Quantum computation, with tools including Grover's algorithm, quantum walks, and quantum teleportation, plays an important role in quantum signature designs. Although such designs offer signature functionality, they sometimes come at the cost of security. This paper first reviews a Grover-based scheme and shows how man-in-the-middle attacks enable complete key recovery, Alice's disavowal, and Bob's forgery. We then propose an arbitrated quantum signature scheme based on quantum teleportation and a strengthened quantum one-time pad. The scheme is designed for quantum messages with known classical descriptions, not for arbitrary unknown quantum states. The security of the proposed scheme is analyzed through a formal adversarial model for unforgeability and non-repudiation, and its resilience against replay, intercept-and-resend, man-in-the-middle, entanglement, and collective or coherent attacks is examined. Numerical simulations and an asymptotic resource analysis further illustrate the practicality of the scheme.

Global political declarations play a growing role in shaping health priorities, yet the diplomatic processes through which they are negotiated remain poorly understood across much of the health community. The 4th United Nations High-Level Meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and its political declaration provide a revealing illustration of how global health diplomacy operates under contemporary political constraint. Oral diseases entered the declaration through a negotiated process in which technical evidence, existing policy frameworks, and advocacy interacted with discretion, political feasibility, and geopolitical context. The failure to secure consensus on adoption in September 2025, followed by adoption by majority vote in December, underscores both the fragility of multilateral agreement and the willingness of Member States to defend negotiated commitments. Oral diseases have achieved durable political recognition within the global NCD agenda, yet this recognition has yet to be fully translated into corresponding responsibility for financing, delivery, or accountability. Political declarations function primarily as instruments of alignment that stabilise expectations and signal collective intent, while leaving the work of implementation to national health systems. Understanding these dynamics is critical for navigating the space between global commitment and practical change in oral health policy.

ObjectiveWe examine how human-automation shared steering control combined with a haptic shape-changing interface for communicating and negotiating future intent affects driving performance and trust recovery.BackgroundSteering fights in haptic shared control can negatively impact driving performance. Existing solutions do not feature automation explicitly communicating its intent nor supporting intent negotiation with the driver. Trust recovery after faults is also expected to improve with explicit intent communication.MethodThirty participants took part in a continuous driving task consisting of 39 turns at intersections in which the pre-planned turn direction either matched or differed. Haptic communication of intent between driver and automation was metered under three conditions: From automation to driver (One-Way), in both directions (Two-Way), or not available (No-Way). Road obstacles were present at certain intersections to test handling of contingencies and faults. Automation faults were restricted to a second experimental period, leaving a third period to examine trust before and after a period of faults.ResultsDrivers in Two-Way communication displayed significantly improved driving performance when turn intents did not match. After the period of automation faults, drivers in Two-Way communication displayed significantly better overall trust recovery than drivers in One-Way or No-Way communication.ConclusionNegotiation is a viable means to avoid driver overrides and leads to improved trust recovery. Negotiation through a haptic interface should be considered an effective strategy to ensure function and cohesion in human-automation teams.ApplicationHuman-autonomy planning and team building.

Obstacle negotiation is a complex walking task requiring sensory integration, motor planning, and executive control. Understanding its neural mechanisms may improve insight into mobility impairments. This systematic review investigated cortical activity and gait performance during obstacle negotiation across different populations using a brain-motor behavior framework. PubMed and Web of Science were searched up to April 2025 following PRISMA guidelines. Studies including adults performing obstacle negotiation with concurrent functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and gait assessments were eligible. Findings were interpreted as neural compensation, neural inefficiency, or capacity limitation. Thirteen studies (n=649) involving individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD), stroke, older adults, and young adults were included. Most studies assessed prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity. Increased PFC activation with impaired gait performance was common in PD, stroke, and older adults, supporting the neural inefficiency model. In contrast, increased PFC activation with preserved gait performance in healthy young and older adults suggested neural compensation. A few studies showed unchanged cortical activation despite gait deterioration, indicating neural capacity limitation under demanding conditions. Task characteristics, such as unanticipated obstacles and dual-task conditions, were associated with further increases in PFC activation. Cortical control of obstacle negotiation is influenced by task demands, neural reserve, and methodological factors. Executive cortical resources appear critical for adaptive walking across populations, whereas neurological populations and older adults more frequently exhibit neural inefficiency or capacity limitation when gait performance deteriorates. Future studies should investigate additional cortical regions to further elucidate the neural mechanisms underlying adaptive walking.

This qualitative study examines how mothers negotiate maternal identity following the accidental death of a child under their care with perceived and/or attributed maternal responsibility. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 18 mothers who experienced such loss, the findings conceptualize motherhood as an ongoing process of moral negotiation shaped by responsibility, legitimacy, and loss. Three interrelated domains were identified: normalization practices that reframe the loss within a shared field of vulnerability; relational engagement with remaining children, through which maternal legitimacy is renegotiated; and the emergence of new life, where subsequent pregnancies and births introduce possibilities for both maternal reaffirmation and renewed destabilization. Across these domains, maternal identity is not restored but continuously negotiated under conditions of persistent self-doubt and social scrutiny. These processes are closely tied to psychological distress and efforts to sustain caregiving. The findings highlight the need for trauma-informed, non-blaming, and identity-sensitive approaches in supporting bereaved mothers.