Points of Resistance to Lectio Divina: An Anthropological Perspective

What is distinctive about lectio divina as a practice? What does it require of us, and for what purpose? This ethnographic response considers the relational character of lectio divina and examines the social context of reading as listening. As a way of bringing its characteristics into relief, I describe two ways in which we might find ourselves resisting this slow, prayerful reading. Firstly, the resistance of the body, as it struggles with the physiological challenge of slowing down the pace and recasting reading as an auditory process. Secondly, the resistance of the self, uncomfortable with having to cede control. Lectio divina sits in awkward tension with a world dependent on speed and grounded in individualism.

The Effect of Long-Term Unilateral Deafness on Auditory Performance

Background and Objectives We investigated whether there are differences in auditory performance between the healthy ears of subjects with unilateral deafness (UD) and the control ears of subjects with normal hearing (NH) in both ears.Subjects and Method Sixteen subjects with acquired UD and 16 subjects with NH thresholds for both ears were enrolled. We compared the auditory performance of UD group and control group with NH in both ears.Results We found no meaningful differences in the three measures of psychoacoustic performance between the total healthy ears of subjects with UD and the ears of the control group. However, in the subgroup comparison, the left ears of subjects with right UD showed significantly poorer spectral-ripple discrimination (SRD) than the right ears of the subjects with left UD (<i>p</i>=0.006) and the ears of control subjects with NH (<i>p</i>=0.004).Conclusion Our findings indicate that after unilateral auditory deprivation, auditory processing is differentially affected by the side involved. In the subjects with acquired UD, the longterm hearing deprivation on the right side induced the down-regulation of central auditory process for SRD, but hearing deprivation on the left side did not affect SRD.

Gross anatomy of the skull of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius)

Morphological studies were conducted on the skull of a hippopotamus brought to the Veterinary college for postmortem examination. Skull of the hippopotamus was huge and notable for its little brain case and high supra-orbital ridges. The skull had a larger splanchnocranium than the neurocranium. From the dorsal view, the skull had a watch glass appearance because of its narrow middle portion (at the region of maxillae) and wide caudal and rostral portions. Maxilla showed a large Eminenta canina and two infraorbital foramina leading to two separate infraorbital canals. The premaxilla lodged two huge incisors and just above the central incisor, there was a large rough eminence for the elevated nostrils. Three to four large rounded lacrimal bullae were seen on the floor of the bony orbit. Frontal bone presented a strongly convex smooth supra-orbital ridge that formed upper margin of the orbit which projected from the surface of the skull. The median sagittal crest was very high that diverged to accommodate the concave forehead in front. Temporal fossa was very extensive. Caudal surface of the skull showed a concave nuchal surface and the external occipital protuberance was in the form of a crest. The paramastoid process and external auditory process were very short. Bulla tympanica was conical with a pyramidal muscular process. Anatomical peculiarities of the skull and their functional significance are discussed.

A New View on the MMN and Attention Debate

The question of whether the mismatch negativity (MMN) is modulated by attention has been debated for over a decade. Although the MMN is widely regarded as reflecting a preattentive auditory process, many studies have shown attention effects on MMN. So, what does preattentive mean if attention can modulate the MMN? To understand the function of MMN in auditory processing, we need to shed new light on the “MMN and attention” debate. This review will discuss the apparent paradox that MMN can be modulated by attention and still be considered an attention-independent process, and provide a new framework for viewing the MMN system. The new model proposes that the principal factor governing MMN is the sound context. MMN generation relies on multiple processing mechanisms that are part of a larger system of auditory scene analysis.