-
It's common knowledge that the woman in Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting seems to look back at observers, following them with her eyes no matter where they stand in the room. But this common knowledge turns out wrong.
A new study finds that the woman in the painting is actually looking out at an angle that's 15.4 degrees off to the observer's right—well outside of the range that people normally believe when they think someone is looking right at them. In other words, said the study author, Horstmann, ''She's not looking at you. '' This is somewhat ironic, because the entire phenomenon of a person's gaze (凝视) in a photograph or painting seeming to follow the viewer is called the ''Mona Lisa effect''. That effect is absolutely real, Horstmann said. If a person is illustrated or photographed looking straight ahead, even people viewing the portrait from an angle will feel they are being looked at. As long as the angle of the person’s gaze is no more than about 5 degrees off to either side, the Mona Lisa effect occurs.
Horstmann and his co-author were studying this effect for its application in the creation of artificial-intelligence avatars(虚拟头像) when Horstmann took a long look at the ''Mona Lisa'' and realized she wasn't looking at him. To make sure it wasn't just him, the researchers asked 24 people to view images of the ''Mona Lisa'' on a computer screen.
So why do people repeat the belief that her eyes seem to follow the viewer? Horstmann isn't sure. It's possible, he said, that people have the desire to be looked at, so they think the woman is looking straight at them. Or maybe the people who first coined the term ''Mona Lisa effect'' just thought it was a cool name.
1.What is generally believed about the woman in the painting ''Mona Lisa''?
A.She attracts the viewers to look back.
B.She seems mysterious because of her eyes.
C.She fixes her eyes on the back of the viewers.
D.She looks at the viewers wherever they stand.
2.What gaze range in a painting will cause the Mona Lisa effect?
A.
B.
C.
D.
3.Why was the experiment involving 24 people conducted?
A.To confirm Horstmann's belief.
B.To create artificial-intelligence avatars.
C.To calculate the angle of Mona Lisa's gaze.
D.To explain how the Mona Lisa effect can be applied.
4.What can we learn from the text?
A.Horstmann thinks it's cool to coin the term “Mona Lisa effect”.
B.The Mona Lisa effect contributes to the creation of artificial intelligence.
C.Feeling being gazed at by Mona Lisa may be caused by the desire for attention.
D.The position of the ruler in the experiment will influence the viewers' judgment.
-
It's common knowledge that the woman in Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting seems to look back at observers, following them with her eyes no matter where they stand in the room. But this common knowledge turns out wrong.
A new study finds that the woman in the painting is actually looking out at an angle that's 15.4 degrees off to the observer's right—well outside of the range that people normally believe when they think someone is looking right at them. In other words, said the study author, Horstmann, ''She's not looking at you. '' This is somewhat ironic, because the entire phenomenon of a person's gaze (凝视) in a photograph or painting seeming to follow the viewer is called the ''Mona Lisa effect''. That effect is absolutely real, Horstmann said. If a person is illustrated or photographed looking straight ahead, even people viewing the portrait from an angle will feel they are being looked at. As long as the angle of the person’s gaze is no more than about 5 degrees off to either side, the Mona Lisa effect occurs.
Horstmann and his co-author were studying this effect for its application in the creation of artificial-intelligence avatars(虚拟头像) when Horstmann took a long look at the ''Mona Lisa'' and realized she wasn't looking at him. To make sure it wasn't just him, the researchers asked 24 people to view images of the ''Mona Lisa'' on a computer screen.
So why do people repeat the belief that her eyes seem to follow the viewer? Horstmann isn't sure. It's possible, he said, that people have the desire to be looked at, so they think the woman is looking straight at them. Or maybe the people who first coined the term ''Mona Lisa effect'' just thought it was a cool name.
1.What is generally believed about the woman in the painting ''Mona Lisa''?
A.She attracts the viewers to look back.
B.She seems mysterious because of her eyes.
C.She fixes her eyes on the back of the viewers.
D.She looks at the viewers wherever they stand.
2.What gaze range in a painting will cause the Mona Lisa effect?
A.
B.
C.
D.
3.Why was the experiment involving 24 people conducted?
A.To confirm Horstmann's belief.
B.To create artificial-intelligence avatars.
C.To calculate the angle of Mona Lisa's gaze.
D.To explain how the Mona Lisa effect can be applied.
4.What can we learn from the text?
A.Horstmann thinks it's cool to coin the term “Mona Lisa effect”.
B.The Mona Lisa effect contributes to the creation of artificial intelligence.
C.Feeling being gazed at by Mona Lisa may be caused by the desire for attention.
D.The position of the ruler in the experiment will influence the viewers' judgment.
-
By now it's almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress and seems to motivate people to exercise more.
“So it'll come as surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good. There are dozens of papers showing that,” University of Exeter Medical School researcher Mathew P.White said.“We get this idea-patients are coning to us and they are asking, ‘Doctor, how long should I spend? ’And the doctor is saying,‘I don't really know.’”
So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey. And their answer? Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time in nature either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits were more likely to report good heath and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.
Remarkably, the two-hour standard applied to men and women, to older and younger folks, to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels, and so on. Even people with long-term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time spent in nature- as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week.
While the findings are based on a vast number of people, White cautions that it's rally just a correlation. Nobody knows why of how nature has this benefit, or even if the findings will stand up to more strict investigation.
“I want to be rally clear about this. This is in very early stages.We're not saying everybody has to do 120. This is really to start the conversation, saying, what would a threshold look like? What research do we need to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true confidence to work with their patients? But it's certainly a starting point.”
1.What does White want to figure out in the survey?
A.The benefits of being outside.
B.How long we should stay in nature.
C.The significance of outdoor activities.
D.Whether the British spend enough time in nature
2.What can we learn from the last two paragraphs?
A.The two-hour standard applies to everyone.
B.The reason why nature is beneficial is clear.
C.Further study is needed to confirm White's result.
D.The findings of White's survey have bee widely used.
3.What does underlined word“threshold”in the last paragraph mean?
A.Strict investigation. B.Following step.
C.Healthy lifestyle. D.Staring point.
4.What can be the best title for this text?
A.Nature and Health B.Two-hour Staying in Nature
C.Tips to Improve Health D.The Starting Point
-
By now it’s almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress, and seems to motivate people to exercise more. So it’ll come as no surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good, which has been known for thousands of years. There’s dozens of papers showing that.
University of Exeter Medical School researcher Mathew P. White said “We get this idea, patients are coming to us and they’re saying, ‘doctor, how long should I spend?’and the doctor is saying, I don’t really know.” So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey. And their answer? Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time-either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits-were more likely to report good health and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure. Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits.
So what’s so special about two hours? “ I have absolutely no idea. Really. We didn’t have an apriori（由因及果的）guess at what this would be. It emerged. And I’d be lying if I said we predicted this. I don’t know.” Even more noteworthy, the two-hour benchmark（基准）applied to men and women, to older and younger folks, to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels and so on. Even people with long-term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time spent in nature—as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week.
While the findings are based on a tremendous number of people, nobody knows why or how nature has this benefit. “I want to be really clear about this. This is very early stages. We’re not saying everybody has to do 120. What research do we need to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true confidence to work with their patients? But it’ s certainly a starting point,” White said.
1.What is the first paragraph mainly about?
A.The benefits of spending time in nature.
B.The research of spending time in nature.
C.The characteristics of spending time in nature.
D.The common knowledge of spending time in nature.
2.What can we infer about the result of White and his team’s survey?
A.The time spent in nature should be 2 hours a week all at once.
B.2 hours a week at least in nature is beneficial to whomever you are.
C.The time spent in nature should be 2 hours a week, no more, no less.
D.2 hours a week in nature is too long for people with long-term illnesses.
3.What does White expect of the findings?
A.They will be in early stage.
B.They will be based on many people.
C.They will help all people go out in nature.
D.They will be improved and further research will be done.
4.Where is this text most likely from?
A.A diary B.A guidebook
C.A magazine D.A novel
-
It’s common knowledge that some countries have higher life expectancies(预期寿命) than others, but the city you live in can also affect your health.
Some cities are hard on their residents. In places with poor city planning, for example Lagos, which was called out recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit, public spaces are few, making outdoor activities hard. Lack of infrastructure(基础建设) blocks the streets with cars and the air with pollutants, and residents work long hours for little money.
These are just some of the factors added up by Spotahome, a rental agency. They’ve analyzed data from a range of sources, including the World Health Organization and TripAdvisor to score each city on health, life expectancies, obesity, green space and other elements to make a list to work out which are the world’s healthiest cities.
The list is certainly Eurocentric and sunshine is seen as a positive factor. It does go some way toward suggesting which cities are getting it right in providing a good life for their residents. It may not be surprising to learn that most of the healthiest cities are in northern Europe, known for its people-first approach to city planning. The cities of Australia and Canada also do well. However, the first American city is only in 34th place. The U.K. doesn’t fare too well either—its only city in the top 50 list is London, in 40th.
Whether you’re planning a pleasant holiday, or simply wondering what your city can do better in its pursuit for happy citizens, the list of the 50 healthiest cities will give you pause for thought about the future of city planning. Here are the slender, healthy-eating, clean-aired cities that are getting it right.
1.What plays the key role in building a healthy city according to the text?
A.Local culture. B.City planning. C.Economic condition. D.Geographical position.
2.What does paragraph 3 mainly talk about?
A.How the list of the healthiest cities came into being.
B.What Spotahome discovered in the recent study.
C.The reasons why Spotahome carried out the study.
D.The places where the data of the study came from.
3.What can we learn from the text?
A.Cities in America lack enough sunshine.
B.The U. K. ranked higher than America in the list.
C.Australia and Canada have the best city planning.
D.Some people in Lagos may live a poor life.
-
It’s common knowledge that some countries have higher life expectancies than others, but the city you live in can also affect your health.
Some cities are hard on their residents. In places with poor city planning, for example Lagos, which was called out recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit, public spaces are few, making outdoor activities hard. Lack of infrastructure (基础建设) blocks the streets with cars and the air with pollutants, and residents work long hours for little money.
These are just some of the factors added up by Spotahome, a rental agency. They’ve analyzed data from a range of sources, including the World Health Organization, TripAdvisor and the CIA World Factbook to score each city on health, gym availability and quality, life expectancy, obesity, green space and other elements to make a list to work out which are the world’s healthiest cities.
The list is certainly Euro-centric and sunshine is seen as a positive factor. It does go some way towards suggesting which cities are getting it right in providing a good life for their residents. It may not be surprising to learn that most of the healthiest cities are in northern Europe, known for its people-first approach to city planning. The cities of Australia and Canada also do well. However, the first American city is only in 34th place. The UK doesn’t fare too well either-its only city in the top 50 list is London, in 40th.
Whether you’re planning a wholesome holiday, or simply wondering what your city can do better in its quest for happy citizens, the list of the 50 healthiest cities will give you pause for thought about the future of city planning. Here are the slender, healthy-eating, clean-aired cities that are getting it right.
1.What plays the key role in building a healthy city according to the text?
A. Local culture. B. City planning.
C. Economic condition. D. Geographical position.
2.What does paragraph 3 mainly talk about?
A. How the list of healthiest cities came into being.
B. What Spotahome discovered in the recent study.
C. The reasons why Spotahome carried out the study.
D. The places where the data of the study came from.
3.What can we learn from the text?
A. Cities in America lack enough sunshine.
B. The UK ranked higher than America in the list.
C. Australia and Canada have the best city planning.
D. Some people in Lagos may live a poor life.
4.What may be the best title for the text?
A. The best places to have a rich life
B. The happiest lifestyle in the world
C. The city factors affecting your health
D. The nice countries to keep healthy
-
It’s common knowledge that some countries have higher life expectancies than others, but the city you live in can also affect your health.
Some cities are hard on their residents. In places with poor city planning, for example Lagos, which was called out recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit, public spaces are few, making outdoor activities hard. Lack of infrastructure (基础建设) blocks the streets with cars and the air with pollutants, and residents work long hours for little money.
These are just some of the factors added up by Spotahome, a rental agency. They’ve analyzed data from a range of sources, including the World Health Organization, TripAdvisor and the CIA World Factbook to score each city on health, gym availability and quality, life expectancy, obesity, green space and other elements to make a list to work out which are the world’s healthiest cities.
The list is certainly Euro-centric and sunshine is seen as a positive factor. It does go some way towards suggesting which cities are getting it right in providing a good life for their residents. It may not be surprising to learn that most of the healthiest cities are in northern Europe, known for its people-first approach to city planning. The cities of Australia and Canada also do well. However, the first American city is only in 34th place. The UK doesn’t fare too well either-its only city in the top 50 list is London, in 40th.
Whether you’re planning a wholesome holiday, or simply wondering what your city can do better in its quest for happy citizens, the list of the 50 healthiest cities will give you pause for thought about the future of city planning. Here are the slender, healthy-eating, clean-aired cities that are getting it right.
1.What plays the key role in building a healthy city according to the text?
A. Local culture. B. City planning.
C. Economic condition. D. Geographical position.
2.What does paragraph 3 mainly talk about?
A. How the list of healthiest cities came into being.
B. What Spotahome discovered in the recent study.
C. The reasons why Spotahome carried out the study.
D. The places where the data of the study came from.
3.What can we learn from the text?
A. Cities in America lack enough sunshine.
B. The UK ranked higher than America in the list.
C. Australia and Canada have the best city planning.
D. Some people in Lagos may live a poor life.
4.What may be the best title for the text?
A. The best places to have a rich life
B. The happiest lifestyle in the world
C. The city factors affecting your health
D. The nice countries to keep healthy
-
阅读小面短文，在空白处填入1个适当的档次或括号内单词的正确形式。
By now it’s almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with 1.(many) trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors contributes to good health, with blood pressure and stress 2.(reduce), and seems to motivate people 3.(exercise) more.
A survey showed that people 4.spend 2 hours in nature — either all at once or totaled over several shorter 5.(visit) — were more likely to report good health and psychological well-being than those with no nature 6.(expose). Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits. The two-hour benchmark (临界值) 7.(apply) to men and women, to older and younger folks and so on. Even people8.long-term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time 9.(spend) in nature — as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week.
While the findings are based on 10.tremendous number of people, scientists caution that it’s really just a correlation. Nobody knows why or how nature has this benefit or even if the findings will stand up to stricter investigation.
-
What do Leonardo da Vincii, Marie Curie, and Albert Einstein have in common? They were all left-handed, along with other famous people including Brad Pitt Prince William, and Barack Obama. In fact, an estimated 13 percent of the world's population may be left-handed and still most people around the world are right-handed.
What makes a person become right-handed rather than left-handed? As yet no one really knows for sure. One simple idea suggests that people normally get right-handedness from their parents. Studies have found that two right-handed parents have only a 9.5 percent chance of having a left-handed child, whereas two left-handed parents have a 26 percent chance of having a left-handed child. Another common theory is that left-handed people suffer mild brain damage during birth, which makes them left-handed. However, if this theory were true, it would not explain why the percentage of left-banded people is so similar in every society, when birth conditions vary so much from society to society.
Whatever the reasons behind it, people's attitudes toward left-handedness have changed a lot over the years. Statistics show that although 13 percent of young people (10-20 years old) are left-handed, only 6 percent of the elderly are left-handed. Left-handed children used to be punished until they began using their right hand like other children, but today people who are left-handed are no longer looked down on nor are they considered abnormal. For most people today, either case is perfectly acceptable.
1.What makes one right-handed?
A. The environment.
B. Mild brain damage during birth.
C. The reason is uncertain.
D. Other people.
2.Why is the number of young people who are left-handed bigger than that of the elderly?
A. Because the elderly are forced to become right-handed.
B. Because left-handed people are considered abnormal.
C. Because left-handedness can be cured.
D. Because the young are easily damaged.
3.What does the text mainly talk about?
A. Left-handed people are looked down upon.
B. General facts about left-handed people.
C. Some famous left-handed people.
D. The reasons why people are left-handed.
-
It may be common knowledge that what British people call “football” is known as “soccer” in the US, and “colour” in British English(BrE) goes without the “u” in American English (AmE). But according to a chart made recently by website Grammar Check, these are far from being the only differences between the two countries’ use of English. The chart outlined 63 of the main contrasts between BrE and AmE, from the more well-known “lift/elevator” and “autumn/fall” to the lesser-known “garden/yard” and “petrol/gasoline”.
Some of the vocabulary mismatches are so different that two people in a conversation may fail to understand each other. For example，the two countries have different names for certain food. “ Biscuits “ and “sweets” in Britain are known as “cookies” and “candy” , respectively, in the US. But while getting food names mixed up only causes confusion, some misunderstandings may lead to embarrassment if you’re not careful. I f a British man in the US is asked to show up a party in “pants”, there’s a chance that he might get a lot of stares from other guests. “Pants” in the UK means underwear. “Trousers” are what you need to ask a British friend to wear if you don’t want them to cause a scene among your friends.
However, even if 63 is already a lot, there are still many differences that the chart failed to cover. If a US girl walks into a UK barber and says “I want to have my bangs fixed”, for example, it could take a while before the hairdresser realizes what she means is actually her “fringe”.
1.By presenting the first paragraph, the author mainly tell us .
A. the chart is made by Grammar Check
B. people are much more familiar with “lift/elevator”
C. BrE and AmE are different in spelling
D. There are many differences between BrE and AmE
2.If a British man is asked to join in a party in “pants”, he might .
A. get into an embarrassment
B. be attractive among his friends
C. be puzzled at others’ dresses
D. ask for a pair of trousers instead
3.Why is the example in the barber mentioned?
A. To confirm some examples are unknown.
B. To support the author's opinion on the topic.
C. To indicate the British are slow in understanding.
D. To show the hairdresser isn’t familiar with “bangs”.