Concordia University

About: Concordia University is a education organization based out in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Control theory & Population. The organization has 13565 authors who have published 31084 publications receiving 783525 citations. The organization is also known as: Sir George Williams University & Loyola College, Montreal.

A fast parallel algorithm for thinning digital patterns

Abstract: A fast parallel thinning algorithm is proposed in this paper It consists of two subiterations: one aimed at deleting the south-east boundary points and the north-west corner points while the other one is aimed at deleting the north-west boundary points and the south-east corner points End points and pixel connectivity are preserved Each pattern is thinned down to a skeleton of unitary thickness Experimental results show that this method is very effective 12 references

Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products

Abstract: Concerns related to the environment are evident in the increasingly ecologically conscious marketplace. Using various statistical analyses, investigats the demographic, psychological and behavioral profiles of consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Finds that this segment of consumers were more likely to be females, married and with at least one child living at home. They reported that today’s ecological problems are severe, that corporations do not act responsibly toward the environment and that behaving in an ecologically favorable fashion is important and not inconvenient. They place a high importance on security and warm relationships with others, and they often consider ecological issues when making a purchase. Managerial implications for green marketers and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Brain dopamine and reward.

Abstract: While the evidence is strong that dopamine plays some fundamental and special role in the rewarding effects of brain stimulation, psychomotor stimulants, opiates, and food, the exact nature of that role is not clear. One thing is clear: Dopamine is not the only reward transmitter, and dopaminergic neurons are not the final common path for all rewards. Dopamine antagonists and lesions of the dopamine systems appear to spare the rewarding effects of nucleus accumbens and frontal cortex brain stimulation (Simon et al 1979) and certainly spare the rewarding effects of apomorphine (Roberts & Vickers 1988). It is clear that reward circuitry is multisynaptic, and since dopamine cells do not send axons to each other or receive axons from each other, dopamine can at best serve as but a single link in this circuitry. If dopamine is not a final common path for all rewards, could it be an intermediate common path for most rewards? Some workers have argued against such a view, but at present they must do so on incomplete evidence. For example, Phillips (1984) has argued that there must be multiple reward systems, functionally independent and organized in parallel with one another. His primary evidence, however, is the fact that brain stimulation is rewarding at different levels of the nervous system. As we have seen in the case of midline mesencephalic stimulation, the location of the electrode tip in relation to the dopamine cells and fibers tells us little about the role of dopamine in brain stimulation reward. It seems clear that the ventral tegmental dopamine system plays a critical role in midline mesencephalic reward, despite the distance from the electrode tip to the dopamine cells where morphine causes its dopamine-dependent facilitory effects or to the dopamine terminals where low-dose neuroleptics presumably cause theirs. Until pharmacological challenge has been extended to the cases discussed by Phillips, we can only speculate as to the role of dopamine in each of those cases. In the cases where pharmacological challenge has been examined, only nucleus accumbens and frontal cortex have been found to have dopamine-independent reward sites. It is not consistent with the dopamine hypothesis that dopamine-independent reward sites should exist in these areas, since any reward signals carried to nucleus accumbens or frontal cortex by dopamine fibers would-unless we are to believe that reward "happens" at these sites-have to be carried to the next stage of the circuit by nondopaminergic fibers (there are no dopaminergic cell bodies in any of the dopamine terminal areas).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)