Branched-Chain Amino Acid Database Integrated in MEDIPAD Software as a Tool for Nutritional Investigation of Mediterranean Populations

Branched-chained amino acids (BCAA) are essential dietary components for humans and can act as potential biomarkers for diabetes development. To efficiently estimate dietary intake, we developed a BCAA database for 1331 food items found in the French Centre d'Information sur la Qualité des Aliments (CIQUAL) food table by compiling BCAA content from international tables, published measurements, or by food similarity as well as by calculating 267 items from Greek, Turkish, Romanian, and Moroccan mixed dishes. The database embedded in MEDIPAD software capable of registering 24 h of dietary recalls (24HDR) with clinical and genetic data was evaluated based on archived 24HDR of the Saint Pierre Institute (France) from 2957 subjects, which indicated a BCAA content up to 4.2 g/100 g of food and differences among normal weight and obese subjects across BCAA quartiles. We also evaluated the database of 119 interviews of Romanians, Turkish and Albanians in Greece (27⁻65 years) during the MEDIGENE program, which indicated mean BCAA intake of 13.84 and 12.91 g/day in males and females, respectively, comparable to other studies. The MEDIPAD is user-friendly, multilingual, and secure software and with the BCAA database is suitable for conducting nutritional assessment in the Mediterranean area with particular facilities for food administration.

Repetition blindness: perception or memory failure?

Repetition blindness (RB) is the failure to report a repeated item when reporting all of the elements from a rapidly displayed sequence of visually presented items. N. Kanwisher (1987) has characterized RB as a perceptual problem. Experiments 1 and 4 manipulated the order of report of the repeated items. Experiments 2-4 employed tasks other than full report that should still have shown RB according to a perceptual hypothesis, but none was found. In Experiment 5, RB was found when one of the repetitions was spoken and the other was presented visually; this RB could be localized to retrieval processes. RB appears to reflect processes and strategies peculiar to full report from rapid displays rather than any fundamental perceptual limitation and might be the same as the Ranschburg effect found in immediate recall tasks.

Repetition blindness: perception or memory failure?

Repetition blindness (RB) is the failure to report a repeated item when reporting all of the elements from a rapidly displayed sequence of visually presented items. N. Kanwisher (1987) has characterized RB as a perceptual problem. Experiments 1 and 4 manipulated the order of report of the repeated items. Experiments 2-4 employed tasks other than full report that should still have shown RB according to a perceptual hypothesis, but none was found. In Experiment 5, RB was found when one of the repetitions was spoken and the other was presented visually; this RB could be localized to retrieval processes. RB appears to reflect processes and strategies peculiar to full report from rapid displays rather than any fundamental perceptual limitation and might be the same as the Ranschburg effect found in immediate recall tasks.

Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck

Experiments with two stimuli and two responses have revealed a central attentional bottleneck and pointed to response selection as its primary locus; however, little has been said about the underlying reasons for this bottleneck. Here we explore these reasons. In the first three experiments, Ss made two separate responses to different aspects of the same object. Interference between selection of the responses persisted, ruling out the possibility that the dual-task bottleneck is caused by the input to the response-selection mechanism being limited to one object at a time. The next four experiments examined what happens when two responses are made to the same attribute of a single object. These experiments show that only one response selection occurred. Hence, the central mechanism is not limited to picking one motor action at a time. Several possible theories about the nature of the bottleneck are discussed.

Making two responses to a single object: Implications for the central attentional bottleneck

Experiments with two stimuli and two responses have revealed a central attentional bottleneck and pointed to response selection as its primary locus; however, little has been said about the underlying reasons for this bottleneck. Here we explore these reasons. In the first three experiments, Ss made two separate responses to different aspects of the same object. Interference between selection of the responses persisted, ruling out the possibility that the dual-task bottleneck is caused by the input to the response-selection mechanism being limited to one object at a time. The next four experiments examined what happens when two responses are made to the same attribute of a single object. These experiments show that only one response selection occurred. Hence, the central mechanism is not limited to picking one motor action at a time. Several possible theories about the nature of the bottleneck are discussed.