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, [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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.