ORCID Profile
0000-0002-8584-4637
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 23-03-2021
Abstract: As the global health crisis unfolded throughout the world, many academic conferences moved online in 2020. This move has been hailed as a positive step towards inclusivity in its attenuation of economic, physical and legal barriers and effectively enabled many in iduals who have traditionally been underrepresented to join and participate. A number of studies have outlined how moving online made it possible to gather a more global community and has increased opportunities for in iduals with various constraints, e.g. caregiving responsibilities. Yet, the mere existence of online conferences is unfortunately no guarantee that everyone can attend and participate meaningfully. In fact, many elements of an online conference are still significant barriers to truly erse participation: the tools used can be inaccessible for some in iduals the scheduling choices can favour some geographical locations the setup of the conference can provide more visibility to well-established researchers and reduce opportunities for early career researchers. While acknowledging the benefits of an online setting, especially for in iduals who have traditionally been underrepresented or excluded, we recognize that fostering social justice requires inclusivity to actively be centered in every aspect of online conference design.Here, we draw from the literature and from our own experiences to identify practices that purposefully encourage a erse community to: attend, participate in, and lead online conferences. Reflecting on how to design more inclusive online events is especially important as multiple scientific organizations have announced that they will continue offering an online version of their event when in-person conferences can resume.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 28-06-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.06.27.22276964
Abstract: Mandates and recommendations related to embedding open science practices within the research lifecycle are increasingly common. Few stakeholders, however, are monitoring compliance to their mandates or recommendations. It is necessary to monitor the current state of open science to track changes over time and to identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. Monitoring open science practices requires that they are defined and operationalized. Involving the biomedical community, we sought to reach consensus on a core set of open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions. To establish consensus in a structured and systematic fashion, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants in Round 1 were 80 in iduals from 20 biomedical research institutions that exhibit interest in or actively support open science. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In Rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices that could be important and meaningful to monitor in an automated institutional open science dashboard. Participants voted on the inclusion of each item and provided a rationale for their choice. We defined consensus as 80% agreement. Between rounds, participants received aggregated voting scores for each item and anonymized comments from all participants, and were asked to re-vote on items that did not reach consensus. For Round 3, we hosted two half- day virtual meetings with 21 and 17 participants respectively to discuss and vote on all items that had not reached consensus after Round 2. Ultimately, participants reached consensus to include a 19 open science practices. A group of international stakeholders used a modified Delphi process to agree upon open science practices to monitor in a proposed open science dashboard for biomedical institutions. The core set of 19 open science practices identified by participants will form the foundation for institutional dashboards that display compliance with open science practices. They will now be assessed and tested for automatic inclusion in terms of technical feasibility. Using user-centered design, participating institutions will be involved in creating a dashboard prototype, which can then be implemented to monitor rates of open science practices at biomedical institutions. Our methods and approach may also transfer to other research settings–other disciplines could consider using our consensus list as a starting point for agreement upon a discipline-specific set of open science practices to monitor. The findings may also be of broader value to the development of policy, education, and interventions.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-2021
DOI: 10.1093/GIGASCIENCE/GIAB051
Abstract: As the global health crisis unfolded, many academic conferences moved online in 2020. This move has been hailed as a positive step towards inclusivity in its attenuation of economic, physical, and legal barriers and effectively enabled many in iduals from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented to join and participate. A number of studies have outlined how moving online made it possible to gather a more global community and has increased opportunities for in iduals with various constraints, e.g., caregiving responsibilities. Yet, the mere existence of online conferences is no guarantee that everyone can attend and participate meaningfully. In fact, many elements of an online conference are still significant barriers to truly erse participation: the tools used can be inaccessible for some in iduals the scheduling choices can favour some geographical locations the set-up of the conference can provide more visibility to well-established researchers and reduce opportunities for early-career researchers. While acknowledging the benefits of an online setting, especially for in iduals who have traditionally been underrepresented or excluded, we recognize that fostering social justice requires inclusivity to actively be centered in every aspect of online conference design. Here, we draw from the literature and from our own experiences to identify practices that purposefully encourage a erse community to attend, participate in, and lead online conferences. Reflecting on how to design more inclusive online events is especially important as multiple scientific organizations have announced that they will continue offering an online version of their event when in-person conferences can resume.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 14-12-2022
Abstract: Many people with Tourette syndrome (TS) are able to volitionally suppress tics, under certain circumstances. To better understand the neural mechanisms that underlie this ability, we used functional magnetic resonance neuroimaging (fMRI) to track regional brain activity during performance of an intentional inhibition task. On some trials, TS and comparison (non-TS) participants chose to make or withhold a motor action (a button press), while on other trials, they followed ‘Go’ and ‘NoGo’ instructions to make or withhold the same button press action. Using representational similarity analysis, an fMRI multivariate pattern analysis technique, we assessed how TS and comparison participants differed in neural activity when internally choosing to make or to withhold an action, relative to externally-cued responses on Go and NoGo trials. Analyses were pre-registered, and the data and code are publicly available. We considered similarity of action representations within regions implicated as critical to motor action release or inhibition, and to symptom expression in TS, namely the pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), insula, caudate nucleus, and primary motor cortex (M1). Strikingly, in the TS compared to comparison group, neural activity within preSMA displayed greater representational similarity across all action types. There was lower response-specific differentiation within preSMA of action and inhibition plans, and of internally chosen and externally-cued actions, implicating the region as a functional nexus in the symptomatology of TS. Correspondingly, patients with TS may experience volitional tic suppression as an effortful and tiring process because, at the top of the putative motor decision hierarchy, activity within the population of neurons facilitating action is overly similar to activity within the population of neurons promoting inhibition. Group differences in representational similarity were also present in M1. Here, representations of internally-chosen and externally-cued inhibition were more differentiated in the TS group than in the comparison group, potentially a consequence of a weaker voluntary capacity earlier in the motor hierarchy to proactively suppress action. Tic severity and premonitory sensations correlated with M1 and caudate nucleus representational similarity, but these effects did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. In summary, more rigid preSMA neural coding across action categories may constitute a central feature of TS, which can account for patients’ experience of ‘unvoluntary’ tics, and effortful tic suppression.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Cassandra Gould van Praag.