More Like this

1. Automated Whiteboard Lecture Video Summarization by Content Region Detection and Representation

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR48806.2021.9412386  

   Kota, Bhargava Urala ; Stone, Alexander ; Davila, Kenny ; Setlur, Srirangaraj ; Govindaraju, Venu ( May 2021 , 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR))

   null (Ed.)

   Lecture videos are rapidly becoming an invaluable source of information for students across the globe. Given the large number of online courses currently available, it is important to condense the information within these videos into a compact yet representative summary that can be used for search-based applications. We propose a framework to summarize whiteboard lecture videos by finding feature representations of detected handwritten content regions to determine unique content. We investigate multi-scale histogram of gradients and embeddings from deep metric learning for feature representation. We explicitly handle occluded, growing and disappearing handwritten content. Our method is capable of producing two kinds of lecture video summaries - the unique regions themselves or so-called key content and keyframes (which contain all unique content in a video segment). We use weighted spatio-temporal conflict minimization to segment the lecture and produce keyframes from detected regions and features. We evaluate both types of summaries and find that we obtain state-of-the-art peformance in terms of number of summary keyframes while our unique content recall and precision are comparable to state-of-the-art. 

   more » « less
2. Summarizing Lecture Videos by Key Handwritten Content Regions

   https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDARW.2019.30058  

   Urala Kota, Bhargava ; Ahmed, Saleem ; Stone, Alexander ; Davila, Kenny ; Setlur, Srirangaraj ; Govindaraju, Venu ( September 2019 , 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition Workshops (ICDARW))

   We introduce a novel method for summarization of whiteboard lecture videos using key handwritten content regions. A deep neural network is used for detecting bounding boxes that contain semantically meaningful groups of handwritten content. A neural network embedding is learnt, under triplet loss, from the detected regions in order to discriminate between unique handwritten content. The detected regions along with embeddings at every frame of the lecture video are used to extract unique handwritten content across the video which are presented as the video summary. Additionally, a spatiotemporal index is constructed from the video which records the time and location of each individual summary region in the video which can potentially be used for content-based search and navigation. We train and test our methods on the publicly available AccessMath dataset. We use the DetEval scheme to benchmark our summarization by recall of unique ground truth objects (92.09%) and average number of summary regions (128) compared to the ground truth (88). 

   more » « less
3. Evaluating the Benefit of Highlighting Key Words in Captions for People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353781  

   Kafle, Sushant ; Yeung, Peter ; Huenerfauth, Matt ( October 2019 , The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility)

   Recent research has investigated automatic methods for identifying how important each word in a text is for the overall message, in the context of people who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) viewing video with captions. We examine whether DHH users report benefits from visual highlighting of important words in video captions. In formative interview and prototype studies, users indicated a preference for underlining of 5%-15% of words in a caption text to indicate that they are important, and they expressed an interest for such text markup in the context of educational lecture videos. In a subsequent user study, 30 DHH participants viewed lecture videos in two forms: with and without such visual markup. Users indicated that the videos with captions containing highlighted words were easier to read and follow, with lower perceived task-load ratings, compared to the videos without highlighting. This study motivates future research on caption highlighting in online educational videos, and it provides a foundation for how to evaluate the efficacy of such systems with users. 

   more » « less
4. Building a collaborative, university-based science-in-action video storytelling model that translates science for public engagement and increases scientists' relatability

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.1049648  

   Seidel, Dena K. ; Morin, Xenia K. ; Staffen, Marissa ; Ludescher, Richard D. ; Simon, James E. ; Schofield, Oscar ( January 2023 , Frontiers in Communication)

   Collaborating scientists and storytellers successfully built a university-based science-in-action video storytelling model to test the research question: Can university scientists increase their relatability and public engagement through science-in-action video storytelling? Developed over 14 years, this science storytelling model produced more than a dozen high-visibility narratives that translated science to the public and featured scientists, primarily environmental and climate scientists, who are described in audience surveys as relatable people. This collaborative model, based on long-term trusting partnerships between scientists and video storytellers, documented scientists as they conducted their research and together created narratives intended to humanize scientists as authentic people on journeys of discovery. Unlike traditional documentary filmmaking or journalism, the participatory nature of this translational science model involved scientists in the shared making of narratives to ensure the accuracy of the story's science content. Twelve science and research video story products have reached broad audiences through a variety of venues including television and online streaming platforms such as Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Netflix, PIVOT TV, iTunes, and Kanopy. With a reach of over 180 million potential public audience viewers, we have demonstrated the effectiveness of this model to produce science and environmental narratives that appeal to the public. Results from post-screening surveys with public, high school, and undergraduate audiences showed perceptions of scientists as relatable. Our data includes feedback from undergraduate and high school students who participated in the video storytelling processes and reported increased relatability to both scientists and science. In 2022, we surveyed undergraduate students using a method that differentiated scientists' potential relatable qualities with scientists' passion for their work, and the scientists' motivation to help others, consistently associated with relatability. The value of this model to scientists is offered throughout this paper as two of our authors are biological scientists who were featured in our original science-in-action videos. Additionally, this model provides a time-saving method for scientists to communicate their research. We propose that translational science stories created using this model may provide audiences with opportunities to vicariously experience scientists' day-to-day choices and challenges and thus may evoke audiences' ability to relate to, and trust in, science. 

   more » « less
5. The Effects of Gist Information and Scientific Quality on Damages in a Civil Trial

   Dellapaolera, K.S. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 

   more » « less