Search results for: Rayleigh fading

Authors: Valentina Dolmova

Abstract:

What consumers choose to buy and who voters select on election days are two questions that have captivated the interest of both academics and practitioners for many decades. The importance of understanding what influences the behavior of those groups and whether or not we can predict or control it fuels a steady stream of research in a range of fields. By looking only at the past 40 years, more than 70 thousand scientific papers have been published in each field – consumer behavior and political psychology, respectively. From marketing, economics, and the science of persuasion to political and cognitive psychology - we have all remained heavily engaged. The ever-evolving technology, inevitable socio-cultural shifts, global economic conditions, and much more play an important role in choice-equations regardless of context. On one hand, this makes the research efforts always relevant and needed. On the other, the relatively low number of cross-field collaborations, which seem to be picking up only in more in recent years, makes the existing findings isolated into framed bubbles. By performing systematic research across both areas of psychology and building a parallel between theories and factors of influence, however, we find that there is not only a definitive common ground between the behaviors of consumers and voters but that we are moving towards a global model of choice. This means that the lines between contexts are fading which has a direct implication on what we should focus on when predicting or navigating buyers and voters’ behavior. Internal and external factors in four main categories determine the choices we make as consumers and as voters. Together, personal, psychological, social, and cultural create a holistic framework through which all stimuli in relation to a particular product or a political party get filtered. The analogy “consumer-voter” solidifies further. Leading academics suggest that this fundamental parallel is the key to managing successfully political and consumer brands alike. However, we distinguish additional four key stimuli that relate to those factor categories (1/ opportunity costs; 2/the memory of the past; 3/recognisable figures/faces and 4/conflict) arguing that the level of expertise a person has determines the prevalence of factors or specific stimuli. Our efforts take into account global trends such as the establishment of “celebrity politics” and the image of “ethically concerned consumer brands” which bridge the gap between contexts to an even greater extent. Scientists and practitioners are pushed to accept the transformative nature of both fields in social psychology. Existing blind spots as well as the limited number of research conducted outside the American and European societies open up space for more collaborative efforts in this highly demanding and lucrative field. A mixed method of research tests three main hypotheses, the first two of which are focused on the level of irrelevance of context when comparing voting or consumer behavior – both from the factors and stimuli lenses, the third on determining whether or not the level of expertise in any field skews the weight of what prism we are more likely to choose when evaluating options.

Keywords: buyers’ behaviour, decision-making, voters’ behaviour, social psychology

Procedia PDF Downloads 152

Authors: Banafsheh Nikmehr, Mohsen Bahrami, Yueqiang Song, Anuradha Koduru, Ayse K. Vuruskan, Hongkun Lu, Mallory Pitts, Tolga B. Mesen, Tamer M. Yalcinkaya

Abstract:

The number of people who receive in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment has increased on a startling trajectory over the past two decades. Despite advances in this field, particularly the introduction of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and the preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), the IVF success remains low. A major factor contributing to IVF failure is embryonic aneuploidy (abnormal chromosome content), which often results in miscarriage and birth defects. Although PGS is often used as the standard diagnostic tool to identify aneuploid embryos, it is an invasive approach that could affect the embryo development, and yet inaccessible to many patients due its high costs. As such, there is a clear need for a non-invasive cost-effective approach to identify euploid embryos for single embryo transfer (SET). The reported differences between morphokinetic behaviors of aneuploid and euploid embryos has shown promise to address this need. However, current literature is inconclusive and further research is urgently needed to translate current findings into clinical diagnostics. In this ongoing study, we found significant differences between morphokinetic behaviors of euploid and aneuploid embryos that provides important insights and reaffirms the promise of such behaviors for developing non-invasive methodologies. Methodology—A total of 242 embryos (euploid: 149, aneuploid: 93) from 74 patients who underwent IVF treatment in Carolinas Fertility Clinics in Winston-Salem, NC, were analyzed. All embryos were incubated in an EmbryoScope incubator. The patients were randomly selected from January 2019 to June 2021 with most patients having both euploid and aneuploid embryos. All embryos reached the blastocyst stage and had known PGS outcomes. The ploidy assessment was done by a third-party testing laboratory on day 5-7 embryo biopsies. The morphokinetic variables of each embryo were measured by the EmbryoViewer software (Uniesense FertiliTech) on time-lapse images using 7 focal depths. We compared the time to: pronuclei fading (tPNf), division to 2,3,…,9 cells (t2, t3,…,t9), start of embryo compaction (tSC), Morula formation (tM), start of blastocyst formation (tSC), blastocyst formation (tB), and blastocyst expansion (tEB), as well as intervals between them (e.g., c23 = t3 – t2). We used a mixed regression method for our statistical analyses to account for the correlation between multiple embryos per patient. Major Findings— The average age of the patients was 35.04 yrs. The average patient age associated with euploid and aneuploid embryos was not different (P = 0.6454). We found a significant difference in c45 = t5-t4 (P = 0.0298). Our results indicated this interval on average lasts significantly longer for aneuploid embryos - c45(aneuploid) = 11.93hr vs c45(euploid) = 7.97hr. In a separate analysis limited to embryos from the same patients (patients = 47, total embryos=200, euploid=112, aneuploid=88), we obtained the same results (P = 0.0316). The statistical power for this analysis exceeded 87%. No other variable was different between the two groups. Conclusion— Our results demonstrate the importance of morphokinetic variables as potential biomarkers that could aid in non-invasively characterizing euploid and aneuploid embryos. We seek to study a larger population of embryos and incorporate the embryo quality in future studies.

Keywords: IVF, embryo, euploidy, aneuploidy, morphokinteic

Procedia PDF Downloads 85