1. Proposal number: 3 BODY OWNERSHIP
2. yes
3. 7
4. 8
I think this group has done a good job on presenting how they will execute their project. The part I’m concerned is that in the proposal, the group did not present the interfaces and data structures. I don’t think it would be such a big of a deal, but it would be helpful to know. I like the way they developed the detailed test cases.
1. Proposal Number:
Proposal #3: Body Ownership
2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal Prize?
No. It lacks information in some sections, and does not show that they have
fully thought out how to do their project.
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall
organization/clarity of the proposal?
6 - The sections are organized, but it's lacking in overall clarity of why
what you're doing is new and different, and also it isn't written in an
academic style.
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea?
3 - It's still unclear to me how this project is different from previous
research. I'm also skeptical about some of your experiment ideas.
Overall, I think that BOTP is a very interesting subject to study, and you
should be able to hopefully get some interesting results if you plan and
conduct your experiments well. My concern is that currently your project is
not based enough off of previous research. I think you're missing the point
when you say you bring a "fresh perspective", because the point of doing
research is to understand the current state of the field, and build off of
what others have done. Perhaps you could see if other research papers have
ideas for future research and do experiments based on those. Or, if you do
want to just replicate previous research, then you should find out exactly
how they conducted their experiments, and be sure that you are conducting
yours under the same conditions. Otherwise, your results won't turn out.
Right now, my concerns with your experiments are:
- For #1 - I really like the idea of displaying their hand digitally
instead of using a fake hand, but I don't think it'll work to be changing so
many variables between experiments. If you remember from statistics class,
if you have several test conditions, you need 10-15 participants for each
condition. Otherwise, if just one participant experiences BTOP easily with a
certain camera positioning, that's not a valid scientific finding, it's just
anecdotal. Maybe you could test camera, monitor, and hand positioning on
your own to find the optimal placement, and then just vary the stimulation
during user testing.
- For #2 - I'm confused about the motivation behind finding the input
delay for feeling BOTP. What does this tell you about BOTP, and why is it
important? Also, you talk about developing a program to get feedback from
the user - what will you use to do this?
- For #3 - I'm not convinced that digitally adding a spider or snake to
the digital representation of their hand will scare people...also the fact
that you are measuring their pulse for this experiment will probably give it
away as to what you are testing for. For resting temperature - how you do
plan on doing this? How will you increase the temperature of just their
hand?
- For #4 - I think this part could be as much work as all the other
experiments combined. You'd have to learn how to use the 3D headtracker,
creating models in 3D, etc. Maybe it would be best to concentrate on just
the first three experiments, and doing them really well.
I'm also thinking that overall, it would be best to test each user on one
experiment only, instead of doing all 3 tests with each user. Otherwise,
it's possible that there would be practice effects - meaning the user gets
'better' at the test (experiencing BTOP) with each test they do. If you have
separate users for each test, then you could compare results across tests.
Proposal #3
For organization and clarity, I think this presentation deserves a eight out of ten. It's pretty clear what the authors want to do, and how they plan on doing it. A few typos (the constant misspelling of “performed” is the most glaring) are the only things I can really complain about, and they're only mentioned here for completeness. As such, I think this proposal should be considered for Best Proposal.
The project is obviously within the realm of possibility, and I have no doubt the team will be able to complete it.
I do have one major concern, though; it seems to involve very little programming for a computer science project involving three people. Most of the other projects involve programs doing things based on what they perceive; for example, the path-tracking and gesture-recognition projects interpret camera input. The programs within this project receive input, but they don't seem to do anything with it. This is understandable given the focus of the project, but I think it still needs to be mentioned, since the course itself seems to be about computers interpreting video and audio input.
On a scale of one to ten, this project easily rates a ten. To be perfectly honest, I probably would've asked to join this project group if I'd known about it. The idea is a very unique one – something I wouldn't have considered on my own – and a very interesting one, at that.
1. Proposal #3
2. No
3. 9
4. 5
The proposal is laid out very well giving specific details of what
the project will do. The thing I like most about the project is the variety
of ideas used to see what influences what we think our body really is. The
four experiment ideas listed seemed very interesting for what you are trying
to accomplish.
One thing that I do not like about this project is that it seems to
be a psychology experiment more than a project dealing with computer vision.
For the most part it seems that it just streams the video back out with a
few minor alterations like time delay or inserting a stressor which in my
opinion does not seem very complex to do in OpenCV.
Altogether it seems like an interesting project to work on, but I am
not sure the complexity of the project is high enough for a group of three
students.
1. Proposal #3
2. Should this proposal be considered for the Best Proposal prize? no
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the proposal? 7
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 7