Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Текст как средство интерактивного общения. Учебное пособие
.pdf
41
focused on earthquakes that were greater than or equal to a magnitude of 2.5 because
anything smaller than that is difficult to reliably record.
The team applied a statistical approach called the nearest neighbor method to
USGS earthquake data to determine whether recent earthquakes were likely to be
aftershocks or unrelated background seismic activity. Aftershocks occur close to the
original quake's epicenter and before the level of background seismicity has resumed,
according to the USGS. Thus, scientists can use a region's background seismicity and
an earthquake's location to link a quake back to a mainshock.
"You use the time, distance and the magnitude of event pairs, and try to find
the link between two events -- that's the idea," Chen said. "If the distance between a
pair of earthquakes is closer than expected from background events, then one
earthquake is likely the aftershock of the other."
Susan Hough, a geophysicist with the USGS who was not involved in the
study, mentions that the distance between epicenters is only one piece of the puzzle.
"In some respects, the earthquakes look like aftershocks if you look at the
spatial distribution, but earthquakes could be tightly clustered for a couple of
reasons," Hough said. "One is that they're aftershocks, but also you could have a
process of creep going on that's not part of an aftershock process. Exactly what their
results mean is still open to question."
Looking at the spatial distribution, the study found that the 1663 aftershock
sequence near southeastern Quebec, Canada, has ended and modern seismicity in the
area is unrelated to the old quake. However, the other two historic events may still be
triggering aftershocks centuries later.
Near the Missouri-Kentucky border, the researchers found that around 30% of
all earthquakes from 1980 to 2016 were likely aftershocks from the major
earthquakes that struck the area between 1811 and 1812. And in Charleston, South
Carolina, the team found around 16% of modern-day quakes were likely aftershocks
from the earthquake of 1886. Thus, modern seismicity in these regions is likely
attributable to both aftershocks and background seismicity.
"It's kind of a mixture," Chen said.
For assessing a region's modern seismic risk, scientists monitor creep and
background seismicity in addition to any aftershocks. The study found background
seismicity to be the dominant cause of earthquakes in all three of the study regions,
which could be a sign of continued strain accrual. Aftershock sequences weaken over
time, but strain accrual can lead to larger earthquakes in the future. However, some
faults can creep along without building up strain.
"To come up with a hazard assessment for the future, we really need to
understand what happened 150 or 200 years ago," Hough said. "So bringing modern
methods to bear on the problem is important."
1. Text Comprehension
1.1 Answer the following questions:
42
1. How long can aftershocks shake the area after the original earthquake
occurred?
2. Why can aftershocks impede recovery from the original earthquake?
3. What can be caused by the foreshocks?
4. Why is it important to identify the cause of modern earthquakes?
5. What was the reason that the scientists focused earthquakes that were greater
than or equal to a magnitude of 2.5?
6. What is the nearest neighbor method?
7. What do the scientists use to link a quake back to a mainshock?
8. What happens if the distance between a pair of earthquakes is closer than
expected from background events?
1.2 Find the information in the text connected with these numbers
1. From 1980 to 2016
2. 6.5 – 8.0
3. From 1811 to 1812
4. The 1800s
5. 155-mile
6. A magnitude of 2.5
7. 1886
8. 16%
9. 150 or 200 years ago
10. 1663
2. Vocabulary Comprehension
2.1 Match the English words with their Russian equivalents:
Earthquake
Пространственное распределение
Statistical approach
Испытывать
Aftershock sequence
Понять, разобраться в чем-либо
Continental interior
Распознавать, разглядеть
43
To impede
Последовательность афтершоков
Spatial distribution
Землетрясение
To discern
Статистический метод
Hazard assessment
Приостанавливать, задерживать
To experience
Континентальная часть суши
To figure out
Оценка опасностей
Fill in the sentences with the above-mentioned words and word combinations;
translate the sentences:
1. The team first needed to determine which modern quakes to focus their efforts
on …………… if some of today's earthquakes are long-lived aftershocks.
2. The scientists have to understand the past events to come up with
…………………… for the future.
3. The central and eastern United States may ………….. aftershocks from the
strongest earthquakes in the 1800s.
4. The stable …………… of North America is located far from plate boundaries.
5. The aftershocks being smaller in magnitude than the main shock can…………
recovery from the original earthquake.
6. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there's no way to distinguish
foreshocks from background seismicity until a larger earthquake strikes, but
scientists can still …………. aftershocks.
7. In some respects, the earthquakes look like aftershocks if you look at the
……………………, but earthquakes could be tightly clustered for a couple of
reasons.
8. The aftershocks could also be foreshocks that precede larger ………………. or
background seismicity, which is the normal amount of seismic activity for a
given region.
44
9. The study found that the 1663 ………….. near southeastern Quebec, Canada,
has ended and modern seismicity in the area is unrelated to the old quake.
10. The team applied a …………. called the nearest neighbor method to USGS
earthquake data to determine whether recent earthquakes were likely to be
aftershocks or unrelated background seismic activity.
2.2 Translate the following sentences into English:
1. Команда исследователей применила статистический метод для
определения сейсмической активности.
2. Для оценки сейсмических рисков ученые следят за сейсмической
активностью после каждого афтершока.
3. Пространственное распределение показало, что после землетрясения
последовало 1567 афтершоков.
4. Указано, что расстояние между эпицентрами является лишь одной частью
загадки.
5. Континентальная часть суши расположена далеко от границ.
6. Группа ученых сосредоточила свое внимание на трех исторических
землетрясениях амплитудой от 6,5 до 8,0.
7. Исследование было опубликовано в журнале по геофизике.
8. Центральные штаты Америки до сих пор испытывают афтершоки после
землетрясений прошлых лет.
3. Grammar Comprehension
3.1 Identify Active and Passive Voice in the following sentences:
1. These smaller quakes decrease over time and are part of the fault's
readjustment process following the original quake.
2. The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
3. They can still damage infrastructure and impede recovery from the original
earthquake.
4. The central and eastern United States may still be experiencing aftershocks
from those events.
5. Regions near these historic earthquakes' epicenters are still seismically active
today.
6. The team focused on three historic earthquake events estimated to range from
magnitude 6.5-8.0.
7. The stable continental interior of North America is located far from plate
boundaries and has less tectonic activity than regions close to plate boundaries.
8. Geophysicist with the USGS who was not involved in the study, mentions that
the distance between epicenters is only one piece of the puzzle.
45
3.2 Ask the questions to the following sentences, using the question word
given in brackets:
1. These smaller quakes decrease over time and are part of the fault's
readjustment process following the original quake. (what)
2. The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.(where)
3. They can still damage infrastructure and impede recovery from the original
earthquake.(what)
4. The central and eastern United States may still be experiencing aftershocks
from those events.(when)
5. Regions near these historic earthquakes' epicenters are still seismically active
today. (when)
6. The team focused on three historic earthquake events estimated to range from
magnitude 6.5-8.0.(what)
7. The stable continental interior of North America is located far from plate
boundaries and has less tectonic activity than regions close to plate
boundaries.(where)
8. Geophysicist with the USGS who was not involved in the study, mentions that
the distance between epicenters is only one piece of the puzzle.(who)
4. Discussion Part
4.1 Identify the main idea in the following paragraphs:
When an earthquake strikes, smaller quakes known as aftershocks can continue
to shake the area for days to years after the original earthquake occurred. These
smaller quakes decrease over time and are part of the fault's readjustment process
following the original quake. While aftershocks are smaller in magnitude than the
main shock, they can still damage infrastructure and impede recovery from the
original earthquake.
Regions near these historic earthquakes' epicenters are still seismically active
today, so it's possible that some modern earthquakes could be long-lived aftershocks
of past quakes. However, they could also be foreshocks that precede larger
earthquakes or background seismicity, which is the normal amount of seismic activity
for a given region.
The stable continental interior of North America is located far from plate
boundaries and has less tectonic activity than regions close to plate boundaries, such
as North America's west coast. As a result, the three study areas don't encounter
earthquakes often, raising even more questions about the origins of their modern
seismicity.
46
The team applied a statistical approach called the nearest neighbor method to
USGS earthquake data to determine whether recent earthquakes were likely to be
aftershocks or unrelated background seismic activity. Aftershocks occur close to the
original quake's epicenter and before the level of background seismicity has resumed,
according to the USGS. Thus, scientists can use a region's background seismicity and
an earthquake's location to link a quake back to a mainshock.
For assessing a region's modern seismic risk, scientists monitor creep and
background seismicity in addition to any aftershocks. The study found background
seismicity to be the dominant cause of earthquakes in all three of the study regions,
which could be a sign of continued strain accrual. Aftershock sequences weaken over
time, but strain accrual can lead to larger earthquakes in the future. However, some
faults can creep along without building up strain.
4.2 Put the following sentences into the correct order according to the text:
- The team applied a statistical approach called the nearest neighbor method to
USGS earthquake data to determine whether recent earthquakes were likely to
be aftershocks or unrelated background seismic activity.
- According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there's no way to distinguish
foreshocks from background seismicity until a larger earthquake strikes, but
scientists can still discern aftershocks.
- When an earthquake strikes, smaller quakes known as aftershocks can continue
to shake the area for days to years after the original earthquake occurred.
- As a result, the three study areas don't encounter earthquakes often, raising
even more questions about the origins of their modern seismicity.
- Looking at the spatial distribution, the study found that the 1663 aftershock
sequence near southeastern Quebec, Canada.
- To figure out if some of today's earthquakes are long-lived aftershocks, the
team first needed to determine which modern quakes to focus their efforts on.
- Aftershocks cluster around the original earthquake's epicenter, so they included
earthquakes within a 250-kilometer (155-mile) radius of the historic epicenters.
- Aftershock sequences weaken over time, but strain accrual can lead to larger
earthquakes in the future. However, some faults can creep along without
building up strain.
47
Unit 8
Comment on the title of the text before you start reading
When we see what others do, our brain sees not what we see, but what we
expect
When we engage in social interactions, like shaking hands or having a
conversation, our observation of other people's actions is crucial. But what exactly
happens in our brain during this process: how do the different brain regions talk to
each other? Researchers at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience provide an
intriguing answer: our perception of what others do depends more on what we expect
to happen than previously believed.
For some time, researchers have been trying to understand how our brains
process other people's actions. It is known, for example, that watching someone
perform an action activates similar brain areas compared to when we perform that
action ourselves. People assumed these brain regions become activated in a particular
order: seeing what others do first activates visual brain regions, then later, parietal
and premotor regions we normally use to perform similar actions. Scientists thought
that this flow of information, from our eyes to our own actions, is what makes us
understand what others do. This belief is based on measurements of brain activity in
humans and monkeys while they watched simple actions, such as picking up a knife,
presented in isolation in the lab. In reality, actions don't usually happen in isolation,
out of the blue: they follow a predictable sequence with an end-goal in mind, like
making breakfast. How does our brain deal with this?
Chaoyi Qin, Frederic Michon and their colleagues, led by Christian Keysers
and Valeria Gazzola provide us with an intriguing answer: if we observe actions in
such meaningful sequences, our brains increasingly ignore what comes into our eyes,
and depend more on predictions of what should happen next, derived from our own
motor system. "What we would do next, becomes what our brain sees," summarizes
Christian Keysers, a senior author of the study and director of the social brain lab in
the institute. To arrive at that counterintuitive conclusion, the team, in collaboration
with the Jichi Medical University in Japan, had the unique opportunity to measure
brain activity directly from the brain of epilepsy patients who participated in
intracranial eeg-research for medical purposes. Such an examination involves
measuring the brain's electrical activity using electrodes that are not on the skull, but
under it.
Unique opportunity
The advantage of this technique is that it is the only technique that allows to
directly measure the electrical activity the brain uses to work. Clinically, it is used as
a final step for medication-resistant epilepsy patients, as it can determine the exact
source of epilepsy. But while the medical team waits for epileptic seizures to occur,
these patients have a period in which they have to stay in their hospital bed and have
48
nothing to do but wait -- researchers used this period as an opportunity to peak into
the working of the brain with unprecedented temporal and spatial accuracy.
During the experiment, participants performed a simple task: they watched a
video in which someone performed various daily actions, such as preparing breakfast
or folding a shirt. During that time, their electrical brain activity could be measures
through the implanted electrodes across the brain regions involved in action
observation to examine how they talk to each other. Two different conditions were
tested, resulting in differing brain activity while watching. In one, the video was
shown -- as we would normally see the action unfold every morning -- in its natural
sequence: you see someone pick a bread-roll, then a knife, then cut open the roll, then
scoop some butter etc.; in the other, these individual acts were re-shuffled into a
random order. People saw the exact same actions in the two conditions, but only in
the natural order, can their brain utilize its knowledge of how it would butter a breadroll to predict what action comes next.
Different flow of information
Using sophisticated analyses in collaboration with Pascal Fries of the Ernst
Strüngmann Institute (ESI) in Germany, what the team could reveal is that when
participants viewed the reshuffled, unpredictable sequence, the brain indeed had an
information flow going from visual brain regions, thought to describe what the eye is
seeing, to parietal and premotor regions, that also controls our own actions -- just as
the classical model predicted. But when participants could view the natural
sequences, the activity changed dramatically. "Now, information was actually
flowing from the premotor regions, that know how we prepare breakfast ourselves,
down to the parietal cortex, and suppressed activity in the visual cortex," explains
Valeria Gazzola. "It is as if they stopped to see with their eyes, and started to see
what they would have done themselves."
Their finding is part of wider realization in the neuroscience community, that
our brain does not simply react to what comes in through our senses. Instead, we have
a predictive brain, that permanently predicts what comes next. The expected sensory
input is then suppressed. We see the world from the inside out, rather than from the
outside in. Of course, if what we see violates our expectations, the expectation-driven
suppression fails, and we become aware of what we actually see rather than what we
expected to see.
1. Text Comprehension
1.1 Answer the following questions:
1. What does our perception of what others say depend on?
2. What does watching of other action activate?
3. What does the measurement on brain activity in humans and monkeys show?
4. What is the essence of intracranial eeg-research?
5. What task did the participants perform during the experiment?
6. How can the electrical brain activity be measured?
49
7. What happened when the participants viewed the reshuffled, unpredictable
sequence?
8. What happened when the participants viewed the natural sequences?
1.2 Decide if the following sentences True/False:
1. Watching someone perform an action activates quite different brain areas
compared to when we perform that action ourselves.
2. Scientists thought that this flow of information, from our eyes to our brain, is
what makes us understand what others do.
3. Actions sometimes happen in isolation.
4. Our brain depends more on predictions of what should happen next.
5. The prediction of our brain are derived from our vascular system.
6. During the experiment, participants performed a complicated task.
7. The participants were shown two different conditions.
8. When participants could view the natural sequences, the activity totally
changed.
2. Vocabulary Comprehension
2.1 Fill in the sentences with an appropriate word:
Sequence, technique, information, brain, examination, senses, order,
experiment
1. People assumed these ………. regions become activated in a particular order.
2. Scientists thought that this flow of ………………, from our eyes to our brain,
is what makes us understand what others do.
3. The advantage of this ………… is that it is the only technique that allows to
directly measure the electrical activity the brain uses to work.
4. The ……………….. involves measuring the brain's electrical activity using
electrodes that are not on the skull, but under it.
5. During the ………………, participants performed a simple task: they watched
a video in which someone performed various daily actions.
6. People saw the exact same actions in the two conditions, but only in the natural
…………...
7. When participants viewed the reshuffled, unpredictable ………, the brain
indeed had an information flow going from visual brain regions.
8. Our brain does not simply react to what comes in through our …………...
2.2 Translate the following word combinations into Russian:
1. Electrical brain activity
2. Sophisticated analyses
50
3. Neuroscience community
4. Expectation-driven suppression
5. Suppressed activity
6. Intriguing answer
7. Medication-resistant epilepsy patients
8. Intracranial eeg-research
9. Counterintuitive conclusion
10. Unprecedented spatial accuracy
Find the sentences in the text containing these word combinations and translate them.
3. Grammar Comprehension
3.1 Define the tense and Voice in the following sentences:
1. For some time, researchers have been trying to understand how our brains
process other people's actions.
2. This belief is based on measurements of brain activity in humans and monkeys
while they watched simple actions.
3. It is used as a final step for medication-resistant epilepsy patients.
4. The information was actually flowing from the premotor regions.
5. People saw the exact same actions in the two conditions.
6. In reality, actions don't usually happen in isolation.
7. If what we see violates our expectations, the expectation-driven suppression
fails.
8. During that time, their electrical brain activity could be measured through the
implanted electrodes.
3.2 Define the Participle I or Gerund having the same suffix – ing in the
underlined words:
1. When we engage in social interactions, like shaking hands or having a
conversation, our observation of other people's actions is crucial.
2. Watching someone perform an action activates similar brain areas compared to
when we perform that action ourselves.
3. They watched simple actions, such as picking up a knife, presented in isolation
in the lab.
4. The examination involves measuring the brain's electrical activity using
electrodes that are not on the skull, but under it.
5. Researchers used this period as an opportunity to peak into the working of the
brain with unprecedented temporal and spatial accuracy.
6. They watched a video in which someone performed various daily actions, such
as preparing breakfast or folding a shirt.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]