Search results

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

The transcript is of one from a number of interviews with disaster risk reduction (DRR) “pioneers” carried out in 2022 as a part of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project to record the history of the field. It aims to enable one of the “pioneers” to explain his role in the emergence of disaster studies and provide critical commentary on what he considers is wrong with current DRR approaches.

Terry Cannon was interviewed to explain the beginnings of his involvement in disasters research and to comment on his views on progress in the field of disaster risk reduction since his early work in the 1980s. The transcript and video were developed in the context of the UNDRR project on the history of DRR.

The interview provides an account of the origins of the book “At Risk” and why it was considered necessary. This is put into the context of how the field of DRR has emerged since the 1980s. It elicits opinions on what he considers the gaps in both his early work (especially in the book “At Risk” of which he was a co-author) and in the field of DRR recently.

It provides historical context on how early disaster research developed the alternative framework of “social construction” of disasters, in opposition to the idea that they are “natural”. It challenges some of the approaches that have emerged as DRR and has been institutionalised, including its increasing difficulty in supporting the ideas of social construction.

The interview documents early days in the field of disaster risk reduction.

The transcript and video were developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the History of DRR.

The transcript presents important developments during the 1980s with valuable lessons about risk reduction.

It takes the readers on a history of the journey of DRR over three decades.

The aim of this study is to investigate subject independent emotion recognition capabilities of EEG and peripheral physiological signals namely: electroocoulogram (EOG), electromyography (EMG), electrodermal activity (EDA), temperature, plethysmograph and respiration. The experiments are conducted on both modalities independently and in combination. This study arranges the physiological signals in order based on the prediction accuracy obtained on test data using time and frequency domain features.

DEAP dataset is used in this experiment. Time and frequency domain features of EEG and physiological signals are extracted, followed by correlation-based feature selection. Classifiers namely – Naïve Bayes, logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, logit boost and stacking are trained on the selected features. Based on the performance of the classifiers on the test set, the best modality for each dimension of emotion is identified.

 The experimental results with EEG as one modality and all physiological signals as another modality indicate that EEG signals are better at arousal prediction compared to physiological signals by 7.18%, while physiological signals are better at valence prediction compared to EEG signals by 3.51%. The valence prediction accuracy of EOG is superior to zygomaticus electromyography (zEMG) and EDA by 1.75% at the cost of higher number of electrodes. This paper concludes that valence can be measured from the eyes (EOG) while arousal can be measured from the changes in blood volume (plethysmograph). The sorted order of physiological signals based on arousal prediction accuracy is plethysmograph, EOG (hEOG + vEOG), vEOG, hEOG, zEMG, tEMG, temperature, EMG (tEMG + zEMG), respiration, EDA, while based on valence prediction accuracy the sorted order is EOG (hEOG + vEOG), EDA, zEMG, hEOG, respiration, tEMG, vEOG, EMG (tEMG + zEMG), temperature and plethysmograph.

Many of the emotion recognition studies in literature are subject dependent and the limited subject independent emotion recognition studies in the literature report an average of leave one subject out (LOSO) validation result as accuracy. The work reported in this paper sets the baseline for subject independent emotion recognition using DEAP dataset by clearly specifying the subjects used in training and test set. In addition, this work specifies the cut-off score used to classify the scale as low or high in arousal and valence dimensions. Generally, statistical features are used for emotion recognition using physiological signals as a modality, whereas in this work, time and frequency domain features of physiological signals and EEG are used. This paper concludes that valence can be identified from EOG while arousal can be predicted from plethysmograph.