August 9, 2015

Making the Most of ICPhS: Presenting Your Paper

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 1:28 pm by mariawolters

If you are an author presenting a paper at ICPhS, you have all received detailed instructions on what to do. In this post, I want to give some of the rationale behind the requests. Most of these remarks are aimed at first-time presenters or presenters who feel relatively inexperienced, but experienced presenters might find some interesting nuggets, too.

First of all, the poster presenters are restricted to A1 / portrait, no landscape. This is very tight, and it is much easier to tell a visually beautiful and complete story to an audience if you have A0 landscape.

However, it allows us to leave your poster for longer. That makes life a lot less hectic for you. No rushing out of the last oral session before your poster to put it up, no missing the start of the next session before your poster needs to be taken down.

In order to make the poster sessions less cramped, we are also alternating posters between morning and afternoon, so that when you are at your poster to present, you essentially have double the space.

Best of all, it gives your poster a much bigger audience. Whenever attendees have a spare half hour, when they are having coffee or lunch, when they are unfortunate enough to miss one of the breathtakingly amazing oral session, they can wander around the posters and absorb your poster in peace.

Finally, if you have been assigned a poster, but were hoping for a paper, you will hopefully be pleasantly surprised at how deep and useful discussions at posters can be. In paper sessions, time for discussion is necessarily limited, and people need to rush off afterwards or are not necessarily comfortable making their comment in front of a crowd of their peers.

The paper presenters appear to be similarly restricted at first: 10 minutes for presentation, 3 minutes for discussion, and 2 minutes for changing over.

However, what these restrictions do is ensure that everybody gets a fair hearing. Imagine having travelled halfway around the world to present your paper to an audience who wants to hear what you have to say. You are the last speaker in a three-paper session. But then, the first speaker overruns. And the second speaker not only overruns, but sparks a heated ten minute discussion. At the end, all that is left for your carefully rehearsed talk is 5 minutes, no discussion, because people are heading to the next session.

While 10 minutes is not enough to present your work in detail, it is more than enough to tell people why your work is interesting, why it matters, and what your main findings are (and by the middle of Day 2, your audience won’t be able to absorb much more information, anyway).

Strict timekeeping also makes it easier for the audience to switch between sessions. This is particularly important in a large multi-session conference as this, where sessions are compiled according to many different criteria, and people are likely to pick and choose where they go.

Finally, the two-minute change-over time allows us sufficient time to deal with the vagaries of technology, especially when talks rely on the sound system working.

Related posts:

  • The Oral Programme
  • The Poster Sessions
  • Finding Interesting Papers
  • Timing ICPhS
  • The Discussant Sessions

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Discussant Sessions

Posted in icphs tagged , , at 1:27 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

Discussant Sessions are an innovation that have become quite common in conferences that deal with speech and speaking. The papers in each session are hand-picked by a senior, highly respected researcher, who provides an introduction and facilitates discussion. These sessions replace Special Sessions which typically have dedicated calls for papers.

Bert Remijsen and Pavel Iosad organised the Discussant Sessions at ICPhS. Ten outstanding scholars agreed to be Discussants, covering a range of basic and applied phonetics. Once the original acceptance notices had gone out on April 1, these discussants had three to four weeks to put together their sessions from all those papers whose authors had indicated they would like to be considered for these sessions – an extremely challenging task. Discussants had access to both abstracts and full papers.

Scheduling these sessions was governed by several constraints. First and foremost, Discussant Sessions are longer than normal sessions, to allow for the discussant’s introduction and a subsequent discussion, after all papers have been given. This means Discussant sessions had to be scheduled as far as possible in parallel, while making enough space in the programme for 72 additional oral sessions and leaving the now traditional Wednesday afternoon free for workshops, sightseeing, and recovery. As a result, Discussant sessions are in two blocks, one on Monday, and one on Friday.

This decision also allows us to have Discussant Sessons in rooms with sufficient capacity.

The next constraint was speaker availability. Some discussants were not avaiable on Monday, some speakers were not available on one of those days, and some lucky people were coauthors on papers that had been selected for two different Discussant sessions – and we wanted them to be able to attend both sessions.

Finally, we attempted to separate Discussant Sessions that were of interest to the same group of people, but that proved next to impossible while making sure that speakers (and authors) could attend the sessions where their papers would be given.

We are hoping to at least partially address this scheduling issue by the fashionable remedy of crowdsourcing.

So if you are on social media and in a discussant session, please tweet, facebook, and blog it – share the findings, share the excitement, and maybe we can even get some discussion going across sessions!

Related posts:

Making the Most of ICPhS: Finding Interesting Papers

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 1:26 pm by mariawolters

The 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) is easily the largest yet, with over 770 oral and poster presentations, if we count the plenaries as well. All of those papers were accepted based on a full, four-page paper that represents a substantial piece of completed work and can be 1500-2500 words long, as long as a brief communication in a journal. This is very different from conferences in medicine, psychology, or the life sciences, where authors merely submit a 300-word abstract.

So, how can you as authors ensure that their papers are seen and heard?

In a sense, you have already completed the most important steps, which are to choose appropriate subject areas, create a good title and write a suitable abstract for your paper. The PDF version of the abstract book is easy to search, and we would like to encourage all attendees to use the search function liberally.

Remember that many criteria were used to create sessions: Not all ultrasound papers are grouped together, not all papers that deal with voice onset time are in the same sessions, and not all papers that address bilingualism are in dedicated bilingualism sessions.

If you are on social media (or know somebody who is on social media), we would like to encourage you or your colleague / friend / marketing accomplice to tweet your paper and session. For example, if you paper is an ultrasound study of consonants that involve a complete break in airflow (stop consonants) in people who are fluent in two languages (bilingual), you may want to tweet:

stop #articulation in #Korean/English #bilingual speakers – #ultrasound study. Alsh 1, 11am, Tues. #icphs2015

Finally, if somebody really should have been at your paper, and wanted to be at your paper, but missed it – they have the contact email of the corresponding right next to your abstract in the abstract book.

Related posts:

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Oral Programme

Posted in icphs tagged , at 1:25 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

In this post, we will look at the way in which the oral programme was assembled. This is not just a peek behind the scenes, but should also go a long way to explain why your paper (of all papers) got stuck in that particular session.

First of all, ICPhS is much bigger than it used to be, which also makes it more tricky to organise and schedule For example, the 16th ICPhS in Saarbrücken, Germany (2007) featured around 450 oral and poster presentations. At this ICPhS, the attendees have the choice of around 750 papers, split almost equally between oral and poster sessions.

Phonetics has also become both more diverse, with specialisations upon specialisations. This is particularly true for the prosody community (or should I say avalanche?) where every single aspect of rhythm, stress, and intonation will be discussed in great detail. Methods range from corpus-based studies (i.e., you speak, we record and annotate) to intricate perception experiments.

The prosody avalanche is almost matched in sheer impact by the language acquisition (in particular second language acquisition) tsunami. Pretty much every oral session features either papers or full sessions on bilingualism or second language acquisition.

Needless to say, this made the task of putting together the programme a challenge, and some of the resulting sessions are best approached with a spirit of discovery.

(After all, each paper has to fit somewhere, and if it fits, it sits. Even if one has to be a little creative sometimes.)

In order to help with this process, we relied on the people who know their papers best – the authors. On submitting a paper to ICPhS, each author (or author team, in most cases) was asked to categorise their paper into 27 scientific areas. Authors could specify up to three areas for their paper. All papers also had keywords that describe key aspects of the content, a meaningful title, and an abstract, which could be consulted in case of confusion (or despair).

All oral papers were first grouped by the scientific areas that the authors had indicated. After some checking, we found that papers were described best by the combination of areas specified, and took this as the starting point for the next step.

The initial grouping yielded around 40 groups of oral papers. Some of them fell neatly into sessions, and there was much rejoicing. Others were more complex. For these papers, keywords were consulted. Sometimes, frequently used keywords suggested themes (such as rhotics). If that approach was not fruitful, groups of papers were inspected for meaningful clusters.

The overall approach was what us computer scientists would call greedy – coherent sessions emerged first, and were fixed in the structure. The remaining papers were then grouped into sessions that were as coherent as possible, until all papers had been assigned to one of 72 sessions.

As a result, sessions can be grouped by topic (coronals), method (ultrasound investigations of speech), area of phonetics (speech perception), or language group (Arabic Phonetics), and therefore, one paper can easily fit into several different sessions.

Related posts:


ICPhS Behind the Scenes: The Poster Sessions

Posted in icphs tagged , , at 1:25 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

In this post, we will talk about the way the poster sessions were assembled.

This task was somewhat more straightforward than the oral sessions, because each poster session could hold up to 60 papers (a little more if the other poster session of the day was below 60 papers).

Authors had assigned one to three subject areas to their paper, and we used the main subject area to group papers initially. We then created sub groups for all of the larger subject areas, so that posters in an area were spread over several days. This gives people who are interested in an area more time to look at the posters carefully and talk to presenters; it also makes poster sessions more diverse and interesting for those attendees who like to browse and who prefer variety.

When we saw clear thematic links, subgroups were named (for example Speech Perception), when the group was very mixed, subgroups were just numbered (for example Phonetic Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics).

When assigning poster sessions to specific slots, we worked around the following constraints:

  • timing of relevant plenaries, such as Simon King’s plenary on speech technology
  • timing requests by attendees that reached us in the first few weeks after acceptance
  • the original position of discussant sessions, which shifted slightly as additional scheduling constraints became clear
  • ensuring that different sessions from the same subject area were on different days
  • no more than 120 posters per day, which avoids poster overload.

Related posts:

ICPhS Behind the Scenes: Timing ICPhS

Posted in icphs tagged at 1:24 pm by mariawolters

In this series of blog posts, I would like to take you behind the scenes of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) in Glasgow. All posts are written to be accessible to both phoneticians and non-phoneticians.

Having created the oral and poster sessions, there was the small matter of timing. The key constraints are the same for both oral and poster presentations: available space, available time, and coordinating with plenaries and Discussant Sessions.

For the oral programme, we had far tighter temporal and spatial constraints than for the poster sessions.

The first constraint was space.

The maximum number of sessions that could be accommodated was fixed at a very early stage – in mid March, when we decided how many papers could be accepted as oral presentations. The number of rooms available provided an upper limit on the number of oral papers and therefore also the number of sessions.

In order to accommodate the large number of high-quality submissions we received, many sessions had be housed in split rooms with a capacity of less than 100 people. On Wednesday, all oral sessions had to be in the low-capacity rooms in order to ensure we had enough time slots, on all of the other four days, we managed to secure at least one large room per oral session slot.

Next, time came into play. First, we used the overall schedule to work out the number of three-paper and four-paper sessions that we could fit in. These numbers were used to determine the allocation of paperes to sessions.

Once all sessions had been created, we slotted them into space. We started with author requests, and we were fortunate to be able to accommodate all authors who contacted us with scheduling requests before early May. Next, we tried to place sessions near thematically related Discussant or Plenary Sessions.

We also worked hard to avoid session conflicts. Working from the author names as originally entered during submission, we identified sessions with coauthor conflicts and ensured that these sessions were not placed in parallel. This took care of almost all of the conflicts; the few remaining ones were settled by hand-scheduling time slots.

Finally, we tried to ensure diversity in each slot of 6-8 parallel sessions, so that no two sessions about the same topic were in parallel.

This was the basis of the preliminary schedule that was released to everybody in June.

Finally, in order to decide which sessions should get the honour of the larger spaces, the committee voted, and lo and behold, rooms were assigned.

Last but not least, once all changes, last-minute withdrawals, and session corrections were finished, each paper was assigned a final time slot. At this stage, we also balanced those sessions where we had unwittingly required two people to be in the place at the same time, or where one person was heroically going to give two papers in the same session. (Both issues were thankfully very rare.)

Et voilà – a programme.

Related posts:

June 1, 2015

Skype for Video Consultations – A Personal Perspective

Posted in research tagged , , , , , , , , at 10:00 am by mariawolters

I was motivated to write this short piece by looking through the material for the Remote Consulting unit of the Telehealth and Telemedicine course for the Edinburgh MSc in Global eHealth.

Helen Atherton, an active researcher in email consulting, created a fascinating set of resources on the topic for the students of that course, which I co-organise with Brian McKinstry (i.e.: Brian provides the wisdom of (sometimes bitter) experience, I implement and add my two cents from a Human Computer Interaction point of view.).

One of the topics that came up was the use of Skype for remote consultation. Skype is a good alternative to traditional phone consultations because

  • everybody can sign up for free
  • in situations where you need video, it is easy to switch on
  • it can be used by people who do not have a landline or access to a landline phone
  • it can be used anywhere with WiFi access, which means that people do not have to use or pay for call minutes

But from my own experience, there are two important issues here that make me question whether Skype is suitable for video consultations.

1) Is Skype stable?

Not really, especially not if you use the video facility. I am typically online via fast Wifi at work courtesy of eduroam (yes, University of Edinburgh eduroam works well!), and I never have any trouble uploading or downloading big papers, large data sets, or Apple system updates. But when I’m asked to take part in a Skype meeting, I will never switch on video unless the other party insists, because that is a recipe for disaster.

I haven’t systematically kept track of the number of times a multi party Skype call failed because one of the people had switched on video, and worked well once the video had been switched off, but I’d guess this has happend in about half the Skype conferences (with video) that I have been involved in.

2) Is Skype safe?

I am not going to start discussing privacy features and whether conversations can be overheard by third parties here – that’s a whole other topic which is best discussed by somebody with expertise in the area.

What I mean is safety from unsavoury contacts. While my Skype handle is gender neutral (mkwolters), I have my full name associated with it, and my name is searchable, so that collaborators who wish to add me can easily find me on Skype. I also have a portrait photo with my own face, which clearly marks me as a female.

This means that every week or so, I get a contact request from a random account pretending to be a man. Half of these use an icon that would suggest that they are a member of the US Army, and are looking to talk to somebody while on active duty. The only time I was accosted by an account that pretended to be a woman, the person was recruiting for the web cam version of phone sex, which only became clear after a longer exchange. (I like to see what’s behind those scammers. I’m nosy like that.)

A good friend of mine (male) who has locked down his own Skype profile gets so many contact requests from women that he now refuses to leave his Skype open.

On one level, this is the Skype equivalent of the good old Nigerian scam or phishing email. On another level, I can see how this might make people highly uncomfortable. (It makes me extremely uncomfortable, and I’ve been on the Internet since 1994.)

It wasn’t always like that. Before the recent wave of scammers hit, I was on Skype for years with nary an incident. But the climate has changed, and I regard Skype as fundamentally unsafe.

*** *** ***

So, if I were a health care practitioner, offering telehealth consultations to older patients at home, would I be keen to introduce Skype video consulting?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not unless they already have a Skype account, are comfortable with using the service, are experts at fending off unwanted online attention, and have good experiences with one to one video calls.

I would not advise or expect older people to invest in Skype just to be able to access their health care from home – just as I wouldn’t advise them to spice up their social life by chatting to that nice man who has come by their door with an unbeatable offer for triple glazed windows.

May 31, 2015

“Why Should We Ask Users? Steve Jobs Didn’t!”

Posted in research tagged , , , , at 3:50 pm by mariawolters

In other words, if Apple designs beautiful hardware and software without “asking users what they would like”, we don’t need to ask users what they would like, either.

This way of thinking is a fallacy for two reasons.

Reason 1: It’s not about asking users what they would like, it’s about finding out what users need.

If you don’t give users what they actually need, but what you think they need, then in the best case, nobody buys your product, in the worst case, people die. (See my previous blog post on how a new system for ordering medications in a children’s Intensive Care Emergency Department led to more (entirely preventable) deaths.)

Finding out what users need is hard. You can’t do it by letting your imagination run wild; you need to go into the field, look at the context in which your solutions will be used, how people work right now, and how your proposed solutions might change the way people work for the better or for the worse.

Often, this also involves talking to people, that’s true. But when you talk to people, it’s not so much about what they think should be done, or about what they like or dislike. Rather, likes, dislikes, and suggested solutions are important clues to what users actually need.

Reason 2: You are not Steve Jobs, and neither are you Jony Ives or Tim Cook.1

Apple succeeds because they create tools that make some people’s lives better, and that give some people what they need. The genius of people like Ives and Jobs lies in their ability to discern what needs to be done – and then they work until they’ve got it right.

*** *** ***

1 I am assuming that the probability of the real Jony Ives or Tim Cook reading this post is close to zero.

May 29, 2015

Blogging ICPhS

Posted in research tagged , , , , at 2:18 pm by mariawolters

As those of you who follow me on Twitter or are Facebook friends with me, I’ve been part of the local programme committee of the International Congress of Phonetic sciences 2015 in Glasgow, and my role was to draft the oral programme, with steadfast support from Glasgow phonetician Rachel Smith.

In the following weeks, I will give you an insight into the way the programme was put together and explain some of the constraints we faced, the tools we used, and the decisions we made.

As ICPhS draws ever closer, I will start to highlight interesting sessions and feature phonetics bloggers and tweeters.

Kicking off, the next post (to be posted in two hours) is a plea for help from fellow Social Media junkies. If you have any comments, or ideas for what you would like to see featured in future posts, please leave a comment or tweet me (@mariawolters).

Active on Social Media? ICPhS Needs You!

Posted in icphs tagged , , , at 12:00 am by mariawolters

I swear – the first person to develop instantaneous human cloning will be a frustrated attendee of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS).

ICPhS is the biggest gathering in phonetics. Every four years, phoneticians and speech scientists from all over the world (except Antarctica) meet for five days of phonetics, phonetics, and yet more phonetics.

The programme is usually packed. This year alone, we will have fifteen time slots for oral presentations, with up to 8 parallel sessions. Around 380 papers will be presented orally, the same number as posters.

This year, we have a new feature, organised by Bert Remijsen and Pavel Iosad – ten discussant sessions, where eminent phoneticians pick four particularly interesting papers and discuss them in a thematic session. For reasons I will explain in a later post, these sessions are organised in two blocks of five parallel sessions.

All of this is a surefire recipe for many, many frustrated phoneticians. One way of mitigating at least some of the frustration is social media.

I know from ICPhS 2011 in Hong Kong that many people are already prepared to tweet the sessions they attend, but I wonder what we could do if we were a bit more organised this time around.

Specifically, I am wondering whether people would be happy to commit in advance to reporting specific sessions on social media. This could be through live tweets, a blog post, a LinkedIn entry, a Facebook summary, a MySpace song … you get the idea.

What do you think? Could you help?

Next page


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,272 other followers