1. Research presentation Assignment 1 per group: –Prepare a 10-15 min research presentation of your experiment (power point or overhead, and script of what you will say for each slide). –Due May 1

2. Research Presentations Presenting your research –Papers –Posters –Talks

3. Different kinds of talks Research Presentations –(typically 10 to 30 mins) Paper with respondent Panel Presentation Workshop

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. The Production and Comprehension Lexicons: What’s Shared and What’s Not J. Cooper Cutting Dept. of Psychology Illinois State University Title slide Informative title Authors Affiliation - where the work was done and where you currently are

12. shared goal: to communicate ideas without one, the other is useless Production and Comprehension are closely intertwined However, despite these similarities the two systems may operate with different processes and different representations Background slide General issue Elaborations

13. 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 slide Theoretical perspective #1

14. 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 speech have too much in common to depend on different mechanisms” (Lashley, 1951, pg. 513) Background slide Theoretical perspective #2

15. 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

16. 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

17. A sample experimental trial 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

18. Logic and assumptions of the task: the prime trial - 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

19. 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

20. Comparing the two models Prime Trial lion sandal Predictions

21. Comparing the two models Prime Trial lion sandal Predictions

22. General Predictions Predictions Clarity alert: Presented in the same format as the data will be presented Clarity alert: Used color to help disambiguate the conditions

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

24. 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

25. Experiment 1 Results ** Results: Walk the audience through the results Clarity alert: Indicate which differences are significantly different

26. Ignored primes were processed by the comprehension system Something is shared by comprehension and production –but, can’t tell what Experiment 1 Conclusions Conclusions: Clearly state how you have interpreted the results

27. 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??

28. Experiment 2 predictions 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

29. Experiment 2 Results **

30. 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

31. 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 Clarity alert: new procedure used

32. Experiment 3 Results **

33. 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

34. Experiment 4 Are word-forms shared? –same design used in the earlier experiments, except used phonologically related primes “liar” prime for the lion picture

35. Experiment 4 Predictions

36. Experiment 4 Results *

37. Experiment 4 Conclusions Results support a model with distinct word- forms for production and comprehension But: The primes were presented visually The results may reflect distinct orthographic and phonological word-forms

38. 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

39. Experiment 5 Results *

40. 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

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

42. General Conclusions The overall pattern of results support a model in which production and comprehension share meaning representations but have distinct word-forms. Final conlusions: Leave them with a clear take home message.