| 1 | Jun 29, 2009 7:31 PM | comparison with seismic/financial prediction. certainly interesting
to compare them with seizure prediction, but was too long. |
| 2 | Jun 29, 2009 7:45 PM | Financial parts. |
| 3 | Jun 29, 2009 8:46 PM | My views as an "outsider" : I was a little concerned with the talks on prediction that all claimed they were basically all working great - where are the "gold" standards? Its a difficulty issue but without dealing with it, people may not take ANY prediction talk seriously. It seems like a story that gets old after a while. Meanwhile, no one enters the competition. Also, there is disjoint between the "signal processing" task of "detecting" seizures and then how to "score" how well you did (which is fixing the problem with another problem)- and the actual use of that detected signal in a treatment system. Without closing the loop, I don't think is possible to evaluate (imperfect) detection systems in ANY meaningfull way. For example, because the "cost" of treatment is not accounted for. In this context, the VNS presentation stood out as a good example. |
| 4 | Jun 29, 2009 8:46 PM | Physiological aspects |
| 5 | Jun 29, 2009 9:32 PM | Interesting, but FAR too much time, devoted to stockmarket/earthquate prediction |
| 6 | Jun 30, 2009 6:19 AM | earthquake prediction |
| 7 | Jun 30, 2009 7:47 AM | prediction in finance, earth quakes, ... |
| 8 | Jun 30, 2009 8:44 AM | I think there was a reasonable balance |
| 9 | Jun 30, 2009 9:21 AM | finance & earthquakes |
| 11 | Jun 30, 2009 5:28 PM | NA |
| 12 | Jun 30, 2009 5:37 PM | NA |
| 13 | Jun 30, 2009 8:00 PM | Mechanistic approaches to seizure prediction especially by non-clinicians, or groups working independently of clinicians. |
| 14 | Jul 1, 2009 5:44 PM | too narrow a focus on the statistical analysis of recorded data (noisy and imprecise) and the interpretation of those statistics |
| 15 | Jul 2, 2009 1:43 AM | None. |
| 16 | Jul 4, 2009 6:13 AM |
I should point out that we must consider the main objective of the workshop (seizure prediction); research groups are getting involved with other problems around seizure prediction without looking for the relationship between all the approaches and how they can converge. |
| 17 | Jul 4, 2009 10:36 PM | Seizure Prediction |
| 18 | Jul 6, 2009 9:47 AM | prediction in other complex systems (too much time devoted for this) |
| 19 | Jul 6, 2009 8:34 PM | Not having attended before, I didn't find cases of over-emphasis. |
| 20 | Jul 7, 2009 1:04 AM | None |
| 21 | Jul 7, 2009 4:20 PM | prediction in related fields was over-emphasized |
| 22 | Jul 8, 2009 12:28 PM | Of course I understand folks want to talk about their research, but it seemed at times that topics strayed very far from seizure prediction (e.g. to earthquakes). There may be a connection, but it's not at all clear there is one. It would be best if all talks were focused exclusively on epilepsy, seizure prediction, and those fields (e.g. hardware, signal processing) that are enablers to these goals. |
| 23 | Jul 8, 2009 7:50 PM | ? |
| 24 | Jul 9, 2009 6:59 PM | finance and earth quakes |
| 25 | Jul 10, 2009 5:36 AM | None. It was a great workshop for me. |
| 26 | Jul 10, 2009 11:19 AM | prediction in finance |
| 27 | Jul 10, 2009 9:08 PM | assessment of seizure detection algorithms |
| 28 | Jul 22, 2009 2:05 PM | None, it was well-balanced. |
| 29 | Jul 24, 2009 6:04 PM | none |
| 30 | Jul 24, 2009 7:19 PM | N/A |
| 33 | Jul 28, 2009 11:10 PM | Debate was a good concept but participants seemed to go through the motions rather than firmly and personally believing the position they were defending. Still a lot of good information was made available to the audience during the debate presentations. |
| 34 | Jul 29, 2009 3:00 AM | Too much biology; |