Bembo's technical production followed Monotype's standard method of the period. The characters were drawn on paper in large plan diagrams by the highly experienced drawing office team, led and trained by American engineer Frank Hinman Pierpont and Fritz Stelzer, both of whom Monotype had recruited from the German printing industry. The drawing staff who executed the design was disproportionately female and in many cases recruited from the local area and the nearby Reigate art school.[52] From these drawings, Benton-pantographs were used to machine metal punches to stamp matrices.[53] It was Monotype's standard practice at the time to first engrave a limited number of characters and print proofs from them to test overall balance of colour on the page, before completing the remaining characters.[53]
creo practice drawings pdf 401
Monotype's original, early digitisation of Bembo was widely seen as unsuccessful.[127][128] Two main problems have been cited with it: being digitised from drawings, it was much lighter in type colour than the original metal type which gained weight through ink spread, much reduced on modern printing equipment.[129] In addition, the digital Bembo was based on the 9 pt metal drawings, creating a font with different proportions to the metal type in the point sizes at which Bembo was most often used in books; Sebastian Carter has pointed particularly to the 'M' being drawn too wide.[113][130][88] This made the proportions of the digital font appear wrong, failing to match the subtlety of the metal type and phototypesetting release, which was released in three different optical sizes for different print sizes.[110][131][132][133][l][135] Future Monotype executive Akira Kobayashi commented that the original digitisation was "a kind of compromise ... the types that were originally designed for hot-metal often looked too light and feeble ... Bembo Book is more or less what I expected."[134]
A growing number of scientific studies in the field of Contemplative Neuroscience (Thompson, 2009) are reporting accurate descriptions of mental and somatic effects elicited by meditation. The large number of published studies has led to the need of reviews and meta-analyses with the aim of eliminating possible confounding factors, stemming from the heterogeneity of the investigated meditative techniques, differences among experimental designs across studies, and from the overuse of subjective assessments in meditative effects' evaluation. The purpose of these scientific efforts is threefold: (i) building a shared and standardized taxonomy of meditation techniques (Lutz et al., 2007; Ospina et al., 2007; Nash and Newberg, 2013; Van Dam et al., 2018); (ii) identifying psychophysiological correlates of meditation and of meditation-related practices (Sperduti et al., 2012; Fox et al., 2014; Boccia et al., 2015; Lomas et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015; Gotink et al., 2016); (iii) assessing the effectiveness of meditative techniques as treatments in different preclinical and clinical conditions (Ospina et al., 2007; Chiesa et al., 2011; Creswell, 2017).
Returning on meditative practices, the main issue in unveiling the basic mechanisms underlying their effects is to disentangle those related to breathing control from those associated with non-respiratory cognitive components such as focused attention and mental imagery.
At the same time, slow breathing techniques are necessarily driven by brain top-down processes stemming from the voluntary shift of attention toward breath monitoring aiming at the active control of breathing rhythm. The nature of these top-down processes could be inferred from the model developed by Gard et al. (2014) for yoga, which, while being a more complex discipline involving physical and mental practices, shares some notable commonalities with slow breathing techniques. Gard's model hypothesizes that yoga may involve top-down components such as attention, working memory, and executive monitoring. Brain networks associated with these functions are the central executive network, including both the dorsolateral prefrontal and the posterior parietal cortices (Goulden et al., 2014), and the fronto-parietal network, including the dorsolateral prefrontal and the anterior cingulate cortices, the inferior frontal junction, the pre-supplementary motor area, and the intraparietal sulcus (Seeley et al., 2007; Vincent et al., 2008; Harding et al., 2015). Taylor et al. (2010) in a review about mind-body therapies (i.e., techniques focusing on functional links between mind and body) such as slow breathing techniques, suggested the existence of an executive homeostatic network as a fundamental substrate of these practices. This network includes the anterior cingulate, the prefrontal and the insular cortices, areas involved in physiological self-awareness and cognitive modulation. This hypothesis is partially supported by Critchley et al. (2015) and Yu et al. (2011), who found BOLD activations in the anterior prefrontal, motor, supplementary motor and parietal cortices during slow breathing techniques.
The goal of this course is to introduce participants to the basics of using expressions in Tacton CPQ. It focuses on explaining what expressions are, why we use them and where as well as some best practices and where to find more information. (1 day) 2ff7e9595c
Comments