Preparing and Presenting Poster Presentations at a Professional

Conference Dr. Jennifer J. Waldron

Associate Vice President for Research & Innovation/Dean of the Graduate College

12th Annual Graduate Student Symposium April 3, 2019

Poster Presentations, Oral Presentations and Creative Performances

Registration is open through March 1, 2019. Find registration information at https://grad.uni.edu/graduate-student-symposium

What Is a Poster Presentation?

• Visual summary of creative or scholarly work • Text and graphics

• Allows work to be displayed to a large group • Facilitates conversation and feedback

Preparation

• Know your audience • Discipline specific or general

• Know the requirements of the conference • Size of poster, type of poster, components, deadlines • Handouts may be submitted prior to the event

• Know the key points of your presentation

Common Components of a Poster Data-Based

• Title & Author(s)• Clear & concise

• Introduction• Short summary of the entire project• Purpose statement

• Method• How the project was set up

• Results• Data analysis

• Discussion• How findings fit with previous literature

• References/Acknowledgements/Other

Literature Review• Title & Author(s)

• Clear & concise• Introduction

• Short summary of the entire project• Purpose statement

• Content-specific Sections• Headings linked to main points

• Conclusion/Implications• Application of knowledge• Importance of knowledge

• References/Acknowledgements/Other

Design Considerations

• Know maximum dimensions for poster• 36” x 48” is the most common • Common to have 4’x8’ poster board to hang posters

• Check the plotter you are going to print on • Most have 36” paper, some can do larger (42” or 60”)

• Landscape or Portrait • Landscape is the most common

Design Considerations

• Flow • Layout • Blank Space • Colors • Theme• Text • Graphics

Design

Flow • How the poster guides people

through the project • English-speaking readers

• text left to right and top to bottom

Layout• Use blank spaces to define

sections • Align everything • Consistent borders and spaces

Example: Poster with Poor Flow

Example: Layouts

DesignColors

• Contrasting• Red/green • Do not overdo the colors • Avoid dark backgrounds• Use a common theme throughout • Limit colors to 2-3

• Background, foreground, accent • Use color schemes

UNI UNI UNI UNI

UNI UNI UNI UNI

DesignText• Not too much • Bullet points are ideal • Size

• Readable from 4-5 feet away • Title: ~100 point font• Heading: minimum 36-48 point font • Body text: 30-36 point font

• Clean and easy to read• Professional looking

ArialCalibri

Century Gothic Tw Cen MT

Times New Roman Garamond

Comic Sans MagnatoBush Script Curtz MTHarlow Papyrus

Graphics • Resolution and aspect ratio

Making the Poster Recommended Software • Microsoft PowerPoint

• Common & familiar, most commonly used • Microsoft Publisher

• Reasonably common, similar to PowerPoint• Adobe InDesign

• Less common, steeper learning curve, more powerful

Not Recommended Software • Photoshop• Word • Individual panels

Creating a Timeline • Meet with faculty member/mentor to discuss poster• Collect

• Research & design information for the poster • Double check conference requirements & deadlines• Create poster

• Paying special attention to design and layout • Have multiple people edit• Maintain academic integrity

• Determine poster printing options• Submit poster and handouts to conference, if needed

• Print poster • Print in advance

https://www.hamilton.edu/documents/LFP-Timeline.pdf

Poster Printing • Students in College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences can have posters printed at no

charge• Second printings will be charged $25• Students not in College of Humanities, Arts and Sciences can print posters for $25

• Email chastech@uni.edu for more information

• Students in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences can have posters printed at no charge

• For more information visit http://www.csbs.uni.edu/request/posters/

• Copyworks, located at 2227 College St. Cedar Falls, has poster printing service• For more information visit

https://copyworks.presencehost.net/companyinfo/locations/cedar-falls.html

Poster Printing

Preparing to Print • Embed your fonts

• Print computer might not have all of them • Export to PDF likely to give best results • Text print on 11x17 to check color, layout and spelling

Poster Presenting Tips • Dress professionally • Prepare 2-4 minute “elevator speech” • Give people time to read and process the poster information• Don’t read the poster to them • Be prepared for questions

• Answer honestly if you don’t know• Use effective eye contact • Speak confidently and slowly

Example of Ineffective Posters

Examples of Effective Posters

Introduction and ReviewSpeech requires the seamless integration of motor programming and precise, rapid coordination of the laryngeal, resonance, articulatory, and respiratory systems. Information processing is defined as an individual identifying a stimulus using sensory information and determining a response. The resulting motor program prepares the necessary muscles required to complete the action prior to the execution of the motor plan. The timing of the preparation in speech depends upon the task and requires efficient posturing of the respiratory system for the specific chosen utterance; however, little is known about the behaviors of the chest wall when forced to inhibit speech production.

Refractory Period - Previous studies have investigated the refractory period of a motor program (e.g., the ability to inhibit a program) in gross motor movements in the limbs and extremities. Slater-Hammel (1959) conducted an experiment of the motor program system for a non-speech task where the participants used a finger lift gesture to stop a sweep hand at 800ms. Once they were trained, ‘catch’ trails were randomly implemented in which the sweep hand stopped before reaching 800ms. When this occurred, the participants were instructed to not raise their finger, or inhibit the trained reaction. Researchers found that participants had difficulty inhibiting their response, especially as the sweep hand stopped closer to the target of 800ms.

This work was later replicated by Corbett (2008), Howard (2010), Mueting (2011), and White & Haskell (2014) using a speech motor program in place of the gross motor program. In these studies, participants were trained on the task of producing either a single syllable, two-syllable, or three-syllable utterance to stop a sweep hand at 800ms. The experimental task involved random catch trials in which the sweep hand on the timer would stop before 800ms. If the sweep hand stopped prior to 800ms, the participants were instructed to try to inhibit their productions.

Results indicated that participants demonstrated a decreased ability to inhibit the motor program as the sweep hand was stopped closer to the 800ms mark. In addition, as the utterance length increased, is was more difficult to inhibit than the shorter two-syllable and single syllable utterances.

Speech Breathing- Respiratory behaviors for generating subglottal pressures for speech have been reported by numerous researchers (Draper, Ladefoged & Whitteridge, 1959; Hixon Goldman, & Mead, 1973; Hixon, Mead & Goldman, 1976). Hixon et al. (1973; 1976) first posited that there is an optimal combination of relaxation pressures, rib-cage muscle contraction, and abdominal contraction that configure the chest wall for speech. In addition, they stated that there is constant activation of the abdominal and rib cage muscles that provides speakers with optimal fine control of pressures of speech by the use of ‘net-zero,’ or ‘graded’ control. They also stated that the abdominal contraction necessary for speech resulted in forcing the rib cage in an inspiratory direction for speech-specific posturing. They indicated that this was likely a passive response by the rib cage. This is somewhat different than what Draper et al.(1959) had previously described in that there was an inspiratory ‘checking’ by the external intercostal muscles when relaxation pressures within the system are greater than what is needed for conversational speech. Hixon and colleagues argued against an active role of the rib cage in posturing of the chest wall for speech, instead arguing for passive volume change from the abdomen to rib cage as being responsible for inspiratory movements; however, they provided no temporal information regarding chest wall activity relative to speech.

Baken, Cavallo, and Weissman (1979) first reported oppositional movements of the chest wall (i.e., rib cage expansion and abdomen contraction) which occurred approximately 100 milliseconds prior to phonatory onset during a stimulus-response task. Baken and Cavallo (1981) hypothesized that this posturing is completed for optimal chest wall biomechanics needed for speech. Cavallo and Baken (1985) reported the prephonatory movements of the abdomen, ribcage, and larynx. They elicited brief responses of ‘ah’ and ‘ha’ after providing an auditory stimulus tone to six participants. Results of the Cavallo and Baken study demonstrated that adjustment of the larynx preceded phonation, where the onset of chest wall adjustment was variable dependent on the type of utterance. These results imply that that enlargement of the ribcage during prephonatory posturing of the chest wall is not a passive response, but in fact an active and predictable response (in 90% of males), to compression of the abdomen. Others have reported that there is no standard or predictable “posture” prior to phonation in either males or females and that this variability is necessary for speech (Hixon, 1988; Hixon, Watson, Harris, & Pearl, 1988; McFarland & Smith, 1992; Wilder, 1983).

Females exhibited a predictable chest wall configuration (i.e., abdominal wall contraction in association with rib cage expansion) 32% of the time in Wilder (1983), which is in contrast to the 90% reported in males by Baken and colleagues. In addition, Wilder’s female speakers displayed variable set-up postures and that only two of eight participants displayed a majority of responses where the abdomen led the rib cage. Contraction of both the abdominal wall and rib cage was present less than half the time (47.5%) and abdominal wall contraction with no detectable movement of the rib cage was present less than 20% of the time (17.8%). Wilder concluded that these behaviors were variable and unpredictable and were similar to what was later reported in males by Hixon et al. (1988) and females in McFarland & Smith (1992).

ResultsThe participants produced 1,186 trial where 234 (19.73%) were determined to be completely inhibited. Participants inhibited at a higher percentage during “ee” and easy productions than during the production of easier. The participants were able to completely inhibit productions between 40-50% of the time at 550ms. Their ability to inhibit decreased at 600ms and was below 10% at 650ms, 700ms, and 750ms. Please see Figure 3. An example of inhibition as viewed on TF32 is provided in Figure 4.

The participants’ ability to completely inhibit decreased at 600ms, but were able to partially inhibit at a higher percentage from 600ms-700ms. Please see Figure 5. An example of a partial inhibition is provided in Figure 6.

The ability to inhibit varied by participants. Examples of the differences by speaker are provided in Figures 7 and 8.

Chest wall posturing was present in 36% of all productions (i.e., inhibited, partially inhibited, unable to inhibit). Females postured 30% of the time whereas males postured 50% of the time. Participants postured at a greater percentage at 550ms. Please see Figures 9, 10, and 11.

Refractoriness of a Transit Reaction: Respiratory & Aerodynamic ResponseJaime Vandehaar, B.A., Michele Dacy, and Todd A. Bohnenkamp, Ph.D., CCC-SLP University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

PurposeThe purposes of the present study are to determine: 1)How the respiratory and phonatory systems interact during inhibitory tasks.

Specifically, is there a predictable order of behaviors that occur during speech inhibition that can be measured physiologically?2)Whether there are inhibitory chest wall behaviors at the instance of inhibition.

MethodsParticipants10 speakers (five males and five females) participated in the study, ranging in age from 20-24. The participants were English speakers with no history of speech, language, or hearing disorders. The data collection session lasted between 90-120 minutes.

EquipmentSoftware- Speech Therapy Timer #1 is a custom software program (Hageman & Riess, 2008) running on a desktop PC with Windows XP operating system provided both the visual stimulus for the participant and the database for recording responses. The views are split visually across two computer monitors facing in opposite directions The participant’s monitor displayed a time display similar to a clock, in which the sweep hand traverses 3600 in 1000ms whereas the investigator’s monitor displayed the data log and time variables. The investigator can manipulate the timer range (i.e., appearance of clock face in relation to total milliseconds per cycle, which in this case was 1000ms) as well as when the timer sweep hand is programmed to stop. Please see Figure 1.

Time-Frequency Analysis 32-bit (TF32; Milenkovic, 2002) software was used to collect acoustic, intraoral air pressure, airflow, rib cage and abdominal movement, and electroglottographic signals. Please see Figure 2.

Hardware- Two head-mounted microphones (Audio-technica AT 8531 & Audio-technicaATM75) collected acoustic data and triggered the stopping of the sweep hand

Respitrace™ respiratory inductance plethysmography bands were placed on each participant to collect respiratory behaviors of the chest wall during testing.

Glottal Enterprises electroglottograph (EGG) EG2 was used to collect vocal fold contact during speech production

Glottal Enterprises MS-100 circumferentially-vented mask aerodynamic system was used to collect intraoral air pressure and air flows during productions.

Procedures Task - The participants were to produce the utterances “ee,” easy, and easier to stop the sweep hand at 800ms (+ 30 ms)

Condition- The participants completed 50 practice trials of stopping the sweep hand at 800ms by producing ee, easy, or easier. The experimental condition consisted of participants continuing to stop the sweep hand at 800ms during 150 experimental trials; however, “catch trials” (i.e., 550ms, 600ms, 650ms, 700ms, and 750ms) were randomly presented that required speakers to inhibit their speech production if the sweep hand stopped prior to 800ms.

The dependent variables included: Task (i.e., ee, easy, easier), the production, partial production, or inhibition of the utterance, and the temporal value of the catch trial.

The participants displayed inspiratory checking behaviors in the rib cage and abdomen during inhibition. These results are independent of whether the speakers postured the chest wall. Please see Figure 12.

Aerodynamics- The participants were less likely to inhibit their productions when using the aerodynamic mask. Inhibition occurred on only 9.05% of all trials with the mask compared to 19.73% without the mask. Partial productions were similar (31% with to 28.83% without).The percentage of utterances that were completely uninhibited increased from 51% without the mask to 59% with the mask.

Chest wall posturing occurred only 21% of the time with very few instances of recorded oral pressure. Only a single instance of airflow was documented during complete inhibition.

Discussion and ConclusionsParticipants performed similarly to previous studies in that they had difficulty inhibiting as the target stop time got closer to the 800ms target and as the utterance lengthened. Of the 1186 trials analyzed, 19.73% were inhibited (234) and the remaining responses were partially produced (28.33%) or fully produced (51.94%). These results were expected based on previous work.

Chest wall posturing occurred on 36.52% of inhibited productions, occurring more frequently the further the sweep hand stopped from the 800ms target. This percentage is comparable to that reported by previous researchers and seems to support that there is not a predictable chest wall set up prior to speech during inhibition tasks ((Hixon, 1988; Hixon, Watson, Harris, & Pearl, 1988; McFarland & Smith, 1992; Wilder, 1983).

Interestingly, inspiratory checking was present in chest wall movements 81% of the time during the completely inhibited utterances. Draper et al. (1959) had discussed the action of the external intercostals in checking the rib cage when relaxation forces were greater than the subglottal pressure requirements. The inhibited productions in the current study provided instances where relaxation pressures were greater than subglottal requirements. Subsequently, the rib cage and abdomen appeared to have responded accordingly by moving in either an inspiratory direction or held steady for a period of time. This ability to quickly move an inspiratory direction in response to a catch trial might also indicate that the rib cage is, in fact, under constant muscular control and is not passive in nature as the chest wall prepares for speech. It might be indicative of the idea of graded control posited by Hixon and colleagues with active rib cage movement.

The measurement of intraoral air pressures and air flows by the circumferentially-vented aerodynamic mask might have influenced the participants’ ability to completely inhibit productions. There were very few instances where there was recorded oral pressures (to be expected) and there was only a single instance of airflow during the inhibitions. Inhibition was likely at the level of the glottis and the inspiratory movement of the chest wall.

Limitations and Future Research At present, only 10 of the proposed 20 participants’ data has been completely analyzed. The addition of ten speakers to the data will help contribute to whether those observations noted in the current presentation are present. The aerodynamic assessment only used 21 utterances per speaker. Subsequently, the participants’ decreased ability to inhibit while wearing the mask in the present study indicates that additional measurements using the aerodynamic equipment may not yield reliable results and would require methodological adjustments to adequately measure air flow and intraoral pressures.

Selected ReferencesBaken, R.J., & Cavallo, S.A. (1988). A response to Hixon. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 728-729. Baken, R. J., & Cavallo, S. A. (1981). Prephonatory chest wall posturing. Folia Phoniatrica, 33, 193-203.Baken, R. J., Cavallo, S. A., & Weissman, K. L. (1979). Chest wall movements prior to phonation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 22, 862-872.Baken, R. J., McManus, D. A., & Cavallo, S. A. (1983). Prephonatory chest wall posturing in stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26,

444-450.Cavallo, S. A., & Baken, R. J. (1985). Prephonatory laryngeal and chest wall dynamics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 79-87.Cavallo, S. & Baken, R.J. (1985). Prephonatory laryngeal and chest wall dynamics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 79-87.Hageman, C. & Riess, J. (2008). Speech Refractory Timer [Computer software]. University of Northern Iowa, IA.Hixon, T. (1988). Comment on Cavallo and Baken (1985). Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 726–729.Hixon, T., Goldman, M., & Mead, J. (1973). Kinematics of the chest wall during speech production: Volume displacements of the rib cage, abdomen, and

lung. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 16, 78-115.Hixon, T. J., Mead, J., & Goldman, M. D. (1976). Dynamics of the chest wall during speech production: Function of the thorax, rib cage, diaphragm, and

abdomen. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 19, 297-356.Hixon, T. J., Watson, P. J., Harris, F. P., & Pearl, N. B. (1988). Relative volume changes of the rib cage and abdomen during prephonatory chest wall

posturing. Journal of Voice, 2(1), 13-19.Howard, L. (2010). Speech inhibition in aphasia: A measure of motor speech programs. Unpublished master’s research project. University of Northern

IowaMueting, E. (2011). Reliability, accuracy, & refractoriness of a transit reaction: Replication with speech in children. Unpublished master’s research project.

University of Northern IowaSlater-Hammel, A.T. (1959). Reliability, accuracy, and refractoriness of a transit reaction. The Research Quarterly, 31 (2), 217-228. Wilder, C. N. (1983). Chest wall preparation for phonation in female speakers. In D. M. Bless & J. H. Abbs (Eds.), Vocal fold physiology:

Contemporary research and clinical issues (pp. 109-123). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.

Figure 3. . Percent of complete inhibitions at each catch trial

Figure 5. Percent of partial inhibitions at each catch trial Figure 6. Example of TF32 software and channels during partialproduction

Acoustic

Intraoral Pressure

Rib cage

Abdomen

EGG

Air flow

Sum

Acoustic

Intraoral Pressure

Rib cage

Air flow

Abdomen

EGG

Sum

Figure 4. Example of TF32 software and channels during completeproduction

Figure 7. Percent of complete inhibitions for Participant 9. Figure 8. Percent of complete inhibitions for Participant 10.

Figure 9. Presence of chest wall posturing during completely inhibited productions

Figure 10. Presence of chest wall posturing Figure 11. Chest wall posturing by sex

Figure 1. Speech Timer #1 interface. Participants see left hand side whereas examiners see right hand side.

Figure 2. TF32 channels and interface

Acoustic

Intraoral Pressure

Rib cage

Abdomen

EGG

Air flow

Sum

Figure 12. Percent of inspiratory checking during completely inhibited productions

Additional Resources

Symposium Poster Presentation Resources • https://grad.uni.edu/poster-presentation-category

Additional Online Resources • https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/PosterPresentations.html• https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/posters/• http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~cainproj/ih_posters.html• http://www.undergradresearch.gatech.edu/presentation-tips• https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/posterpresent

Questions? Email gradlife@uni.edu.