperture Microwave Imaging (SAMI) system is a novel diagnostic consisting of an array of 8 independently-phased antennas. At any one time, SAMI operates at one of 16 frequencies in the range 10-34.5GHz. The imaging beam is steered in software post-shot to create a picture of the entire emission surface. In SAMI’s active probing mode of operation, the plasma edge is illuminated with a monochromatic source and SAMI reconstructs an image of the Doppler back-scattered (DBS) signal. By assuming that density fluctuations are extended along magnetic field lines, and knowing that the strongest back-scattered signals are directed perpendicular to the density fluctuations, SAMI’s 2-D DBS imaging capability can be used to measure the pitch of the edge magnetic field. In this paper we present preliminary pitch angle measurements obtained by SAMI on the Mega-Amp Spherical Tokamak (MAST) at Culham Centre for Fusion Energy and on the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The results demonstrate encouraging agreement between SAMI and other independent measurements.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ahrenholz, B., 2007. Verweise mit Demonstrativa Im Gesprochenen Deutsch. Grammatik, Zweitspracherwerb und Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Walter De Gruyter Inc., Berlin/New York.
    • Altmann, G.T.M., Kamide, Y., 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73 (3), 247--264.
    • Ariel, M., 2001. Accessibility theory: an overview. In: Sanders, T., Schilperoord, J., Spooren, W. (Eds.), Text Representation, Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 29--87.
    • Arnold, J.E., 2008. Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Lang. Cognit. Process. 23 (4), 495--527.
    • Arnold, J.E., Eisenband, J.G., Brown-Schmidt, S., Trueswell, J.C., 2000. The immediate use of gender information: eyetracking evidence of the time-course of pronoun resolution. Cognition 76, B13--B26.
    • Baayen, R.H., 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    • Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., Bates, D.M., 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J. Mem. Lang. 59, 390--412.
    • Badecker, W., Straub, K., 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit. 28 (4), 748--769.
    • Barddal, J., Eythorsson, T., Dewey, T.K., 2014. Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: a sign-based construction grammar account. Work. Pap. Scand. Syntax 93, 50--101.
    • Barr, D.J., 2008. Analyzing 'visual world' eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. J. Mem. Lang. 59, 457--474.
    • Bates, D.M., Sarkar, D., 2007. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes (version 0.999375-27) [Software Application]. Retrieved from: http://www.r-project.org
    • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., 2009. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3 (1), 19--58.
    • Bosch, P., Umbach, C., 2007. Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns. In: Paper presented at the Conference on Intersentential Pronominal Reference in Child and Adult Language.
    • Bosch, P., Rozario, T., Zhao, Y., 2003. Demonstrative Pronouns and Personal Pronouns. German der vs. er. Paper presented at the EACL2003, Budapest.
    • Bosch, P., Katz, G., Umbach, C., 2007. The non-subject bias of german demonstrative pronouns. In: Schwarz-Friesel, M., Consten, M., Knees, M. (Eds.), Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 145--164.
    • Bouma, G., Hopp, H., 2007. Coreference preferences for personal pronouns in German. ZAS Pap. Linguist. 48, 53--74.
    • Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D.K., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2005. Beyond salience: interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. J. Mem. Lang. 53, 292--313.
    • Burkhardt, P., 2005. The Syntax-Discourse Interface: Representing and Interpreting Dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
    • Burkhardt, P., 2007. Reference assignment in the absence of sufficient semantic content. In: Schwarz-Friesel, M., Consten, M., Knees, M. (Eds.), Anaphors in Text. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 241--258.
    • Chambers, C.G., Smyth, R., 1998. Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: a test of centering theory. J. Mem. Lang. 39 (4), 593--608.
    • Comrie, B., 1997. Pragmatic Binding: Demonstratives as Anaphors in Dutch. Paper presented at the The 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
    • Cooper, R.M., 1974. The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: a new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cogn. Psych. 6 (1), 84--107.
    • Cowles, H.W., Walenski, M., Kluender, R., 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphor resolution: topic, contrastive focus and pronouns. Topoi 26, 3--18.
    • Diessel, H., 1999. Demonstratives. Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
    • Dowty, D., 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (3), 547--619.
    • Ellert, M., 2011. Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution in L1 and L2 German and Dutch (PhD Thesis). Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
    • Fanselow, G., 2000. Optimal exceptions. In: Stiebels, B., Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Lexicon in Focus. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 173--209.
    • Ferreira, F., 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognit. Psychol. 47, 164--203.
    • Gelman, R., 2009. Learning in core and noncore domains. In: Tommasi, L., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L. (Eds.), Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Development Perspectives on Mind, Brain, and Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 247--260.
    • Gernsbacher, M.A., 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
    • Gernsbacher, M.A., Hargreaves, D.J., 1988. Accessing sentence participants: the advantage of first mention. J. Mem. Lang. 27, 699--717.
    • Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J., Gilliom, L.A., 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cogn. Sci. 17 (3), 311--347.
    • Grosz, B.J., Joshi, A.K., Weinstein, S., 1995. Centering: a framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Comput. Linguist. 21 (2), 203--225.
    • Gundel, J.K., 2003. Information structure and referential givenness/newness: how much belongs in the grammar. In: Proceedings of the HPSG'03 Conference, pp. 143--162.
    • Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N., Zacharski, R., 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Lang. Cognit. Process. 69, 274--307.
    • Haider, H., 1993. Deutsche Syntax, generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Narr, Tübingen.
    • Hinterwimmer, S., Bosch, P., 2016. Demonstrative pronouns and perspective. In: Patel-Grozs, P., Grosz, P. (Eds.), The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 189--220.
    • Järvikivi, J., Van Gompel, R.P.G., Hyönä, J., Bertram, R., 2005. Ambiguous pronoun resolution: contrasting the first-mention and subjectpreference accounts. Psychol. Sci. 16 (4), 260--264.
    • Järvikivi, J., Pyykkönen-Klauck, P., Schimke, S., Colonna, S., Hemforth, B., 2014. Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents. Lang. Cognit. Neurosci. 29 (6), 877--892.
    • Kaiser, E., 2010a. Effects of contrast on referential form: investigating the distinction between strong and weak pronouns. Discourse Process. 47 (6), 480--509.
    • Kaiser, E., 2010b. Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. Int. Rev. Pragmat. 2, 266--297.
    • Kaiser, E., Trueswell, J., 2004a. The Referential Properties of Dutch Pronouns and Demonstratives: Is Salience Enough?Paper presented at the Sinn und Bedeutung 8, FB Sprachwissenschaft, Konstanz, Germany.
    • Kaiser, E., Trueswell, J., 2004b. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94 (2), 113--147.
    • Kaiser, E., Trueswell, J., 2008. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Lang. Cognit. Process. 23 (5), 709--748.
    • Kaiser, E., Runner, J.T., Sussman, R.S., Tanenhaus, M.K., 2009. Structural and semantic constraints on the resolution of pronouns and reflexives. Cognition 112, 55--80.
    • Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., Elman, J.L., 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. J. Semant. 25, 1--44.
    • Kibrik, A.A., 1996. Anaphora in Russian narrative prose: a cognitive calculative account. Typol. Stud. Lang. 33, 255--304.
    • Klein, W., 2008. The topic situation. In: Ahrenholz, B., Bredel, U., Klein, W., Rost-Roth, M., Skiba, R. (Eds.), Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung. Beiträge aus Soziolinguistik, Gesprochene-Sprache- und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung. Festschrift für Norbert Dittmar zum 65. Geburtstag. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 287--305.
    • Krasavina, O., Chiarcos, C., 2007. Aspects of Topicality in the Use of Demonstrative Expressions in German and Russian. Paper presented at the 29th annual meeting of the Lingusitics Association of Germany, Siegen, Germany.
    • Lambrecht, K., 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
    • Leslie, A.M., 1995. A theory of agency. In: Sperber, D., Premack, D., Premack, A.J. (Eds.), Causal Cognition. A Multidisciplinary Debate. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 121--141.
    • Levinson, S.C., 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. J. Linguist. 27, 107--161.
    • Mak, W.M., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: the hikers that rocks crush. J. Mem. Lang. 54, 466--490.
    • Primus, B., 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles. Narr, Tübingen.
    • Pyykkönen, P., Järvikivi, J., 2010. Activation and persistence of implicit causality information in spoken language comprehension. Exp. Psychol. 57 (1), 5--16.
    • Schumacher, P.B., Backhaus, J., Dangl, M., 2015. Backward- and forward-looking potential of anaphors. Front. Psychol. 6, 1746.
    • Schumacher, P.B., Dangl, M., Uzun, E., 2016. Thematic role as prominence cue during pronoun resolution in German. In: Holler, A., Suckow, K. (Eds.), Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 121--147.
    • Stevenson, R., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., McDonald, S., 2000. Interpreting pronouns and connectives: Interactions among focusing, thematic roles and coherence relations. Lang. Cognit. Process. 15 (3), 225--262.
    • Strube, M., Hahn, U., 1999. Functional centering: grounding referential coherence in information structure. Comput. Linguist. 25 (3), 309--344.
    • Walker, M.A., Prince, E.F., 1995. A bilateral approach to givenness: a hearer-status algorithm and a Centering algorithm. In: Fretheim, T., Gundel, J.K. (Eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 291--306.
    • Wiemer, B., 1996. Die Personalpronomina er. vs. der. und ihre textsemantischen Funktionen. Deutsche Sprache 24, 71--91.
    • Wilson, F., 2009. Processing at the Syntax--Discourse Interface in Second Language Acquisition. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
    • Wunderlich, D., 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguist. Inq. 28, 27--68.
    • Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., Strecker, B., 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article