Research presentation Assignment

• 1 per group: – Select one of the articles from your literature

review– Prepare a 10 min research presentation (power

point or overhead, and script of what you will say for each slide).

– Due March 28 (turn it in, rather than “perform” it)

Research Presentations

• Presenting your research– Papers– Posters – Talks

Different kinds of talks

• Research Presentations – (typically 10 to 30 mins)

• Paper with respondent• Panel Presentation• Workshop

Why do presentations?

• To present your work/theory/research– Get feedback

• It is an opportunity for peers to ask you questions about your work

• For you to ask them questions

– You want your audience to walk away remembering a few key points

• So your goal is to be as clear as possible

Rough sketch of a presentation

• Introduction of the issue• Background information

• Specific hypotheses • Design• Results

• Interpret the results• General Conclusions

Hourglass

shape

Broad

Specifics of your study

Broad

Preparation • Consider your audience

- who are they, what do they want, what do they already know• Start collecting the things that you think that you’ll need

- graphs, tables, pictures, examples, data analyses, etc.• Determine the key points that you want them to remember

– focus your presentation on these points• Camping trip analogy

– Your initial pack usually has too much stuff– Need to figure out what to take out

• Practice, rehearse, and then practice again

Talk Content• Create a logical progression to the talk

– Hourglass shape– Work on the transitions between slides

• Be brief, but include enough details so that the audience can follow the arguments– Use slides to help simplify/clarify points

• Include tables, graphs, pictures, etc. • Don’t just read the slides• but do “walk through” those that need it (e.g. graphs of results)

– Be careful of jargon, explain terms (if in fact you really need them)

Presentation of the talk• Make it smooth (lots of practice will help)• Watch your speaking rate (again, practice)• Maintain eye contact with whole audience• Emphasize the key points, make sure that the audience

can identify these• Point to the slides if it helps • Beware jokes, can be a double-edged sword• Don’t go over your time

Dealing with questions• Repeat the question in your own words

– so that the rest of the audience can hear it– to make sure that you understood the question– to buy yourself some time to think about the answer

• Try not to be nervous– you know your study better than anyone else

• When preparing, try to think of likely questions and prepare answers

Checklist for the talk• Preparation

– Analyze the audience– Choose your main points– etc.

• Prepare the Final Outline– fix any problems/loose ends

• Construct your “speaking” outline– e.g., the note cards that you’ll read

• Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse

The Production and Comprehension Lexicons:

What’s Shared and What’s Not

J. Cooper Cutting

Dept. of PsychologyIllinois State University

Title slideInformative title

Authors

Affiliation - where the work was done and where you currently are

• shared goal: to communicate ideas• without one, the other is useless

Production and Comprehension are closely intertwined

However, despite these similaritiesthe two systems may operate with different processes and different representations

Background slideGeneral issue

Elaborations

The Traditional approach: Production and Comprehension are different

• Production and Comprehension must solve different problems– Production: maps a message onto an articulatory plan– Comprehension: interprets an ambiguous input and reconstructs

the intended message

• Evidence from Language Pathologies– Broca’s aphasia: impaired language production– Wernicke’s aphasia: impaired language comprehension

Background slideTheoretical perspective #1

Production and Comprehension are similar

• Similar kinds of information are important– phonemes, words, phrases, clauses, etc.

• Language Pathology, a closer look– the dissociation may not be as clear as once thought

“... the processes of comprehension and production of speechhave too much in common to depend on different mechanisms”(Lashley, 1951, pg. 513)

Background slideTheoretical perspective #2

The focus of the experiments

• What kinds of lexical representations are shared by production and comprehension?– More specifically

• are meaning representations shared?• are word-forms shared?

Specific issue of these experiments

The problem with the usual tasks:• confound production and comprehension

– e.g., naming a word

• focus on production or comprehension alone– e.g., naming a picture, making a lexical decision

Need a task that separates these two processes

Specific issue of these experiments

A sample experimental trial

*lion

sandal

*

Fixation point (500 ms)Blank screen (500 ms)Prime trial

(name the red word)“LION”

Blank screen (500 ms)Fixation point (500 ms)Probe trial

(name the picture)“LION”

Blank screen (500 ms)

Give the audience an idea of the procedure

Logic and assumptions of the task:

• the prime trial lionsandal

- naming the red word requires the activation of both comprehension and production representations- “ignoring” the blue word does not require activation of production representations, but will activate comprehension representations

• some evidence of automatic comprehension of words (e.g. the Stroop task)• need to demonstrate that it happens in this task

This task is a little complex, so I wanted to walk the audience through the assumptions

Logic and assumptions of the task

• the probe trial– picture naming is a production based task– residual activation of representations from the

prime trial may influence the picture naming times (a “priming effect”)

This task is a little complex, so I wanted to walk the audience through the assumptions

Comparing the two models

Shared

production & comprehension

Message

speech words

lion sandal

Separate

production comprehension

Message

speech words

lion sandallion

Prime Triallion

sandalProbe Trial

Predictions

Comparing the two models

Shared

production & comprehension

Message

speech words

Separate

production comprehension

Message

speech words

Prime Triallion

sandal

sandal lion sandal sandal lionProbe Trial

Predictions

General Predictions

*

RelatedUnrelated

Produced Ignored Produced Ignored

* *

Shared Representations

SeparateRepresentations

no difference

Predictions

Clarity alert: Presented in the same format as the data will be presented

Clarity alert: Used color to help disambiguate the conditions

An overview of the Experiments

Repetition Primes

Semantic Primes

Phonological Primes

e.g., lion

e.g., tiger

e.g., liar

Visual AuditoryPrime Modality

Experiment 1

Experiment 2 Experiment 3

Experiment 4 Experiment 5

Probe

Clarity alert: this talk reports a lot of experiments, so I wanted to give the audience a “road map” to prepare them

Experiment 1• Does the task work? Do speakers comprehend the “ignored”

word?– Conditions

• Related (identical) vs. Unrelated• Produced prime (red) vs. Ignored prime (blue)

– Analysis: • 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA with planned comparisons

• Prediction: If ignored words are processed, then both produced and ignored primes should result in repetition priming (faster picture naming).

Clarity alert: Remind the audience of the predictions right before the results are given

Experiment 1 Results

750

800

850

900

950

1000

Produced Ignored

Related

Unrelated

* *

Results: Walk the audience through the results Clarity alert:

Indicate which differences are significantly different

• Ignored primes were processed by the comprehension system

• Something is shared by comprehension and

production– but, can’t tell what

Experiment 1 ConclusionsConclusions: Clearly state how you have interpreted the results

Experiment 2

• Are meaning representations shared?– same design used in Experiment 1, except

used taxonomically related primes• “tiger” prime for the lion picture

Next experiment

What are the issues here, how is this experiment different from the other experiment??

Experiment 2 predictions

RelatedUnrelated

Produced Ignored Produced Ignored

*

Shared Representations

SeparateRepresentations

no difference

* * Clarity alert: Used color to help disambiguate the conditions

Clarity alert: Presented in the same format as the data will be presented; note: this time predicted a slightly different pattern

Experiment 2 Results

Produced Ignored750

800

850

900

950

1000

Related

Unrelated

* *

Experiment 2 Conclusions

• The results support a model in which meaning representations are shared by production and comprehension.

Conclusions: Clearly state how you have interpreted the results of this experiment

Experiment 3

• Identical to Experiment 2, but with auditory presentation of the primes– Prime word pairs were presented dichotically

• speakers repeated the words spoken by the woman

Predictions are the same as in Experiment 2

Barbara says " "

Vic says" "

Speaker says "tiger"

tiger sandal

Clarity alert: new procedure used

Experiment 3 Results

* *

750

800

850

900

950

1000

Produced Ignored

Related

Unrelated

Conclusions: Experiments 2 & 3

• Both produced and ignored taxonomically related primes slowed picture naming

• This supports a model in which meaning representations are shared by production and comprehension processes

Conclusions: Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to test similar issues, so here I have combined the discussion of their results

Experiment 4

• Are word-forms shared?– same design used in the earlier experiments,

except used phonologically related primes• “liar” prime for the lion picture

Experiment 4 Predictions

RelatedUnrelated

Produced Ignored Produced Ignored

*

Shared Representations

SeparateRepresentations

no difference

* *

Experiment 4 Results

Produced Ignored

Related

Unrelated

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

*

Experiment 4 Conclusions

• Results support a model with distinct word-forms for production and comprehension

But:The primes were presented visuallyThe results may reflect distinct orthographic and phonological word-forms

Experiment 5

• Identical to Experiment 4, but with auditory presentation of the primes.– Now there are only phonological representations– Same predictions as in Experiment 4

Experiment 5 Results

*

750

800

850

900

950

1000

Produced Ignored

Related

Unrelated

Conclusions: Experiments 4 & 5

• Produced phonological primes resulted in slower picture naming

• Ignored phonological primes did not influence picture naming

• These results support a model in which production and comprehension have separate word-forms

Overview of the Results

Repetition Primes

Semantic Primes

Phonological Primes

e.g., lion

e.g., tiger

e.g., liar

Visual AuditoryPrime Modality

Experiment 1

Experiment 2 Experiment 3

Experiment 4 Experiment 5

Probe

Produced

Produced Produced

Produced

Produced

Ignored Ignored

Ignored Ignored

Ignored

Clarity alert: 5 experiments is a lot to remember, so I remind them of the overall pattern of results

General ConclusionsThe overall pattern of results support a model in which production and comprehension share meaning representations but have distinct word-forms.

Lexicon

LanguageOutput

LanguageInput

Message

Meaning

word-forms word-forms

Final conlusions: Leave them with a clear take home message.