3 results
Do rods influence the hue of foveal stimuli?
- STEVEN L. BUCK, LAURA P. THOMAS, NICK HILLYER, ERIC M. SAMUELSON
-
- Journal:
- Visual Neuroscience / Volume 23 / Issue 3-4 / May 2006
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 September 2006, pp. 519-523
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
To understand the generality and mechanisms of previously reported rod hue biases, we examined whether they are present for small foveal stimuli by comparing the wavelengths of the three spectral unique hues under dark-adapted and flash-bleached conditions. Rod green bias (shift of unique yellow) and rod blue bias (shift of unique green) were found for some observers with 1°-diameter foveal stimuli, the size most likely to stimulate rods. Smaller stimuli (0.2° and 0.6° diameter), which were least likely to stimulate rods, produced no large or consistent differences between dark-adapted and bleached conditions. This suggests that rod hue biases result from the local stimulation of rods by light, not from remote suppression by dark-adapted, unstimulated rods, and not from bleaching light artifacts.
five - London: competitiveness, cohesion and the policy environment
- Edited by Martin Boddy, Michael Parkinson
-
- Book:
- City Matters
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 20 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 19 May 2004, pp 71-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
For its sheer scale, the wide array of service activities in which it possesses competitive advantage by both national and international standards, and for its cosmopolitanism and international connections, London clearly stands out among British cities. It is also, in simple terms that can too easily be lost sight of in an era of self-conscious globalisation, the national capital of the UK: economically, socially and culturally, as well as politically. As such, it plays a crucial role in the British urban system, with important implications, both complementary and competitive, for the way in which other city-regions can function and develop. Understanding how its role and performance are evolving in the new kind of intense internationally competitive economic environment that has been emerging over the past 20 years or so, has an importance that goes well beyond both the rather privileged areas of south east England, or what it has to show about the development of ‘global cities’.
The things which make London most distinct in a British context, however, namely its sheer scale and diversity, both physically and in population terms, also mean that an unusually wide cross-section of urban situations, environments and issues can be found (and observed) somewhere within its functional region. Often this is on a scale which makes them more visible, statistically and politically, than in smaller places. There are obvious exceptions in that London had little of the kind of heavy industries, whose demise has been so traumatic in many northern cities, and has benefited from the general strength of the southern regions since the 1920s. Comparison with Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester in particular among cities studied in this programme highlights ways in which these basic regional economic and structural facts matter. But equally, a London study can display rather clearly a number of processes which are underway in some parts of (or affecting some groups in) all city-regions, producing similar kinds of outcome and giving rise to what may be very similar policy issues.
The research reported here, like that of the Bristol, Liverpool–Manchester and Edinburgh–Glasgow teams (see Chapters Two to Four of this volume), was designed to be ‘integrative’, rather than to be focused on a specific theme or activity (as projects reported in the remaining chapters of this volume are).
thirteen - Does spatial concentration of disadvantage contribute to social exclusion?
-
- By Nick Buck, Ian Gordon
- Edited by Martin Boddy, Michael Parkinson
-
- Book:
- City Matters
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 20 January 2022
- Print publication:
- 19 May 2004, pp 237-254
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Background and objectives
People assume as a matter of common sense that place matters. Estate agents assert that location is the prime attribute of a house in determining its price. Government policy and resources are targeted to particular areas on the basis that concentrating resources in this way will have the greatest pay-off. However, when it comes to considering the influence of space and place on the life chances of individuals, it is much less clear precisely why space should matter, or for what outcomes it is particularly important. It is far from clear how much spatial variations actually matter for outcomes, for example, compared with personal characteristics.
The aim of the research discussed in this chapter was to explore whether it is possible to identify negative effects on individual life chances from living in ‘disadvantaged neighbourhoods’ (that is, places with a concentration of people facing some form of social or economic disadvantage). It disentangles some of the possible meanings behind a policy goal such as that of the Social Exclusion Unit’s National strategy action plan for neighbourhood renewal, that “within ten to twenty years, no-one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live” (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001, p 5). The research aimed to test the widespread assumption that the substantial variation in individual and family disadvantage that exists between small areas, implied that area characteristics themselves had causal effects. In other words, it tests whether an individual with given characteristics would suffer worse outcomes living in a disadvantaged area than if they lived in a better area.
There is no question that there is substantial spatial variation in social and economic disadvantage at the individual and household level, and in social exclusion, however that is measured. However, this is what we expect from the operation of the housing market, which will tend to segregate people at least by their capacity to afford different types of housing. Poor people will tend to be concentrated in areas of cheaper, poorer quality housing. What we are interested in is whether this sorting, or compositional difference between areas, generates additional effects. Does living in a deprived area have an additional detrimental effect on people’s life chances?