Posters, Abstracts, and Conferences

Slide 1 of 18

Posters, Abstracts, and Conferences

Teaching Deck

Human cortex · H01
Object segmentation over electron microscopy

H01 release · Lichtman Lab / Harvard & Connectomics at Google · CC BY 4.0
Shapson-Coe et al. (2024) · doi:10.1126/science.adk4858

Slide 2 of 18

Learning Objectives

• Write a concise, evidence-grounded connectomics abstract
• Design a poster that foregrounds claim-evidence logic
• Deliver a clear 90-second poster pitch
• Use explicit conference norms for networking and Q&A

Slide 3 of 18

Capability Target

Submit a conference-ready abstract, produce a coherent poster draft, and deliver a defensible 90-second pitch with clear claim boundaries. Operationally: your abstract spends its word budget on evidence rather than motivation, a stranger can find your core result on the poster within ten seconds from two meters away, and you leave the session with at least two named follow-ups you initiated yourself.

Slide 4 of 18

Concept Focus

1) Abstracts are claim filters

• Technical: every sentence should move from question to method to result to implication, with one explicit limitation.
• Plain language: include only what helps reviewers evaluate credibility and significance. A reader deciding whether to walk to your poster needs to know what you found, not what the field hopes for.
• Misconception guardrail: a strong motivating paragraph can compensate for thin results.

Slide 5 of 18

Core Workflow

• Distill the project into one claim hierarchy: one headline claim, at most two supporting claims, one limitation attached to each.
• Draft the 250-word abstract against the sentence budget, then delete every sentence that does not help a reviewer judge credibility or significance.
• Check the abstract names species, region, imaging modality, segmentation pipeline, version or materialization, proofreading state, and n. If any is missing, a reviewer will assume the worst case.

Slide 6 of 18

Core Workflow (continued)

• Build the poster wireframe around three evidence panels, placing the headline finding in the upper third where it is readable at two meters.
• Write and rehearse the 90-second and 3-minute versions. The 90-second version is not the 3-minute version spoken quickly; it is a different script with the background removed.
• Prepare a follow-up template and a target list of five to eight people you want to talk to, with one specific question for each.

Slide 7 of 18

Core Workflow (continued)

• Run critique for clarity, limitations, and the professional interaction plan, and revise before the submission deadline rather than after acceptance.

Slide 8 of 18

Run of Show (60 min)

• 00:00-08:00 | Framing + exemplar abstract
• 08:00-20:00 | Abstract sprint (individual)
• 20:00-32:00 | Poster wireframe build (pairs)
• 32:00-44:00 | 90-second pitch practice

Slide 9 of 18

Run of Show (60 min) (continued)

• 44:00-54:00 | Q&A and networking simulation
• 54:00-60:00 | Revision checklist + submission plan

Slide 10 of 18

Misconceptions to Watch

• Misconception guardrail: a strong motivating paragraph can compensate for thin results.
• Misconception guardrail: dense text signals that the work is thorough.
• Misconception guardrail: good science speaks for itself and networking is optional decoration.
• Misconception guardrail: if the conversation went well, the other person will follow up.

Slide 11 of 18

Studio Activity

Scenario: You have one accepted poster slot and must communicate your connectomics result to mixed audience members. Two of the people who stop are specialists who will ask about segmentation quality; one is a program director who will ask what it means; one is a peer at your own stage who wants your code.

Slide 12 of 18

Activity Output Checklist

• Evidence-linked artifact submitted.
• At least one limitation or uncertainty stated.
• Revision point captured from feedback.

Slide 13 of 18

Assessment Rubric

• Minimum pass: abstract claims are evidence-grounded and name dataset, version, and n; poster layout surfaces core result and limitation; the pitch communicates method, result, and limit within time.
• Strong performance: handles Q&A with precise uncertainty language, adapts to the audience in front of them without changing the evidentiary standard, and produces follow-ups that are specific, sent within days, and initiated rather than inherited from a supervisor.

Slide 14 of 18

Assessment Rubric (continued)

• Common failure to flag: overstuffed abstracts with missing quantitative anchors, posters organized by chronology instead of argument, and overconfident responses to unresolved technical questions.

Slide 15 of 18

Exit Ticket

Write a 5-sentence mini-abstract including question, method with dataset version, result with one number, limitation, and implication. Then count how many words went to the field and how many to your result; if the first number is larger, rewrite the opening sentence.

Slide 16 of 18

References (Instructor)

• White et al. (1986) and modern connectomics papers as abstract exemplars.
• Journal club set for evidence-first claim style.

Slide 17 of 18

Teaching Materials

• Module page: /modules/module23/
• Session kit: /teaching/sessions/module23/
• Worksheet: /assets/worksheets/module23/module23-activity.md

Slide 18 of 18

Read, review, or teach

Read these slides as a page

Open the complete lesson

The reading version includes figure descriptions and discussion guidance.

Nanoscale text: CC BY 4.0. Scientific figures retain their individual credits.