<< Back to Summary
If applicable, please identify any aspect/s of the meeting format you would improve upon and explain how you would improve it.
#Response DateResponse Text
1Jun 29, 2009 7:31 PMIn the didactic sessions for non-epileptologists, lots of materials, especially regarding EEG and epileptiform acitivity, were overlapping from lecturers to lecturers. It would be better for them to submit their presentation to the committee prior to the meeting, and review the materials.
2Jun 29, 2009 8:46 PMThe didactic sessions were very interesting and could be improved/expanded on. For example, they were not really basic at all. In some cases, I felt the speakers were presenting concepts at such a fast rate that even experts would have a hard time following - other times the slow intro's were great. The emphasis might be a explanation and discussion or core tools. The talks should not be research talks and should invite participation. Now the debates at the end were an interesting idea but somehow didn't work - first the speakers should actually feel like they want to take a side. And I think putting on a stage in that format may "put them on the stop" in way that they focus more on how they come across, the nurturing a discussion. Still overall, both were great and unique ideas.
3Jun 29, 2009 9:32 PMI'm afraid that, for me, the basics of mathematical processing, apart from very basic signal detection and processing, wasn't basic enough. Ideally I would like to see some sort of "workshop" approach presented at a somewhat "lower" level, with opportunities to handle questions without as much pressure to "stay on time".
4Jun 30, 2009 12:53 AMFrom a physician's perspective, expanding the day of introductory didactic sessions to include review of mathematic terms used for seizure prediction would be very helpful.
5Jun 30, 2009 6:19 AMlonger time for the scientific presentations (10 min was too short, maybe 15 or 20 min would be better, even if that meant less presentations)
6Jun 30, 2009 8:44 AMMaybe could have had some buffer zones to allow for longer discussions when they developed. Perhaps the easiest would be to have a ten minute discussion period at the end of each session which could be used either to wrap the session up or to allow a few more minutes when individual talks raised a lively discussion (but I still would curtail or drop discussion when a speaker overran their allotted time).
7Jun 30, 2009 9:21 AM I would rethink the amount of time assigned to each speaker.  Anyway, I know that this is quite hard and it is impossible to satisfy everyone.
8Jun 30, 2009 11:36 AM The sessions with key-note speakers from outside the field were interesting but the time allocated to some could have been shorter, leaving more time for a general discussion.
9Jun 30, 2009 2:07 PMThe time allocated for questions to speakers must be shorter and better managed. This is a passionate group, but a few personalities tend to "hog" the mike and promote their views at length. It usually turns out that after the first few talks, it's easy to identify habitual questioners and by then you know pretty much what they're going to say. This discourages newcomers from joining the discussion. Here's a suggestion (not completely fair): how about limiting the number/order/time of questions asked by (current or former) members of the organizing and advisory committees? They would be gracious enough as a group to give others priority. Another way is to have written questions passed on to the session chairs who will pick them "out of a hat" for the speaker to answer.
10Jun 30, 2009 2:10 PMThe didactic mostly consisted of the research work conducted by the presenters creating a bit of bias. It would be nice if that is avoided.
11Jun 30, 2009 5:28 PMNA
12Jun 30, 2009 5:37 PMNA
13Jun 30, 2009 8:00 PMI would have liked to see more emphasis on EEG-based mechanisms of seizure development. Currently there is no good forum for this, and the IWSP would be the ideal group to provide it.
14Jul 1, 2009 3:13 PMAs a first time participant, it would had been nice if the didactic session in the beginning had contained a brief summary of previous findings in former meetings. This was partly done by Hitten on the last day, but would had been nice to have in the beginning.
15Jul 1, 2009 5:44 PMA time and section of the meeting where different discussion groups can be formed to meet and talk about ideas/concepts discussed during the day's lectures.
16Jul 7, 2009 4:20 PMT
17Jul 8, 2009 12:28 PMI would shorten the 2.5 hour talk on the morning of the second day.
18Jul 8, 2009 6:56 PMStart times could be slightly modified. For example, if lunch is provided, the time was enough. When lunch was not provided, people needed more time and were absent from the talks that had the misfortune of being scheduled at such a time. The big night out for KC BBQ was great, but it would have been nice to start one hour later the next day (just that day, the others were fine). I was on the "party bus" that was supposed to drop us off in the Light and Power District. The driver said "OK here we are," so I got up. Nobody else on the entire bus got up, so I sat back down. Maybe some people would have done this if the start time was one hour later.
19Jul 8, 2009 7:50 PMI would ask more easier lectures and presentation because so many diverse peoples are attending in the conference, just to give the ideas not more details seems better for me.
20Jul 8, 2009 8:20 PMall talks (incl. invited talks) <= 1hr
21Jul 9, 2009 8:50 AMI would actually have liked to participate in both parrallel sessions the first day. Poster session during the evening (after a whole day of sessions) was tough.
22Jul 10, 2009 5:36 AMFor the 5th annual symposium, we hope to have more material that is presentable from the electrical engineering field with the integration of wireless technologies.
23Jul 10, 2009 9:08 PMa little more time for discussion
24Jul 22, 2009 2:05 PMnot applicable
25Jul 24, 2009 4:55 PMThis was probably the best and most focused meeting I have attended in recent times. The one thing that I would have loved to see differently was to space out the events a bit more and not make the day too tightly packed. It was a great idea to have all the presentations in the same seminar hall- but it was also the reason why the day had to be tight. Maybe splitting it in half- to say two seminar rooms and spacing things out a bit more would give the participants some choice, and also a breather! Overall great job!
26Jul 24, 2009 5:10 PMMore & longer open sessions, no lectures over three hours by single individuals. Otherwise it was great!
27Jul 24, 2009 7:00 PMI think that there were too many formal sessions and not enough free time to talk to people. I ran out of gas about half way through
28Jul 24, 2009 7:19 PMnone
29Jul 27, 2009 6:24 AMthe flier could be more detailed if possible provide some key presentation slices if possible
30Jul 27, 2009 10:50 AMNo speaker should have more than 45 min. extended coffee breaks -- needed for discussion and to catch up with the schedule
31Jul 28, 2009 11:10 PMI was expecting a workshop; where great minds converge to work toward solving a problem. I observed that the work of all is a bit like chaos. I recommend an overriding strategy to solving the problem (of seizure prediction) that is systematic in nature, and with global overriding vision and path to the end point.
32Jul 31, 2009 2:11 PM The didactic sessions ( I attended the engineering mat physics for MDs) were not all directed towards the same audience. Some of the lectures gave you enough of a background to understand the intricate analysis they presented. Others did not even assume basic knowledge of calculus. I realize it's difficult to gauge the audience's familiarity with mathematical concepts, but it would be good if the speakers were given some sort of standard.
33Aug 5, 2009 3:32 PMPut more than 24 hrs in a day