The police in Belonia have arrested two people, including a former CPI(M) activist who had switched over to the BJP, in connection with the demolition of a statue of Vladimir Lenin on Monday. Based on video evidence, three others have been sent notice to appear before the police by Friday. Belonia, about 90km from State capital Agartala, is the headquarters of South Tripura district bordering Bangladesh.Video footageThe arrests on Wednesday came amid revelation that one of five people seen in the video footage pulling down the Lenin statue with bulldozer had taken the lead in demolishing a statue of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi – also in Belonia.This man, Manik Das, is a contractor who left Tripura during the 1988-1993 Congress rule and returned after the Left Front won the 1993 polls to allegedly terrorise Congress workers.“Manik Das is one of three people we have summoned under Section 41 of CrPC. The others are Suman Mazumdar, owner of the bulldozer and one Uttam Saha. They are expected to report within 48 hours,” Ipper Monchak, West Tripura district Superintendent of Police, told The Hindu.“We have already arrested the bulldozer driver and Raju Nath on basis of evidence gathered,” he said.
Praja Rajyam Party chief K Chiranjeevi on Thursday said he strongly desired to merge his party with Congress in the temple town of Tirupati where he launched his party two years ago. The actor-turned politician said he had floated his party on August 26, 2008 on a grand scale and on the same magnitude he would like to merge the PRP with Congress. However, Chiranjeevi said that he left the final decision to the Congress High command on the venue of the merger. The PRP has now 18 legislators in the 294 member Andhra Pradesh Assembly.- With PTI inputs For more news on India, click here.For more news on Business, click here.For more news on Movies, click here.For more news on Sports, click here.
The Indiana Pacers held on to Game 5 by a fingernail clipping, defeating the Miami Heat 93-90 and forcing the NBA’s Eastern Conference finals back to Miami for a Game 6. After the Pacers’ Game 4 loss, spearheaded by potent small-ball lineups from the Heat, the onus was on Indiana to make an adjustment. Indiana coach Frank Vogel’s adjustment was mostly to refuse to adjust: He didn’t do anything new; he just did more of what’s been working.This is the third consecutive year that the Pacers and Heat have met in the playoffs, and — although Lance Stephenson has taken over for Danny Granger the past two seasons for Indiana — a consistent pattern has emerged: Indiana’s starters can more than hold their own against the Heat, but things rapidly fall apart when the Pacers go to their bench.Indiana Pacers’ Point Differential vs. Miami HeatIn Game 5, Vogel essentially eliminated Rasual Butler and Ian Mahinmi from the Pacers’ rotation, instead playing his starters for 31 minutes. As a group, that’s the most minutes they’ve played in this series, and it’s more minutes than they played in Games 3 and 4 combined.The point differential numbers in the table above shows how even a few extra minutes from the Pacers’ starters can make a huge difference. To put those per 100 possession numbers in context, the San Antonio Spurs led the NBA this season with a per 100 possession point differential of +8.1. The worst mark in the league, belonging to the Philadelphia 76ers, was -10.7.There were extenuating circumstances last night. The Pacers’ Paul George poured in 31 second-half points, many of which came on difficult shots. According to the NBA’s SportVU Player Tracking Box Score, he made 10 of 18 contested shots in Game 5, or 55.6 percent. He had made just 32 percent of his contested shots in the series over the first four games. The Heat’s LeBron James also picked up five fouls in just over 23 minutes, about five times his normal foul rate. He sat for almost the entire second and third quarters, and the Pacers’ starters were just even with the Heat while he was on the floor.The Pacers’ starters aren’t going to outplay the Heat in every stint on the floor or overwhelm every small lineup Miami coach Erik Spoelstra dreams up. But Indiana’s starting five is orders of magnitude more effective than any other lineup the Pacers have.
Electrophysiological Evidence for Top-Down Lexical Influences on Early Speech PerceptionLaura M. Getz and Joseph C. Toscano How does information about the meaning of words influence speech perception? Getz and Toscano investigated whether feedback from lexical activation affects listeners’ initial representation of the sound of a word. Participants saw a written word, followed by an auditory target word, and they had to decide which sound the auditory target started with (e.g., /p/, /b/). During this task, participants’ electroencephalographic (EEG) data were collected. When the auditory target (e.g., “potatoes”) was associated with the written word (e.g., “MASHED”), participants were faster at identifying the sound than when the written word had a neutral association (e.g., “FACE”) or when it was a nonword (e.g., “XXXX”). EEG data revealed that the amplitude of N1, a negative potential in the waveform that indexes early acoustic-cue encoding, was smaller when the written word was associated with the target than when it was neutral or a nonword. In another experiment, the word presented before the target changed how ambiguous targets were perceived (e.g., in “park,” the ambiguous first sound /p/ or /b/ was processed more like /p/ when it was preceded by “AMUSEMENT” than it was when preceded by “TEDDY”), as indicated by the N1 amplitude. These results provide evidence for an interactive model of adults’ spoken-word recognition, in which semantic and lexical activation play a role in the early processing of word sounds. Read about the latest research published in Psychological Science: Where Does Time Go When You Blink?Shany Grossman, Chen Gueta, Slav Pesin, Rafael Malach, and Ayelet N. Landau When humans blink, they lose brief moments of vision, yet they rarely notice these gaps. But could blinks change time perception? This research suggests that when humans spontaneously blink, they underestimate time passing. While eye movements were recorded by an eye tracker, participants either saw a white disc or heard a white noise during an interval of time between 0.6 and 2.8 s, and they estimated whether the duration had been closer to the short interval (0.6 s) or to the long interval (2.8 s). To increase the probability of blinks occurring during the task, the researchers first asked participants to perform a visual task in which they saw colored squares and had to decide how may red squares they had seen. In the main task, when a blink occurred during the estimated time interval, participants’ time estimates were reduced when the interval was filled by visual information (the white disc) but not when it was filled by auditory information (the white noise). Moreover, the size of their underestimate depended on the blink duration. These results suggest that (a) unconscious loss of visual input, via spontaneous blinks, may be related to a compression of subjective time and (b) one’s subjective sense of time might be informed by the ongoing processing of sensory information. Intentional Binding Without Intentional ActionKeisuke Suzuki, Peter Lush, Anil K. Seth, and Warrick Roseboom Experiencing agency over one’s actions and their consequences has been measured by intentional binding, which is the perceived compression of the time interval between an intentional action (e.g., pressing a button) and an outcome (e.g., an auditory tone). However, a person can also perceive time compression when perceiving a causal unintentional relationship between events (causal binding). To investigate whether intentional action or causal binding contributes to time-binding effects, Suzuki et al. used a virtual-reality task in which participants pressed a button, observed it being pressed by a virtual hand, or saw it pressing in on its own. When the button was pressed, it lit up and participants felt a vibration and then heard a sound. Participants were asked to estimate the time between the button being pressed and hearing the sound. The time estimates were shorter when participants pressed the button themselves or saw another hand pressing it. However, participants reported higher agency when they actively pressed the button than when they observed the hand doing it, indicating that the perception of time compression may not depend on agency but rather reflect causal binding. Therefore, future studies that relate binding effects to agency should provide evidence for effects beyond causal binding, Suzuki et al. suggest.