At first I was not sure if these papers were genuine, but they were indeed published. The first study from 1983 seems to even really have taken place. The more recent papers are clearly tongue in cheek.

If you’re a scientist (or visitor of any other conference as a matter of fact), you’ll probably know the following feelings. Still I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad. Yep, it’s a mad world…

Abstract of the 1983 research paper by Harbey et al. (free download):

During a series of presentations of scientific papers 40.6% of 276 subjects reported dreaming, but only 18.1% actually fell asleep. The frequency of dreaming was significantly increased by the addition of either “very boring” or “very interesting” slides to the usual ones, but not by “neutral” slides. The recall of lecture content and the proportion of audience asleep were (surprisingly) not greatly affected by the addition of extraneous slides of any sort. On the other hand, adding “very interesting” slides greatly increases audience enjoyment.

But hey, that research was so 1983’s! Let’s go for something more recent (also free download) but don’t be fooled bye the comprehensive international systematic review… of 3 papers 🙂 :

A comprehensive, international systematic review, spanning more than 100 years of data collection, suggests that soporific lectures at medical meetings are common, annoying and persistent. Low lights and boring material are prominent risk factors for nodding off during presentations. Extreme remedial measures are warranted.

But by focusing on sleeping, we forget other important issues at conferences such as… food. What about this research by Frank & MacKnight (also free download):

Introduction: The factors affecting decision-making at consensus conferences are not well understood. This paper studies the complex association between time to consensus (TTC) and the timing and quality of food, as well as the self-reported level of frustration (PITA factor) with the question at hand.

Methods: We came, we saw, we ate.

Results: There was an association between the TTC and the time to eating, especially lunch. There was a trend to faster TTC the better the researchers rated the food. The speed of decision-making was also increased when the PITA score was high, especially late in the day.

Interpretation: Organizers of large consensus conferences need to be aware of these factors in decision-making and should try to use them to get more controversial items voted to their satisfaction.