Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Trinity: Synchronizing Verbal, Nonverbal, and Visual Channels to Support Academic Oral Presentation Delivery

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Trinity, a mobile-plus-AI system, claims to improve EFL students' academic oral presentations by synchronizing verbal, nonverbal, and visual delivery cues on the fly.

desk verdict A well-built integrated presentation-support system with a thorough formative study, but the reported evaluation contains internal contradictions (participant counts, the 'without excessive cognitive load' claim) that need fixing before the paper's central claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17015 v1 pith:JFNORO5V submitted 2024-11-26 cs.HC

Yuchen Wu , Shengxin Li , Shizhen Zhang , Xingbo Wang , Quan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords MultichannelcommunicationAcademicoralpresentationDeliverysupportEFLstudentsOn-the-flyfeedbackLargelanguagemodelsMobileprompterUserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that English-as-a-foreign-language students give monotonous, disjointed academic oral presentations because their verbal, nonverbal, and visual channels are not coordinated, and that a hybrid support system can fix this during the live talk. It introduces Trinity, a PowerPoint add-in paired with a smartphone prompter: GPT-4 polishes the script and inserts delivery cues, while the app tracks speech pace, controls slides remotely, and displays emoji prompts for gestures, eye contact, volume, and facial expression. A controlled between-subject study with 33 presenters and 21 audience members reports that Trinity was perceived as significantly more helpful than two baselines and improved audience ratings on eye contact, gesture, vocal variety, slide effectiveness, and channel consistency. The paper also reports that workload and cognitive-load scores were higher for Trinity, though the abstract characterizes the added load as not excessive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Trinity's augmented prompter: a smartphone app that holds the LLM-polished script, the emoji-encoded delivery prompts, and the remote slide controls, while a server connects it to a PowerPoint add-in. The synchronization mechanism is a dual-layered speech-pace display (global progress bars plus sentence-level underpainting), an emoji lookup table that converts GPT-4's textual prompts into glanceable nonverbal cues, and a speech-recognition pipeline using BM25 string matching to scroll the script in step with the speaker's words. Together these let one device carry verbal guidance, nonverbal reminders, and visual control so the presenter can move, gesture, and make eye contact instead of staying anchored to a laptop.

What would settle it

Run the same three-condition comparison with audience members who cannot see the presenter's device—for example, watching through a one-way mirror or hearing only audio with slides—and check whether Trinity still receives significantly higher ratings. If the advantage disappears, the perceived helpfulness is an artifact of visible device use.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that on-the-fly synchronization of the three communication channels is what makes delivery support effective, and that a mobile-centric system can deliver that synchronization in real time. Trinity combines an LLM-refined script with live prompting: in-line emoji cues encode verbal and nonverbal modulations, progress bars and underpainting regulate speech pace, and thumbnails plus tapping let the presenter drive slides from the phone. In the user study, Trinity significantly outperformed IntelliPrompter and OfficeRemote on perceived helpfulness in supporting delivery ($H = 9.471$, $p = 0.007$) and on likelihood of future use ($H = 10.382$, $p = 0.005$), and audience ratings significantly favored Trinity on composure, gesture, eye contact, facial expression, vocal pitch, speech rate, volume, slide effectiveness, and speech-behavior-visual consistency. The paper presents this as evidence that integrated multichannel guidance, not just script reading or slide navigation, drives perceived presentation quality.

Load-bearing premise

The main results assume audience members could not tell which support tool a presenter was using; the paper admits that presenters' visible phone use may have revealed the condition and biased ratings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Presenters using Trinity were rated by audiences as significantly better on eye contact, facial expression, composure, gesture, vocal pitch, speech rate, volume, and consistency among speech, behavior, and slides.
  • In-line emoji prompts can cue nonverbal behavior without raising attentional load beyond what script reading already requires.
  • LLM-based script polishing can save preparation time and improve fluency, but presenters need to review and edit the output to keep their own speech style.
  • System malfunctions and speech-recognition jitters sharply reduce trust and increase cognitive load, so robustness is a prerequisite for any on-the-fly delivery support.
  • Moving delivery support to a smartphone frees presenters from the lectern and appears to encourage gestures and audience engagement that PC-only tools do not.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editor's inference: if the helpfulness advantage survives a fully blinded replication, the same three-channel synchronization design could generalize to conference talks, teaching, or public-speaking coaching, where the core problem is also coordinating voice, body, and slides in real time.
  • Editor's inference: the emoji-prompt scheme offers a cheap, testable way to transfer expert delivery advice into live cues; a natural next experiment would remove the prompts while keeping the polished script to isolate which component caused the audience-visible gains.
  • Editor's inference: the higher cognitive-load scores suggest an adaptive prompt-density mechanism—fewer cues for familiar content or later presentations—could preserve Trinity's benefits while lowering the reported load.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Trinity, a hybrid mobile-centric system that supports EFL students' academic oral presentations by synchronizing verbal, nonverbal, and visual delivery channels. The system consists of a PowerPoint add-in that refines scripts and generates customizable delivery prompts using GPT-4, and a smartphone app that provides remote slide control, speech pace modulation, and integrated emoji-based delivery prompts. The authors report a formative study (survey, design study, and expert interview) and a controlled between-subject user study comparing Trinity with IntelliPrompter and OfficeRemote, with presenter self-reports, audience ratings, interaction logs, and interviews. The abstract claims that Trinity effectively supports AOP delivery and is perceived as significantly more helpful than baselines, without excessive cognitive load.

Significance. If the results hold, Trinity makes a useful contribution to presentation-support systems for EFL students by targeting the synchronization of multiple communication channels in real time, an aspect largely underexplored compared with single-channel training or teleprompter-style tools. The formative study is carefully conducted, and the design goals are grounded in multiple stakeholder perspectives. The paper also transparently reports several limitations, including the difficulty of blinding the audience and the challenges of technical stability. However, the headline claims are currently weakened by internal inconsistencies between the abstract and the reported statistics, an unmet definition of 'excessive cognitive load,' and overstatements of pairwise comparison results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §6.2 iii] The abstract and Section 5.2 report inconsistent participant numbers. The abstract (and Section 1) state the user study involved 33 EFL student presenters and 21 audience members, while Section 5.2 reports 65 recruited presenters, 62 after dropouts (21 Trinity, 21 IntelliPrompter, 20 OfficeRemote), and 25 audience members. This discrepancy undermines confidence in the data reporting and needs to be resolved, as the statistics in Section 6 use the 62-presenter sample.
  2. [§6.1 ii] Given that the central effectiveness claim relies heavily on audience ratings, the admitted violation of audience blindness in Section 5.5 is a load-bearing confound. The authors acknowledge that 'the audience may still infer some condition-related information from presenters' usage patterns (i.e., how they interact with devices), potentially influencing their ratings.' Since presenters using Trinity physically interact with a phone, while IntelliPrompter users interact with a laptop, audience members could plausibly identify the condition and bias their ratings of eye contact, gestures, and composure. The paper should either provide evidence that this did not occur (e.g., a manipulation check or analysis of ratings by audience members' awareness) or substantially temper the causal claims drawn from the audience data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] There is an inconsistency in the description of the dropout: the text says 'After three dropouts, Trinity and IntelliPrompter conditions had 21 presenters, and OfficeRemote conditions had 20,' but the initial allocation is described as 'three groups of 22 for the Trinity and IntelliPrompter conditions, and 21 for the OfficeRemote condition'; a three-person dropout from a 22/22/21 split should yield 21/21/20 only if the dropout came from the OfficeRemote group and one from each of the other groups, which should be clarified.
  2. [§6.1 i] The phrase 'ease-to-use' is a typo for 'ease of use,' and the quote from S10 contains a grammatical error ('how to it works') that should be corrected.
  3. [Table 6] The questionnaire table lists 'How satisfing was the system?' which should read 'How satisfying was the system?'
  4. [§5.1] The description of conditions uses the phrase 'without𝑄&𝐴 sessions' with a mathematical symbol; this appears to be a formatting error and should read 'without Q&A sessions.'
  5. [§6.1 ii] The pairwise p-values are inconsistently formatted (e.g., some use 'p_TI' and others use 'p<0.1'); standardizing the notation and explicitly listing which comparisons are non-significant would improve readability and accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Trinity's central claim is an empirically measured perceived-helpfulness result against external baselines, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is formative study (survey, design study, expert interview) -> six design goals -> Trinity -> controlled between-subject study against IntelliPrompter and OfficeRemote. None of these steps defines its predicted outcome in terms of its inputs. The effectiveness questionnaire (Table 4) asks presenters to rate the system on dimensions such as 'facilitating appropriate facial expressions,' which aligns with design goal D5, but this is a measurement instrument for a claim explicitly about perceived helpfulness rather than a derivation of that claim from the design goals. Audience ratings used the external standardized rubric of Peeters et al. [66], providing independent grounding. The admitted audience-blindness violation (§5.5), the inconsistency between the abstract's 'without excessive cognitive load' and the significant higher cognitive load reported in §6.2 iii, and the participant-count discrepancy between §1 (33 presenters, 21 audience) and §5.2 (62 presenters, 25 audience) are validity/reporting concerns, not circularity. Self-citations [89, 101] support the design choice of integrated delivery prompts and [95] supports a methodological practice, but the central claim does not reduce to these citations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The evaluation is self-contained against external baselines and an external rubric, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the survey sample, the validity of audience rubrics, the reliability of GPT-4 and speech recognition, and the comparability of the three conditions. The paper explicitly flags the audience-blindness violation and speech-recognition jitters, which are the most fragile premises.

free parameters (4)
  • Delivery-factor overload reminder threshold = 5 factors
    Hard-coded threshold at which Trinity warns users of potential overload (§4.2.1). Chosen by the authors without systematic testing.
  • Recommended preset of delivery factors = unspecified
    A default checkbox set derived from survey rankings; the exact selection is not disclosed, so its influence on results cannot be audited (§4.2.1).
  • Emoji-to-prompt mapping = Table 2 mappings
    Hand-selected emojis for each modulation cue; ambiguity resolved by author discussion (§4.2.2). A different mapping could change prompt comprehension.
  • Time-limit slider range = user-adjustable, bounds unspecified
    Used to generate polished scripts with predicted duration; bounds and prediction method are not stated (§4.2.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The surveyed 49 EFL students and 36 instructors from one local university represent the broader EFL presenter population.
    The need-finding survey drives the design goals; no cross-institution validation is provided (§3.1).
  • domain assumption Audience evaluation with the standardized rubric from Peeters et al. yields a valid measure of presentation quality.
    The rubric is used as the ground truth for comparing conditions; its validity for this context is taken from prior literature (§5.4).
  • domain assumption GPT-4 produces accurate, behaviorally appropriate delivery prompts and script improvements.
    The entire prompt-generation pipeline relies on GPT-4 outputs; no independent verification of prompt correctness is reported (§4.2).
  • domain assumption Android SpeechRecognizer plus BM25 matching tracks the presenter's speech accurately enough for pace modulation.
    Pace synchronization depends on speech recognition; the paper itself documents 'jitters' and script jumps (§6.2 F4).
  • domain assumption The between-subject design with two baselines isolates the effect of Trinity's combined features.
    Without an ablation, any difference may come from the extra features alone, not the synchronization concept; the authors acknowledge this in §5.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trinity: Synchronizing Verbal, Nonverbal, and Visual Channels to Support Academic Oral Presentation Delivery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFNORO5V

@misc{pith2026241117015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trinity: Synchronizing Verbal, Nonverbal, and Visual Channels to Support Academic Oral Presentation Delivery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFNORO5V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17015}
}
read the original abstract

Academic Oral Presentation (AOP) allows English-As-Foreign-Language (EFL) students to express ideas, engage in academic discourse, and present research findings. However, while previous efforts focus on training efficiency or speech assistance, EFL students often face the challenge of seamlessly integrating verbal, nonverbal, and visual elements into their presentations to avoid coming across as monotonous and unappealing. Based on a need-finding survey, a design study, and an expert interview, we introduce Trinity, a hybrid mobile-centric delivery support system that provides guidance for multichannel delivery on-the-fly. On the desktop side, Trinity facilitates script refinement and offers customizable delivery support based on large language models (LLMs). Based on the desktop configuration, Trinity App enables a remote mobile visual control, multi-level speech pace modulation, and integrated delivery prompts for synchronized delivery. A controlled between-subject user study suggests that Trinity effectively supports AOP delivery and is perceived as significantly more helpful than baselines, without excessive cognitive load.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example scenario of using Trinity. A) The user, lacking comprehensive knowledge and sufficient experiences, struggles to find a effective way to deliver his presentation. B) Seeking assistance, the user opens the Trinity PowerPoint add-in on their laptop. The user customizes the supportive features based on the specific needs, refines the presentation script, makes necessary revisions, and finally uploads the improv… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of existing works in presentation do [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. EFL student’s needs and perceived importance from instructors based on a normalized weighted importance score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The design development process in the Formative Study, where the blue boxes are different research activities while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flow diagram of design formation and Storyboard No.2. A) The design iteration started from storyboarding for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Designs of previous delivery support tools. A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A) Experience of experts in presentation teaching. B) Questions (Q1 - Q8) and experts’ feedback on the quality of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview workflow of Trinity, including a Preprocessing phase and a Presentation phase. 3.4 Design Goals Based on the findings and insights derived, we summarized the following design goals for a novel delivery support system. In this system, the smartphone takes on th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: PC end interface of Trinity. A complete workflow on PC end encompasses 9 steps, users 1) select required delivery factors on the checkboxes, 2) enter the script in the input field, 3) set time limit, 4) augment the script, 5) switch between the manuscript and polished …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Interface design of Trinity App. A) Interface of Trinity App consists primarily of three components: slide thumbnails, progress bars, and the augmented script. B) Upward triangle group indicates that speech pace is too fast. C) Underpainting fades out as speech pace i…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Interactions for Trinity App. A) The viewfinder appears as a static gray box to capture the slides intended for display. B) Tapping in the viewfinder to perform clicking. C) Swiping the slide thumbnails to promptly switch among slides. paces are visualized with upward…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Design and procedure of user study. 1) In the preparatory phase, student presenters and were given a pre-task survey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The usability and usefulness of systems. A) The usability of different systems perceived by student presenters. B) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Audience’s ratings on verbal and nonverbal delivery of presenters using different systems. The error bars indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Audience’s ratings on visual delivery and delivery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Student presenters’ ratings on how different systems support their delivery. The error bars indicate standard errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The effects on presenters’ emotions and related feelings. The error bars indicate standard errors. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The effects on presenters’ cognitive load, attentioal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Student presenters’ trust levels (in 7-point Likert) on different system features. F8: Presenters primarily concentrate on their scripts and briefly glance at emojis during presentations. Presenters prior￾itized scripts for fluency and confidence, believing it helped …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Summarized version of the Storyboards used in our design workshop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Main interface and built-in emoji lookup table of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Evaluation form used in the user study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: (continued) Evaluation form used in the user study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Audience’s ratings on content and organization of students’ presentations. The error bars indicate standard errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_24.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Understood: Real-Time Communication Support for Adults with ADHD Using Mixed Reality

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A HoloLens-based mixed reality assistant for adults with ADHD reduced conversation pause and off-topic recovery times in a within-subjects lab study of 10 participants.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Darko Martinovikj Nevena Ackovska. 2013. Gesture recognition solution for pre- sentation control. In Proc. of 10th Conference for Informatics and Information Technology

    2013

  2. [2]

    Olwyn Alexander, Sue Argent, and Jenifer Spencer. 2008. EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles and practice. Garnet Education

    2008

  3. [3]

    Nur Lina Amalia and Nadiah Ma’mun. 2020. The anxiety of EFL students in presentation. ELITE JOURNAL 2, 1 (2020), 65–84

    2020

  4. [4]

    Michael Argyle, Florisse Alkema, and Robin Gilmour. 1971. The communication of friendly and hostile attitudes by verbal and non-verbal signals. European Journal of Social Psychology 1, 3 (1971), 385–402

    1971

  5. [5]

    Reza Asadi, Ha Trinh, Harriet J Fell, and Timothy W Bickmore. 2017. In- telliPrompter: speech-based dynamic note display interface for oral presenta- tions. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 172–180

    2017

  6. [6]

    Elizabeth E Austin and Naomi Sweller. 2014. Presentation and production: The role of gesture in spatial communication. Journal of experimental child psychology 122 (2014), 92–103

    2014

  7. [7]

    Steven A Beebe. 1976. Effects of Eye Contact, Posture and Vocal Inflection upon Credibility and Comprehension. (1976)

    1976

  8. [8]

    Laurence Bich-Carrière. 2019. Say it with [a smiling face with smiling eyes]: judi- cial use and legal challenges with emoji interpretation in Canada. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 32, 2 (2019), 283–319

    2019

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Timothy Bickmore, Everlyne Kimani, Ameneh Shamekhi, Prasanth Murali, Dhaval Parmar, and Ha Trinh. 2021. Virtual agents as supporting media for scientific presentations. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 15 (2021), 131– 146

    2021

  2. [10]

    Philip E Bourne. 2007. Ten simple rules for making good oral presentations. , e77 pages

    2007

  3. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  4. [12]

    Berndt Brehmer. 1976. Social judgment theory and the analysis of interpersonal conflict. Psychological bulletin 83, 6 (1976), 985

    1976

  5. [13]

    Mark Bubel, Ruiwen Jiang, Christine H Lee, Wen Shi, and Audrey Tse. 2016. AwareMe: addressing fear of public speech through awareness. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 68–73

    2016

  6. [14]

    Xiang Cao, Eyal Ofek, and David Vronay. 2005. Evaluation of alternative pre- sentation control techniques. In CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1248–1251

    2005

  7. [15]

    Matt Carter. 2012. Designing science presentations: A visual guide to figures, papers, slides, posters, and more. Academic Press

    2012

  8. [16]

    Minsuk Chang, Mina Huh, and Juho Kim. 2021. Rubyslippers: Supporting content-based voice navigation for how-to videos. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2021

  9. [17]

    Xinyue Chen, Shuo Li, Shipeng Liu, Robin Fowler, and Xu Wang. 2023. MeetScript: Designing Transcript-based Interactions to Support Active Participa- tion in Group Video Meetings. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–32

    2023

  10. [18]

    Yin Ling Cheung. 2008. Teaching effective presentation skills to ESL/EFL stu- dents. The Internet TESL Journal 14, 6 (2008), 1–2

    2008

  11. [19]

    Pei-Yu Chi, Bongshin Lee, and Steven M Drucker. 2014. DemoWiz: re-performing software demonstrations for a live presentation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1581–1590

    2014

  12. [20]

    Barbara Chivers and Michael Shoolbred. 2007. A student’ s guide to presentations: Making your presentation count. Sage

    2007

  13. [21]

    Ionut Damian, Chiew Seng Tan, Tobias Baur, Johannes Schöning, Kris Luyten, and Elisabeth André. 2015. Augmenting social interactions: Realtime be- havioural feedback using social signal processing techniques. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on Human factors in...

    2015

  14. [22]

    Luc De Grez, Martin Valcke, and Irene Roozen. 2014. The differential impact of observational learning and practice-based learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 33, 2 (2014), 256–271

    2014

  15. [23]

    Alan R Dennis and Susan T Kinney. 1998. Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information systems research 9, 3 (1998), 256–274

    1998

  16. [24]

    Robert Dolan. 2017. Effective presentation skills. FEMS microbiology letters 364, 24 (2017), fnx235

    2017

  17. [25]

    Nancy Duarte. 2008. Slide: ology: The art and science of creating great presentations. Vol. 1. O’Reilly Media Sebastapol

    2008

  18. [26]

    Patricia A Duff. 2007. Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language teaching 40, 4 (2007), 309–319

    2007

  19. [27]

    Darren Edge, Joan Savage, and Koji Yatani. 2013. HyperSlides: dynamic pre- sentation prototyping. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 671–680

    2013

  20. [28]

    Darren Edge, Xi Yang, Yasmine Kotturi, Shuoping Wang, Dan Feng, Bongshin Lee, and Steven Drucker. 2016. Slidespace: Heuristic design of a hybrid presen- tation medium. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 23, 3 (2016), 1–30

    2016

  21. [29]

    Ayman Hassan Abu El Enein. 2011. Difficulties encountering English ma- jors in giving academic oral presentations during class at Al-Aqsa University. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Islamic University of Gaza (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Adrian Furnham, Robert Trevethan, and George Gaskell. 1981. The relative con- tribution of verbal, vocal, and visual channels to person perception: Experiment and critique. (1981)

    1981

  23. [31]

    Howard Giles, Tania Ogay, et al. 2007. Communication accommodation theory. (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Randall L Gillis and Elizabeth S Nilsen. 2017. Consistency between verbal and non-verbal affective cues: A clue to speaker credibility. Cognition and Emotion 31, 4 (2017), 645–656

    2017

  25. [33]

    George M Glasgow. 1952. A semantic index of vocal pitch. Communications Monographs 19, 1 (1952), 64–68

    1952

  26. [34]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    1988

  27. [35]

    Brian S Hentz. 2006. Enhancing presentation narratives through written and visual integration. Business Communication Quarterly 69, 4 (2006), 425–429

    2006

  28. [36]

    2015.Spotlight on the presenter: a study into presentations of conference papers with PowerPoint

    Brigitte Hertz. 2015.Spotlight on the presenter: a study into presentations of conference papers with PowerPoint. Ph. D. Dissertation. Wageningen University and Research

    2015

  29. [37]

    Rebecca Hincks. 2005. Measures and perceptions of liveliness in student oral presentation speech: A proposal for an automatic feedback mechanism. System 33, 4 (2005), 575–591

    2005

  30. [38]

    Bill Hoogterp. 2014. Your Perfect Presentation: Speak in Front of Any Audience Anytime Anywhere and Never Be Nervous Again. McGraw Hill Professional

    2014

  31. [39]

    Laszlo Hunyadi and István Szekrényes. 2020. The Temporal Structure of Multimodal Communication. Springer

    2020

  32. [40]

    Ikhfi Imaniah. 2018. The students’ difficulties in presenting the academic speaking presentation. Globish (An English-Indonesian Journal for English, Education and Culture) (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    David W Johnson. 1971. Role reversal: A summary and review of the research. International Journal of Group Tensions (1971)

    1971

  34. [42]

    Tero Jokela, Jaakko T Lehikoinen, and Hannu Korhonen. 2008. Mobile mul- timedia presentation editor: enabling creation of audio-visual stories on mo- bile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 63–72

    2008

  35. [43]

    Kuldip Kaur and Afida Mohamad Ali. 2018. Exploring the genre of academic oral presentations: A critical review. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature 7, 1 (2018), 152–162. Chinese CHI 2024, Nov 22–25, 2024, Shenzhen, China Wu et al

    2018

  36. [44]

    Ken Kelch. 1985. Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in second language acquisition 7, 1 (1985), 81–90

    1985

  37. [45]

    Amirsam Khataei and Ali Arya. 2014. Personalized presentation builder. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2293– 2298

    2014

  38. [46]

    Minju Kim and Kwangyun Wohn. 2018. HoloBox: Augmented visualization and presentation with spatially integrated presenter. Interacting with Computers 30, 3 (2018), 224–242

    2018

  39. [47]

    Jane King. 2002. Preparing EFL Learners for Oral Presentations. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanistic Studies 4 (2002), 401–418

    2002

  40. [48]

    David A Kolb. 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press

    2014

  41. [49]

    Kazutaka Kurihara, Masataka Goto, Jun Ogata, Yosuke Matsusaka, and Takeo Igarashi. 2007. Presentation sensei: a presentation training system using speech and image processing. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. 358–365

    2007

  42. [50]

    Timothy R Levine. 2014. Truth-default theory (TDT) a theory of human decep- tion and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33, 4 (2014), 378–392

    2014

  43. [51]

    Peter Levrai and Averil Bolster. 2015. Developing a closer understanding of academic oral presentations. Folio 16, 2 (2015), 65–72

    2015

  44. [52]

    Richen Liu, Min Gao, Shunlong Ye, and Jiang Zhang. 2021. IGScript: An interac- tion grammar for scientific data presentation. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2021

  45. [53]

    Shao-Kang Lo. 2008. The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. Cyberpsychology & behavior 11, 5 (2008), 595–597

    2008

  46. [54]

    Steven Lukes. 2021. Power: A radical view. Bloomsbury Publishing

    2021

  47. [55]

    Shuai Ma, Taichang Zhou, Fei Nie, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. Glancee: An adapt- able system for instructors to grasp student learning status in synchronous online classes. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–25

    2022

  48. [56]

    Albert Mehrabian. 1968. Relationship of attitude to seated posture, orientation, and distance. Journal of personality and social psychology 10, 1 (1968), 26

    1968

  49. [57]

    Miscrosoft. [n. d.]. Start the presentation and see your notes in Presenter view. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/start-the-presentation-and-see- your-notes-in-presenter-view-4de90e28-487e-435c-9401-eb49a3801257 (2023, Aug 12)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Naoko Morita. 2000. Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. Tesol Quarterly 34, 2 (2000), 279–310

    2000

  51. [59]

    Alberto Muñoz-Ortiz, Carlos Gómez-Rodríguez, and David Vilares. 2023. Con- trasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated Text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09067 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Prasanth Murali, Javier Hernandez, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Jina Suh, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. Affectivespotlight: Facilitating the communication of affective responses from audience members during online presentations. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fa...

    2021

  53. [61]

    Prasanth Murali, Lazlo Ring, Ha Trinh, Reza Asadi, and Timothy Bickmore

  54. [62]

    Chelsea Myers, Anushay Furqan, Jessica Nebolsky, Karina Caro, and Jichen Zhu. 2018. Patterns for how users overcome obstacles in voice user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–7

    2018

  55. [63]

    Jeungmin Oh, Darren Edge, and Uichin Lee. 2020. ScriptFree: Designing Speech Preparation Systems with Adaptive Visual Reliance Control on Script. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7

    2020

  56. [64]

    Brian Paltridge and Sue Starfield. 2013. The handbook of English for specific purposes. Vol. 592. Wiley Online Library

    2013

  57. [65]

    Dhaval Parmar and Timothy Bickmore. 2020. Making it personal: Address- ing individual audience members in oral presentations using augmented real- ity. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 4, 2 (2020), 1–22

    2020

  58. [66]

    Michael J Peeters, Eric G Sahloff, and Gregory E Stone. 2010. A standardized rubric to evaluate student presentations. American journal of pharmaceutical education 74, 9 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Yi-Hao Peng, JiWoong Jang, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2021. Say It All: Feedback for Improving Non-Visual Presentation Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2021

  60. [68]

    Larissa Pschetz, Koji Yatani, and Darren Edge. 2014. TurningPoint: narrative- driven presentation planning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1591–1594

    2014

  61. [69]

    J Ram Rajesh, R Sudharshan, D Nagarjunan, and R Aarthi. 2012. Remotely controlled PowerPoint presentation navigation using hand gestures. In Proc. of International Conference on Advances in Computer, Electronics and Electrical Engineering

    2012

  62. [70]

    Nurul Amilin Razawi, Luqmanul Hakim Zulkornain, and Razifa Mohd Razlan

  63. [71]

    Monica A Riordan. 2017. The communicative role of non-face emojis: Affect and disambiguation. Computers in Human Behavior 76 (2017), 75–86

    2017

  64. [72]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 3, 4 (apr 2009), 333–389. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  65. [73]

    Reinout Roels and Beat Signer. 2014. MindXpres: An extensible content- driven cross-media presentation platform. In Web Information Systems Engineering–WISE 2014: 15th International Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 12-14, 2014, Proceedings, Part II 15. Springer, 215–230

    2014

  66. [74]

    Sam Sabri. [n. d.]. Microsoft releases Office Remote to allow you to control your PowerPoint presentation and more from your Windows Phone. https: //www.windowscentral.com/office-remote-windows-phone (2023, Aug 30)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Jan Schneider, Dirk Börner, Peter Van Rosmalen, and Marcus Specht. 2015. Presentation trainer, your public speaking multimodal coach. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on international conference on multimodal interaction. 539–546

    2015

  68. [76]

    Atsushi Senju and Mark H Johnson. 2009. The eye contact effect: mechanisms and development. Trends in cognitive sciences 13, 3 (2009), 127–134

    2009

  69. [77]

    Diane J Skiba. 2016. Face with tears of joy is word of the year: are emoji a sign of things to come in health care? Nursing education perspectives 37, 1 (2016), 56–57

    2016

  70. [78]

    Eva Strangert and Joakim Gustafson. 2008. What makes a good speaker? subject ratings, acoustic measurements and perceptual evaluations. In Ninth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association

    2008

  71. [79]

    M Iftekhar Tanveer, Emy Lin, and Mohammed Hoque. 2015. Rhema: A real-time in-situ intelligent interface to help people with public speaking. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 286–295

    2015

  72. [80]

    M Iftekhar Tanveer, Ru Zhao, Kezhen Chen, Zoe Tiet, and Mohammed Ehsan Hoque. 2016. Automanner: An automated interface for making public speakers aware of their mannerisms. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 385–396

    2016

  73. [81]

    Hashmatullah Tareen. 2022. Investigating EFL learners’ perceptions towards the difficulties in oral presentation at Kandahar university. ESI Preprints 11 (2022), 535–535

    2022

  74. [82]

    Santawat Thanyadit, Matthias Heintz, and Effie LC Law. 2023. Tutor In-sight: Guiding and Visualizing Students’ Attention with Mixed Reality Avatar Presen- tation Tools. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2023

  75. [83]

    Dominic Thompson, Ian G Mackenzie, Hartmut Leuthold, and Ruth Filik. 2016. Emotional responses to irony and emoticons in written language: Evidence from EDA and facial EMG. Psychophysiology 53, 7 (2016), 1054–1062

    2016

  76. [84]

    Ha Trinh, Lazlo Ring, and Timothy Bickmore. 2015. Dynamicduo: co-presenting with virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1739–1748

    2015

  77. [85]

    Ha Trinh, Koji Yatani, and Darren Edge. 2014. PitchPerfect: integrated rehearsal environment for structured presentation preparation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1571–1580

    2014

  78. [86]

    Khai N Truong, Gillian R Hayes, and Gregory D Abowd. 2006. Storyboard- ing: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems. 12–21

    2006

  79. [87]

    Wan Nuur Fazliza Wan Zakaria and Siti Shazlin Razak. 2016. English as a Second Language (ESL) Learner’s Perceptions of the Difficulties in Oral Commentary Assessment. Journal of Contemporary Social Science Research 1, 1 (2016), 1–15

    2016

  80. [88]

    Fengjie Wang, Xuye Liu, Oujing Liu, Ali Neshati, Tengfei Ma, Min Zhu, and Jian Zhao. 2023. Slide4N: Creating Presentation Slides from Computational Notebooks with Human-AI Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

  81. [89]

    Xingbo Wang, Haipeng Zeng, Yong Wang, Aoyu Wu, Zhida Sun, Xiaojuan Ma, and Huamin Qu. 2020. Voicecoach: Interactive evidence-based training for voice modulation skills in public speaking. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  82. [90]

    Jeremy Warner, Amy Pavel, Tonya Nguyen, Maneesh Agrawala, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2023. SlideSpecs: Automatic and Interactive Presentation Feedback Collation. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 695–709

    2023

  83. [91]

    Marcus Kho Gee Whai and Leong Lai Mei. 2015. Causes of academic oral presentation difficulties faced by students at a polytechnic in Sarawak. The English Teacher 44, 3 (2015)

    2015

  84. [92]

    Chauncey Wilson. 2013. Brainstorming and beyond: a user-centered design method. Newnes

    2013

  85. [93]

    Torsten Wörtwein, Mathieu Chollet, Boris Schauerte, Louis-Philippe Morency, Rainer Stiefelhagen, and Stefan Scherer. 2015. Multimodal public speaking performance assessment. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 43–50. Trinity: S...

    2015

  86. [94]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. Ai chains: Transpar- ent and controllable human-ai interaction by chaining large language model prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–22

    2022

  87. [95]

    Meng Xia, Qian Zhu, Xingbo Wang, Fei Nie, Huamin Qu, and Xiaojuan Ma

  88. [96]

    Qihui Xu, Yingying Peng, Minghua Wu, Feng Xiao, Martin Chodorow, and Ping Li. 2023. Does Conceptual Representation Require Embodiment? Insights From Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19103 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Shengzhou Yi, Hiroshi Yumoto, Xueting Wang, and Toshihiko Yamasaki. 2020. Presentationtrainer: Oral presentation support system for impression-related feedback. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. 13644–13645

    2020

  90. [98]

    Kangyu Yuan, Hehai Lin, Shilei Cao, Zhenhui Peng, Qingyu Guo, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2023. CriTrainer: An Adaptive Training Tool for Critical Paper Reading. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–17

    2023

  91. [99]

    Sandra Carolina Zappa-Hollman. 2007. Academic presentations across post- secondary contexts: The discourse socialization of non-native English speakers. Canadian Modern Language Review 63, 4 (2007), 455–485

    2007

  92. [100]

    Alla Zareva. 2011. ‘And so that was it’: Linking adverbials in student academic presentations. RELC Journal 42, 1 (2011), 5–15

    2011

  93. [101]

    feeling awkward towards students’ poor delivery

    Haipeng Zeng, Xingbo Wang, Yong Wang, Aoyu Wu, Ting-Chuen Pong, and Huamin Qu. 2022. Gesturelens: Visual analysis of gestures in presentation videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2022). Appendix A DETAILS OF EXPLORATORY SURVEY RESULTS We analyzed t...

    2022

  94. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents

    Speaker hand-offs in collaborative human-agent oral presentations. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. 153–158

  95. [2019]

    Journal of Academia 7, 1 (2019), 31–36

    Anxiety in oral presentations among ESL students. Journal of Academia 7, 1 (2019), 31–36

    2019

  96. [2022]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–30

    Persua: A visual interactive system to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussion. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–30

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.