Today, Maarten (van der Velde) and myself presented our poster “Deploying a Model-based Adaptive Fact-Learning System in a University Course” at ICCM/MathPsych (co-authored by Hedderik van Rijn). The poster itself along with all the materials, data, and scripts can be found on the lab’s GitHub page. Working with Maarten finally gave me an incentive to wrap my head around working with GitHub and he’s been patient enough to guide me through the process.
This is a really interesting dataset and I’m looking forward to working with it more and figuring out the exact situations in which the model does a good job at describing students’ behavior and — more importantly! — the situations in which the model fails. Having these large, naturalistic datasets to work with is very exciting!
I have been fairly productive in the last weeks, despite a lot of administrative things that needed to be sorted out and uncertainties regarding my partner’s future employment that made it hard to plan for the future.
Specifically, we finished up a manuscript (“Exploration of the Rate of Forgetting as a Domain-Specific Individual Differences Measure“) that is based on chapter 4 of my PhD thesis and submitted the work in early May. This was together with my PhD promotors Rob R. Meijer and Hedderik van Rijn. We’re now waiting for reviews.
Additionally, Hedderik and I wrote up our exploration of an implementation of the serial reaction time task in a very simple virtual reality environment that came out of a collaboration with the local company STARK Learning. We were able to show that the expected speed-up of reaction times emerged in the VR implementation of the task, which is a nice proof of concept that we hope other researchers can use to deploy the task in novel conditions. I got the “notification of formal acceptance” last night and we hope the paper goes through production swiftly and will be available in PLoS ONE soon.
The most exciting new development, however, is that a new PhD student joined the lab: Maarten van der Velde started his PhD in May and I am excited to co-supervise him, together with Jelmer Borst and Hedderik van Rijn. Hedderik and I submitted an abstract to ICCM 2018 and Maarten is going to help processing the data and preparing it for the poster presentation in Madison. It’s going to be very interesting for me to work with someone that has a formal computer science education – I’ll have a lot to learn from him!
Wow, it has been way too long since I updated this site. I will try to do better in the future and provide more frequent updates about what I am doing.
As stated in the last post, I took some time off in 2017. Specifically, I went to the US and hiked about 2,500 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail, from the Canadian border to the Mexican border. I kept a blog which you can check out if you’re interested.
I got back to work after I got back and have been fairly productive since then. It took me a while to get my head back into “the game” after living in a tent for a couple of months but I was able to ease back into it. Since I’ve been back, Hedderik and I have been working hard on finishing up manuscripts for projects that were mostly completed before I left: we submitted a paper about our explorations of a serial reaction time task in a virtual reality environment. We also submitted a shared first authorship manuscript that was long overdue. Together with Sarah and our collaborators at the AFRL, we submitted a conference paper about our CPR related work to CogSci, which will be held in Madison, WI in the end of July. Last week, Hedderik and I also submitted an abstract to ICCM, which will be held together with MathPsych just before CogSci. We’re hoping that both submissions get accepted, of course, and I am looking forward to a trip to Madison in July.
I am currently working on preparing two more manuscripts of projects that are completed but not written up, yet. I hope to have those off my desk by the end of June so I can focus on setting up new projects then. More detailed updates about those projects will follow as those papers see the light of day, hopefully in the near future!
I finalized my poster yesterday and had it printed. On silk. Nice and foldable so I don’t have to take a poster tube. I am looking forward to the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM) and present this preliminary, exploratory work there. I’ll be good to talk to some people and get some input.
Here’s the poster if you’re interested:
Can’t wait to hang out with Garrett Swan at Penn State. While I am there, I’ll be working on my CogSci talk…
As reported about a month ago, I submitted an abstract to the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Boston in November. Today I received an e-mail that the submission was accepted as a poster. Awesome!
As I mentioned in the previous post, I didn’t expect to get a talk because those are handed out based on seniority. In fact, the acceptance e-mail states:
I am pleased to inform you that your submission to the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society has been accepted for presentation as a poster. […] All of the spaces on the spoken program were filled by Fellows of the Society and the nine Member Select-Speaker Award recipients. […] No other Member papers, Student Member or non-member papers could be put on the spoken program. In addition, a few spoken paper requests by Fellows could not be honored. I apologize if you are a Fellow and were given a poster instead of a spoken presentation. Once the spoken program was full, posters were assigned no matter what preference was indicated.
Which means I am quite happy to have my Student Member submission accepted at all.
Yesterday was the deadline for abstract submissions for the annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society in Boston in November. I’d really like to go to present my work there so I submitted an abstract. Usually, when you write an abstract, you include the research question, how you addressed it, what you discovered, and what it means. In this case, I went a slightly different route: I explained the question and how we are going to address it but then stated that we just pre-registered an experiment. Thus, we don’t have the results yet. But I think the data will tell an interesting story either way and I hope that the abstract makes that clear.
I am curious whether they will accept it and let me present the results there. Unfortunately, the selection of submitted abstracts seems to be largely based on seniority so I don’t think my chances are too good as a student member. We’ll see.
The conference paper I submitted to CogSci 2016 has been accepted for an oral presentation. I implemented the reviewers’ suggestions and clarified some points in the paper and just submitted the revised and final version of the paper. I also uploaded the final version of the conference paper to the corresponding Github repository. You can find the PDF there.
Now I am curious what time slot they’ll assign me for my presentation. I hope it’s early on during the conference but not in the very first session.
I just received the following e-mail:
Dear Florian Sense:
We are very pleased to inform you that your paper submission “On the Link between Fact Learning and General Cognitive Ability” has been accepted for oral presentation at CogSci 2016. We received 656 paper submissions this year, and each underwent careful peer review. While many submissions were found to be of high quality, time and space constraints allowed us to accept 222 (34%) for oral presentation and a further 258 (39%) for poster presentation. Your submission will be allocated a standard 25-minute presentation period in order for you, or another one of the paper’s authors, to present this paper and to answer questions from the audience.
Awesome! I am really glad that the paper was accepted and that I can present it in Philadelphia in August. The paper is based on the data that was collected up until mid-January (N = 89) but the data collection is still on-going. By the time I can present, the data collection should be complete and I’ll probably be working on the paper. So it’ll be great to have a chance to present my work there and get some input.
Yesterday was the annual Heymans Symposium: an opportunity for the researchers of the different departments at the faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences to showcase their work. I re-cycled my BCN Winter Meeting poster and presented it there. It was good to talk to some people that you see in the building day in and day out and hear more about what they’re actually working on.
We arrived in Heidelberg last night to attend the 58th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (TeaP). My talk was the first session this morning. I was chairing the session and gave the last talk in front of a relatively small audience. The title of my talk was “Psychometric predictors of academic performance” and I presented data that I collected in collaboration with Susan Niessen. We basically show that students’ grades (in our sample/population: first-year psychology students in Groningen) are not related to students’ fluid intelligence and/or working memory capacity. There is a promising correlation with our model’s estimated parameter but it is not significant (yet). The data collection is still on-going and we’ll see how everything turns out once we have all grades at the end of the year.
Now I am looking forward to two more days packed with talks and posters. And I hope I get a chance to explore the city a little bit…