Poster Presentation Guidlines 040607

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Poster Presentation Guidelines: 

Poster Presentation Guidelines Kristin Lane April 6, 2007

Objectives of a Poster: 

Objectives of a Poster Communicate research clearly Posters should be: ‘Stand-alone’ Engaging Concise summary of your work

Slide3: 

Goals 1. To design a quick and easily self-administered cognitive test battery, the MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery (MRAB), for immediate assessment of current cognitive functioning. 2. To design software, MiniCog and MiniCogWriter, for scripting psychological tests and experiments to run on the Palm OS® and provide instantaneous feedback to user. Significance 1. Addresses Critical Path Risks 19, 20, and 21 (human failure due to sleep/circadian rhythm disruption, interface/habitat/workload design problems, and neurobehavioral dysfunction); can be used • To assess effects of variables such as sleep loss on key cognitive and perceptual processes (CQ 6.08); • To assess effects of drugs, training, and other countermeasures on cognitive and perceptual processes; • For self-assessment by astronauts of their “current cognitive state” (CQ 6.11, 6.15, 6.20). 2. Earth applications include use by truck drivers, surgeons, business travelers, air traffic controllers, mountain climbers, mission commanders, and others whose long hours, unusual shifts, or stressful environments may affect performance. Tests Quick Assessment of Basic Cognitive Function: A ‘Blood-Pressure Cuff’ for the Mind Jennifer M. Shephard, Julia B. LeSage, Stephen M. Kosslyn Harvard University, Department of Psychology, Cambridge, MA Research supported by NASA cooperative agreement NCC 9-58 with the National Space Biomedical Research Institute Projects planned for upcoming year 1.   Continue validation of MRAB under stressful conditions • Comparison with other test batteries (e.g., WinSCAT [Wyle Laboratories]); • Use performance on MRAB to predict performance on an ecologically valid task (flight simulator) under stress; • Evaluate the effects of performance anxiety (e.g., public-speaking stress) on MRAB; • Continue collaborations with Dinges (sleep deprivation) and Lieberman (high-altitude and hockey-team head injury studies) laboratories. 2. Extend MiniCog software to • Allow users to predict their performance just before and after completing a test (but prior to seeing their results); • Allow users to add notes or comments at the end of a test; • Include throughput as an automatically calculated performance measure; • Require two key-presses to exit the program (because users sometimes pressed an exit key by mistake); • Automatically present the next test on the list, instead of requiring users to choose (because they tend to forget which ones they’ve completed); • Include better randomization features for stimulus presentation. 3. Continue discussions with collaborators about how to improve MiniCog user interface and possible additional tests to include. What the user sees… Question Does fatigue cause poorer performance (slower response times and/or more errors) selectively on the MRAB tests compared to baseline, and does caffeine ameliorate this effect? Participant characteristics • Approximately 48 participants will be tested, equal numbers of males and females. • Harvard students, between the ages of 18 and 30. • Psychologically and physically healthy. • Non-smokers. • Regular consumers of caffeine who drink no more than 3 caffeinated beverages per day. Methods • Participants practice MRAB tests a total of 10 to 12 times during four one-hour sessions between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, within a two-week period. • At the end of the two weeks, participants are tested in a 5:00 AM session. • All participants are given one cup of coffee (approx. 300 ml) prior to performing the early-morning tests; half receive caffeinated (approx. 150mg caffeine) coffee and half receive decaf (random and double-blind). • Participants fill out questionnaires and other paperwork for 30 minutes after consuming coffee and prior to beginning MRAB. Results Data collection is still underway (approximately 22 participants have been tested so far), but data from a subset of the tested participants (16) is presented here. Depending on the test, participants generally reach a baseline performance level after approximately 7 practice runs; see example performance curve below. Verbal Reasoning (Problem-solving) - Users must decide whether the third statement in series is true or false given information in the first two (see example on Palm screens in the center panel of this poster). Because participants reach baseline after about 7 practice runs, we compared their performance during the early morning session with their average performance across the 3 practice runs prior to this session (corresponding to practice runs 8-10, 9-11, or 10-12, depending on the number of runs participants were able to complete during the practice sessions). With the small number of participants included in these preliminary analyses, there were no statistically significant results except for the difference between the groups in response time performance on the Vigilance test; participants in the caffeine condition improved relative to baseline, while those in the decaf condition performed more poorly. In addition, some trends were apparent; for instance, both groups appear to have slower Mental Rotation RTs during the early morning session, and faster Cognitive Set Switching and Perceptual Reaction Time RTs during this session -- but these results could be confounded by speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Final analyses will include “throughput” as a performance measure (to take speed-accuracy tradeoffs into account) as well as response time variance. Participants’ subjective fatigue, objective hours of sleep prior to 5am session, and reported stress levels during all sessions will be included as covariates. This difference is based on 16 participants and is statistically significant (p = .02). There was no significant difference between the groups in change in error rate. Change from Baseline of RT on Vigilance Test During 5am Session Caffeine Group Decaf Group RT change (msecs) Morning session Run # 12 is the early morning session. This participant had decaffeinated coffee. Response Time Error Rate

Elements of a Poster: 

Elements of a Poster Title Pithy summary of your project Introduction Overview of the research Clearly state objectives and hypotheses Method Describe procedure Not as detailed as manuscript

Slide6: 

Goals 1. To design a quick and easily self-administered cognitive test battery, the MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery (MRAB), for immediate assessment of current cognitive functioning. 2. To design software, MiniCog and MiniCogWriter, for scripting psychological tests and experiments to run on the Palm OS® and provide instantaneous feedback to user. Significance 1. Addresses Critical Path Risks 19, 20, and 21 (human failure due to sleep/circadian rhythm disruption, interface/habitat/workload design problems, and neurobehavioral dysfunction); can be used • To assess effects of variables such as sleep loss on key cognitive and perceptual processes (CQ 6.08); • To assess effects of drugs, training, and other countermeasures on cognitive and perceptual processes; • For self-assessment by astronauts of their “current cognitive state” (CQ 6.11, 6.15, 6.20). 2. Earth applications include use by truck drivers, surgeons, business travelers, air traffic controllers, mountain climbers, mission commanders, and others whose long hours, unusual shifts, or stressful environments may affect performance. Tests Quick Assessment of Basic Cognitive Function: A ‘Blood-Pressure Cuff’ for the Mind Jennifer M. Shephard, Julia B. LeSage, Stephen M. Kosslyn Harvard University, Department of Psychology, Cambridge, MA Research supported by NASA cooperative agreement NCC 9-58 with the National Space Biomedical Research Institute Projects planned for upcoming year 1.   Continue validation of MRAB under stressful conditions • Comparison with other test batteries (e.g., WinSCAT [Wyle Laboratories]); • Use performance on MRAB to predict performance on an ecologically valid task (flight simulator) under stress; • Evaluate the effects of performance anxiety (e.g., public-speaking stress) on MRAB; • Continue collaborations with Dinges (sleep deprivation) and Lieberman (high-altitude and hockey-team head injury studies) laboratories. 2. Extend MiniCog software to • Allow users to predict their performance just before and after completing a test (but prior to seeing their results); • Allow users to add notes or comments at the end of a test; • Include throughput as an automatically calculated performance measure; • Require two key-presses to exit the program (because users sometimes pressed an exit key by mistake); • Automatically present the next test on the list, instead of requiring users to choose (because they tend to forget which ones they’ve completed); • Include better randomization features for stimulus presentation. 3. Continue discussions with collaborators about how to improve MiniCog user interface and possible additional tests to include. What the user sees… Question Does fatigue cause poorer performance (slower response times and/or more errors) selectively on the MRAB tests compared to baseline, and does caffeine ameliorate this effect? Participant characteristics • Approximately 48 participants will be tested, equal numbers of males and females. • Harvard students, between the ages of 18 and 30. • Psychologically and physically healthy. • Non-smokers. • Regular consumers of caffeine who drink no more than 3 caffeinated beverages per day. Methods • Participants practice MRAB tests a total of 10 to 12 times during four one-hour sessions between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, within a two-week period. • At the end of the two weeks, participants are tested in a 5:00 AM session. • All participants are given one cup of coffee (approx. 300 ml) prior to performing the early-morning tests; half receive caffeinated (approx. 150mg caffeine) coffee and half receive decaf (random and double-blind). • Participants fill out questionnaires and other paperwork for 30 minutes after consuming coffee and prior to beginning MRAB. Results Data collection is still underway (approximately 22 participants have been tested so far), but data from a subset of the tested participants (16) is presented here. Depending on the test, participants generally reach a baseline performance level after approximately 7 practice runs; see example performance curve below. Verbal Reasoning (Problem-solving) - Users must decide whether the third statement in series is true or false given information in the first two (see example on Palm screens in the center panel of this poster). Because participants reach baseline after about 7 practice runs, we compared their performance during the early morning session with their average performance across the 3 practice runs prior to this session (corresponding to practice runs 8-10, 9-11, or 10-12, depending on the number of runs participants were able to complete during the practice sessions). With the small number of participants included in these preliminary analyses, there were no statistically significant results except for the difference between the groups in response time performance on the Vigilance test; participants in the caffeine condition improved relative to baseline, while those in the decaf condition performed more poorly. In addition, some trends were apparent; for instance, both groups appear to have slower Mental Rotation RTs during the early morning session, and faster Cognitive Set Switching and Perceptual Reaction Time RTs during this session -- but these results could be confounded by speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Final analyses will include “throughput” as a performance measure (to take speed-accuracy tradeoffs into account) as well as response time variance. Participants’ subjective fatigue, objective hours of sleep prior to 5am session, and reported stress levels during all sessions will be included as covariates. This difference is based on 16 participants and is statistically significant (p = .02). There was no significant difference between the groups in change in error rate. Change from Baseline of RT on Vigilance Test During 5am Session Caffeine Group Decaf Group RT change (msecs) Morning session Run # 12 is the early morning session. This participant had decaffeinated coffee. Response Time Error Rate

Elements of a Poster: 

Elements of a Poster Results Restate your hypothesis State whether it was confirmed Present results in tabular or graphical format (2-D rather than 3-D) Include caption that describes findings Include only most important findings

Slide9: 

Goals 1. To design a quick and easily self-administered cognitive test battery, the MiniCog Rapid Assessment Battery (MRAB), for immediate assessment of current cognitive functioning. 2. To design software, MiniCog and MiniCogWriter, for scripting psychological tests and experiments to run on the Palm OS® and provide instantaneous feedback to user. Significance 1. Addresses Critical Path Risks 19, 20, and 21 (human failure due to sleep/circadian rhythm disruption, interface/habitat/workload design problems, and neurobehavioral dysfunction); can be used • To assess effects of variables such as sleep loss on key cognitive and perceptual processes (CQ 6.08); • To assess effects of drugs, training, and other countermeasures on cognitive and perceptual processes; • For self-assessment by astronauts of their “current cognitive state” (CQ 6.11, 6.15, 6.20). 2. Earth applications include use by truck drivers, surgeons, business travelers, air traffic controllers, mountain climbers, mission commanders, and others whose long hours, unusual shifts, or stressful environments may affect performance. Tests Quick Assessment of Basic Cognitive Function: A ‘Blood-Pressure Cuff’ for the Mind Jennifer M. Shephard, Julia B. LeSage, Stephen M. Kosslyn Harvard University, Department of Psychology, Cambridge, MA Research supported by NASA cooperative agreement NCC 9-58 with the National Space Biomedical Research Institute Projects planned for upcoming year 1.   Continue validation of MRAB under stressful conditions • Comparison with other test batteries (e.g., WinSCAT [Wyle Laboratories]); • Use performance on MRAB to predict performance on an ecologically valid task (flight simulator) under stress; • Evaluate the effects of performance anxiety (e.g., public-speaking stress) on MRAB; • Continue collaborations with Dinges (sleep deprivation) and Lieberman (high-altitude and hockey-team head injury studies) laboratories. 2. Extend MiniCog software to • Allow users to predict their performance just before and after completing a test (but prior to seeing their results); • Allow users to add notes or comments at the end of a test; • Include throughput as an automatically calculated performance measure; • Require two key-presses to exit the program (because users sometimes pressed an exit key by mistake); • Automatically present the next test on the list, instead of requiring users to choose (because they tend to forget which ones they’ve completed); • Include better randomization features for stimulus presentation. 3. Continue discussions with collaborators about how to improve MiniCog user interface and possible additional tests to include. What the user sees… Question Does fatigue cause poorer performance (slower response times and/or more errors) selectively on the MRAB tests compared to baseline, and does caffeine ameliorate this effect? Participant characteristics • Approximately 48 participants will be tested, equal numbers of males and females. • Harvard students, between the ages of 18 and 30. • Psychologically and physically healthy. • Non-smokers. • Regular consumers of caffeine who drink no more than 3 caffeinated beverages per day. Methods • Participants practice MRAB tests a total of 10 to 12 times during four one-hour sessions between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, within a two-week period. • At the end of the two weeks, participants are tested in a 5:00 AM session. • All participants are given one cup of coffee (approx. 300 ml) prior to performing the early-morning tests; half receive caffeinated (approx. 150mg caffeine) coffee and half receive decaf (random and double-blind). • Participants fill out questionnaires and other paperwork for 30 minutes after consuming coffee and prior to beginning MRAB. Results Data collection is still underway (approximately 22 participants have been tested so far), but data from a subset of the tested participants (16) is presented here. Depending on the test, participants generally reach a baseline performance level after approximately 7 practice runs; see example performance curve below. Verbal Reasoning (Problem-solving) - Users must decide whether the third statement in series is true or false given information in the first two (see example on Palm screens in the center panel of this poster). Because participants reach baseline after about 7 practice runs, we compared their performance during the early morning session with their average performance across the 3 practice runs prior to this session (corresponding to practice runs 8-10, 9-11, or 10-12, depending on the number of runs participants were able to complete during the practice sessions). With the small number of participants included in these preliminary analyses, there were no statistically significant results except for the difference between the groups in response time performance on the Vigilance test; participants in the caffeine condition improved relative to baseline, while those in the decaf condition performed more poorly. In addition, some trends were apparent; for instance, both groups appear to have slower Mental Rotation RTs during the early morning session, and faster Cognitive Set Switching and Perceptual Reaction Time RTs during this session -- but these results could be confounded by speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Final analyses will include “throughput” as a performance measure (to take speed-accuracy tradeoffs into account) as well as response time variance. Participants’ subjective fatigue, objective hours of sleep prior to 5am session, and reported stress levels during all sessions will be included as covariates. This difference is based on 16 participants and is statistically significant (p = .02). There was no significant difference between the groups in change in error rate. Change from Baseline of RT on Vigilance Test During 5am Session Caffeine Group Decaf Group RT change (msecs) Morning session Run # 12 is the early morning session. This participant had decaffeinated coffee. Response Time Error Rate

Elements of a Poster: 

Elements of a Poster Conclusions Restate your main findings Clear statement of the ‘take-home’ message State: Important open questions Important implications Other References, Acknowledgments and Funding Acknowledgements can be smaller

Elements of Style: 

Elements of Style Use bullet points where possible: This research aims to examine whether a subtle reminder of power increases the probability that a person will use using racial stereotypes when making criminal judgments (26 words) Research Question: Do power primes lead to increased stereotyping in criminal judgments? (13 words)

Elements of Style: 

Elements of Style Don’t cram too much in Use large font (at least 18) Use smaller fonts for things like References Aim for ~1000 words Ensure that there’s white space Say it with pictures or tables Keep it simple Use color judiciously Use color or font to indicate sections

Be Kind to Your Visitor: 

Be Kind to Your Visitor Assume he or she: Is a psychologist Is under cognitive load Is busy (10 minutes or less) Is standing 5’ away Don’t make people walk Proceed in columns so the reader doesn’t need to walk back and forth

Making the Poster: 

Making the Poster Single-page poster Make poster as one big Powerpoint slide Get printed on department’s poster printer (or elsewhere … more later) BYOT: Bring your own tacks!

Making the Poster: 

Making the Poster Click File  Page Setup

Making the Poster: 

Making the Poster Make the poster the right size … 56” x 36” should work 56” wide x 36” high

Making the Poster: 

Making the Poster Sketch out your structure before starting Before starting, show grid and guidelines (View -> Grid and Guides)

Making the Poster: 

Making the Poster Insert elements where you’ll want them Increase poster size (to about 30%) to work on individual pieces Use grid to keep elements aligned

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high This is the OK button

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high 56” wide x 36” high Group objects together – Hold down CTRL Key While clicking each of them

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high 56” wide x 36” high Group objects together – Hold down CTRL Key While clicking each of them.

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high 56” wide x 36” high Click Draw -> Group, Makes the objects act as “one” so you can move together

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high 56” wide x 36” high Make graphs or tables in Excel and Paste Into Powerpoint Using Edit-> Paste Special

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features: 

Making the Poster – Useful Powerpoint Features 56” wide x 36” high 56” wide x 36” high You can edit your graphs or tables in Powerpoint if needed

Printing the Poster: 

Printing the Poster WJH In-house Cheaper than Kinko’s $5.75/ square foot ($80.50 for 56” x 36”) Must: Have white (or no) background Have at least ½” margin all around Be submitted by April 17

Printing the Poster: 

Printing the Poster Complete poster request form (on website) Save poster onto CD-ROM Bring to WJH 1380 or talk to CA on WJH 13 Submit by Tuesday, April 17 Other options Kinkos, www.postersession.com

Paying for the Poster: 

Paying for the Poster Hand in your grant form Sent via email from Laura Chivers Submit: To me right now To psychology@wjh In person in the undergrad office Collect your $75 Thank Laura and Professor Banaji!

Presentation: 

Presentation Be prepared to describe your research Practice a 3-4 minute summary Anticipate questions (and think about how you’ll answer them) Be professional Dress appropriately, act graciously Have 8.5” x 11” handouts for poster visitors Be proud!

Other Resources: 

Other Resources WJH Thesis site has more information on the poster session http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/posteradvice.htm* http://www.postersession.com (Alternative printing option)* *Poster templates available

authorStream Live Help