Student Presentations, May 8 and June 19



Prepare a presentation of 10 minutes maximum on the paper assigned to
you. Please include some time for 1 or 2 questions of the audience.
Your audience has read the paper, so do not just present a simple
overview.
o Focus on the main goal(s) of the authors.
o What is the research question?
o What is the conclusion, and the point the authors are making?
o Which research method(s) is or are used?
o In what way does the paper contribute to the research in our
domain, human-machine-interaction?
o Are any points unclear, or questionable?
o Can you relate the paper to the other papers on the list?
After every 3 or 4 papers we will have a discussion on the topics of ca 15
minutes.
If you want to swap papers with another student, please let me,
joske.houtkamp@cs.uu.nl, know asap.
Discussion Points
Every student sends (at least) one discussion point for each paper.
 This may be an argument in favour, or against, the content or
argumentation.
 It may also be a new idea, or an important question that is not answered in
this paper but directly related to the topic, and should have been
mentioned by the authors, in your opinion.
 Be prepared to explain your point in our discussions.
Send in your discussion points on papers 1-9 before or on May 6, and on papers
10-20 before or on June 17, to joske.houtkamp@cs.uu.nl.
Presentation on May 8
(not assigned)
1.
Ernst, M.O. & Bulthoff, H.H.
(2004). Merging the senses into a
robust percept. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 8(4), 162-169.
Fagoe, Rahied
2.
Dematte M.L., Sanabria D.,
and Spence C. (2009). Olfactory
Discrimination: When Vision Matters?
Chem. Senses 34: 103–109.
Bouchaut, Paul
3.
Shams L, Seitz A, (2008).
Benefits of multisensory learning.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11),
411-417.
Cappendijk, Dennis
4.
Sarter, N.B. (2006).
Multimodal information presentation:
Design guidance and research
challenges. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics. Volume 36,
Issue 5 , Pages 439-445
Van der Ven, Sander
5
Ramachandran V.S. and
Hubbard E.M. (2003). Hearing Colors,
Tasting Shapes, Scientific American,
April 15.
Helder, Matthias
6.
Bach-y-Rita, P. and Kercel, S.
W. (2003). Sensory substitution and
the human-machine interface. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences 7, pp. 541-546.
Duell, Don
7.
Lee, K.M. (2004). Why
Presence Occurs: Evolutionary
Psychology, Media Equation, and
Presence. Presence, Vol. 13, No. 4,
August 2004, 494–505.
Baars, Frank
8.
Freeman J., Lessiter J., Pugh
K., & Keogh E. (2005). When presence
and emotion are related, and when
they are not. 8th Annual International
Workshop on Presence, September,
2005
9.
Västfjäll D. (2003). The
Subjective Sense of Presence,
Emotion Recognition and Experienced
Emotions in Auditory Virtual
Environments, Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 2, 181-188
Dobrescu, Alexandra
Presentation on June 19
Kuipers, Bart
10.
Werkhoven P.J., Schraagen
J.M.C. and Punte P.A.J. (2001).
Seeing is believing: communication
performance under isotropic videoconferencing conditions. Displays, 22,
pp. 137 - 149.
Urlings, Thijs
11. Werkhoven P. & Groen J. (1998).
Manipulation performance in interactive
virtual environments. Human Factors.
Vol. 40 Nr. 3, pp. 432-442.
(not assigned)
12.
Bakker, N.H., Passenier, P.O, &
Werkhoven, P.J. (2003). The Effects of
Head-Slaved Navigation and the use of
Teleports on Spatial Orientation in
Virtual Environments (VE). Human
Factors, 45(1), pp. 160-169.
13.
Yee, K. (2003). Peephole
Displays: Pen Interaction on Spatially
Aware Hand-held Computers.
Proceedings of the ACM Conference
on Computer-Human Interaction.
Stuvel, Sybren
Schoon, Melissa
14.
Mehra, S., Werkhoven P. &
Worring M. (2006). Navigating on hand
held displays: Dynamic versus Static
Peephole Navigation. ACM
Transactions on Computer Human
Interaction.
Gielhaus, Charles
15.
Morency L.P., Iwan de Kok I.
de, Gratch J. (2008). Context-based
Recognition during Human
Interactions: Automatic Feature
Selection and Encoding Dictionary.
Proceedings ICMI’08, October 2008.
3316882
16.
Lebedev MA, Nicolelis MA
(2006). Brain-machine interfaces: past,
present and future. Trends
Neuroscience 29: 536-546.
3019638
17.
Friedman D. Leeb R., Guger
C., Steed A., Pfurtscheller G., Slater M.
(2007). Navigating Virtual Reality by
thought: What is it like? Presence Vol.
16, No. 1, pp. 100-110.
308288
18.
Magerkurth, C., Cheok A. D.,
Mandryk, R. L. and Nilsen, T. (2005).
Pervasive games: bringing computer
entertainment back to the real world.
ACI Computers in Entertainment 3 (3),
pp. 11-29.
Bilyalov, Tair
19.
Bayliss, J.D. (2003). Use of
the Evoked Potential P3 Component
for Control in a Virtual Apartment.
IEEE Transactions On Neural Systems
And Rehabilitation Engineering, Vol.
11, No. 2, June 2003 , 113-116.
3312925
20.
Nijholt, A and Tan, D. (et al.)
(2008). Trends and Controversies:
Brain-Computer Interfacing for
Intelligent Systems. Intelligent
Systems, May/June 2008, 76-83.