The prose of Primeval and Other Times has a strangely sedating effect in reading. Quietly powerful, it is a talenot soon tobe forgotten. Virginia Parobek Lancaster, Ohio Usha K.R. Monkey-man. New Delhi. Penguin. 2010. 261 pages. Rs 299. isbn 978-0-143-06856-3 Emerging India is a clear motif in Usha ICR's new work, Monkey-man. The novel is set in January 2000 in contemporary Bangalore, the city thathas morphed from"pensioner's paradise" to the IT hub of India. Most of thenarrative is given over to the close inspection and detail of four principal characters: Shrinivas Moorthy, reader in history at the National Trust FirstGrade College; Miss Neela Mary Gopalrao, a thirty something executive assistant at the Centre for Socio Economic Studies (cses);Miss Pushpa Rani, a call cen ter employee; and Mr. Balaji Brah mendra, or "Bali Brums" to his fans, a hugely popular radio jockey of the city's brand-new FM Channel "Voic es from Heaven," to whom Neela listens (and sends e-mails) daily. They are all brought together in the closing scene (apart from Pushpa Rani, due to her father's ill health) as Bali Brums interviews them on air as the firstpeople to have seen the "monkey-man" in and around Ammanagudi Street. Curiously, the sightings of the monkey-man and the discussions of the sightings are a tiny compo nent of thisnovel overall. Usha K.R., throughhermarkedly various char acters, explores an India of thenand now. Shrinivas laments thepassing of the flour mill where his wife used to send the rice to be ground and mourns the arrival of thenew supermarket, andyet, Pushpa Rani fl^^H^^^^3B^^^^^^^^^H^H upwardly inthe H^^l^^l^al^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Bangalore, successfully her j^^^^^^HHEfl^^^^^^^^^^^^^l to abetter f?l^^^^^^K^^^^B^^^^^^^^^^U Usha K.R/s reminiscent ^b^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^^l Delhi's kala bandar (black monkey)Hl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^B 2001?reports H^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^fl^^H attacks around the city?and l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l^^^^l also the Bollywood hit movie ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Delhi (2009), in which the H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l monkey-man woven bI^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H together witha boy-loves-girl plot. E?^HHH^^HI^I^^^^^HI^^H Thefilm suggests the monkey-^^^^^H[^^^^^^^^HH^^^^^^Hfl man the people oftheHj^^^^^^^^lj[^^^^^^^^^H Delhi 6 community andthat B ^^H^^^^HH[^H^H^B^^H something be within,H^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^M and between, themselves. This etheBBH ^^H^^IH^^^^^^^^^I^^^I factoralsopicked upnear BgHH^SHHHj^^^B^^^^^H^^H the end Usha novel. The hI^^^I^^^HI^^^H^^^^^^^^^^I cassia tree roots pushing upAmmaH ^^I^^^^H^^^^H^^^^^^^^H nagudi areresponsible for h^^HH^^^H^^^HH^^^^^^^H up Neela then Pushpa Hji^^^^^^^^^^^l^^H^^I^^^^I Rani, followed shortly afterward by j^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^I Shrinivas's near crash on hisscooter;^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hfl^l^^^^^^lH each with the cassia tree ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^I isclosely followed byanencounter ^^^^^^^^^^^^^BeE^^^H^^^I with the monkey-man. PushpaRani HHj^^HHHH9j^^Hj^H trips inthe darkened street, andon HH^B^hGI!B!^^^^^^H^^^Hh looking up,shelooks straight into h^H^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^H^^h the eyes acreature; she knows i^^^^^HI^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^H the monkey-man. Sherushes home H^^^H^^^HH^^^^^^^^^^^^^H to find, asshe her fl^^l^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^li^^H father near after a H^^^^^^^^K^^^^^^^^^I^^^^I Monkey-man a further examwm ^^Ej^^^E^^^^^^^^^^^^??^M pie how from India^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H new Hh^^^I^^II^^^II^^h^^^^^^I through literary exploration ofthis 1H^^^^^^^H^^1^^^^^^ country. Sl^^lj^^^^^l^^^^^^^^^l^^^l Emma Dazvson h^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^I^^^^^I Keele hBH^h^^^^II^^^H^^^^^^^^^I ...
Monkey full movie hd download
DOWNLOAD: https://tinourl.com/2vJgiP
We examined social gaze patterns when dyads of monkeys explored the face of a conspecific and compared these results to picture and movie conditions. Interacting with a real partner evoked the strongest focal attention to the eyes and exclusively induced socially meaningful divergences in gaze dynamics. Our results indicate that certain aspects of social cognition may be exclusively engaged in interactive settings.
Dominance-induced differences in gaze dynamics after mutual eye contact. A: proportion of looking at the eyes after mutual eye contact in the live condition for dominant (green) vs. subordinate (orange) monkeys (mean SE). Horizontal marks indicate 10-ms bins with significant differences (P 0.05, paired t-tests). C: proportion of looking at the eyes after mutual eye contact in the picture and movie conditions for dominant vs. subordinate monkeys (mean SE). None of the 10-ms bins showed significance (P > 0.05, paired t-tests). D: significance level of dominance-induced differences in looking at the eyes as the size of the eye region of interest (ROI) was progressively increased. Values indicate the maximum difference between dominant and subordinate monkeys after mutual eye contact subtracted by the P
Gaze dynamics across the picture, movie, and live conditions. A: raster plots of fixations to the eyes of a conspecific from a single session for 2 female monkeys in the live condition. Red marks show points of mutual eye contact (vertical lines) and their durations (lengths of the bar extending from the vertical lines) between the 2 monkeys. Green and orange marks denote the times and durations of looking at the eyes of the partner for each monkey. The sums of fixations to the eyes for the given session are shown on right. B: proportion of looking back to the eye region after mutual eye contact in the live condition averaged over all sessions in a given day for the same pair shown in A. The dominant (green) and subordinate (orange) animal in the pair are labeled appropriately. C: heat maps showing the amount of fixations to various regions of the face after mutual eye contact in the live condition; overlaid on an example monkey face. Fixations are plotted based on their normalized frequency. D: mean (SE) proportion of eye contact after mutual eye contact in the picture, movie, and live conditions averaged over all monkeys.
Experimental design. A: setups for live, picture, and movie conditions. In all cases, monkeys were calibrated to a screen in front of the plane of interest. Monkeys looked at a real conspecific, a picture of the same conspecific, or a movie of the conspecific. B: schematics of the food-grabbing and controlled-confrontation tests used to determine dominance. More vs. less familiar monkeys were identified based on sharing a cage within the same colony (right).
For dominance analyses, we grouped animals based on whether they were dominant or subordinate in a given same-sex pair (4 unique pairs, 4 subordinate perspectives, 4 dominant perspectives, a total of 48 sessions). In the live condition, dominant monkeys over time reoriented their attention back to the eyes more frequently than subordinate monkeys after mutual eye contact at various time points throughout the 3-s window (Fig. 3A; both P 0.05, paired t-tests and permutation test), indicating that the dominance-induced differences in gaze dynamics were evoked by mutual eye contact and manifested over various time points after this event. Notably, we did not observe such differences due to mutual eye contact in the picture and movie conditions, perhaps because of the absence of true behavioral contingency (Fig. 3C; all P > 0.05, paired t-tests and permutation tests). To more rigorously determine the level of specificity of the dominance effects on gaze dynamics to the eye region, we progressively increased the size of the eye region when defining whether or not animals looked back at the conspecific's eyes while keeping the size constant for defining instances of mutual eye contact. The dominance-driven differences were highly sensitive to the size of the eye region, as differences were lost at middling eye region sizes (Fig. 3D; P
Familiarity-induced differences in gaze dynamics after mutual eye contact. A: proportion of looking at the eyes after mutual eye contact in the live condition for more (blue) vs. less (purple) familiar monkeys (mean SE). Same format as Fig. 3. B: proportion of looking at the eyes after nonmutual eye contact in the live condition for more vs. less familiar monkeys. C: proportion of looking at the eyes after mutual eye contact in the picture and movie conditions for more vs. less familiar monkeys (mean SE). No time points showed significance in B and C (P > 0.05, paired t-tests). D: significance level of familiarity-induced differences in looking at the eyes as the size of the eye region of interest is progressively increased. Values indicate the maximum difference between more vs. less familiar monkeys after mutual eye contact subtracted by the P
Live condition is associated with the strongest focal attention to the eyes. A: heat maps showing the average and normalized fixation locations on the conspecific's face of all monkeys in the 3 conditions; overlaid on an example monkey face. B: differences in proportion of fixations to the eyes normalized by dividing with total fixations to the entire face, dispersion of fixations around the eyes as measured by the 2-dimensional distance from the eye region of interest, and average duration of fixations to the eye region of interest (right) for the picture, movie, and live conditions (mean SE). C: raw fixation counts to the eyes, face, and any location (right) for the picture, movie, and live conditions (mean SE). *P 2ff7e9595c
댓글