1 / 28

Sensation & Perception

Ψ. Sensation & Perception. Ψ. Fall 2004 -Discussion Section-. When? Monday, 9.30-10.30 am. Where? Here, Green 110. How to reach me:. Whenever, whatever. wallisch@uchicago.edu. Please have „ SP2004 “ in the subject line. Me. TA: Pascal Wallisch. Cogneuro Grad-Student.

jonesjason
Download Presentation

Sensation & Perception

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ψ Sensation & Perception

  2. Ψ Fall 2004 -Discussion Section-

  3. When? Monday, 9.30-10.30 am Where? Here, Green 110

  4. How to reach me: Whenever, whatever • wallisch@uchicago.edu • Please have „SP2004“ in the subject line

  5. Me • TA: Pascal Wallisch • Cogneuro Grad-Student • Website: www.lascap.de • Language/Culture barriers

  6. You • Mostly Graduate students • Mostly Psych, Hum-Dev • Well...? • Name, Background, Interest

  7. Intermission

  8. Purpose of the discussion section:(why are we doing this?) • In General:To learn and practice how to read, analyze, present and discuss scientific literature. • In Particular:To deepen our understanding of selected important research topics in S & P.

  9. Overall plan for sessions • Topics of discussion session slightly lag the lecture. • Over the course of the quarter, everyone is expected to present at least once, but can do more if interested. • We want to cover classic and contemporary papers in Sensation and Perception

  10. Format of the sessions • Past experience shows that more structure is beneficial. • Aiming at two presentations per session • Everyone reads + analyzes one of the papers that are going to be presented • Past experience shows that the presenter should see me before.

  11. Session template • Introduction to topic (me): 10 minutes • Classic Presentation: 10-15 minutes 20 • Classic Discussion: 5-10 minutes • Modern Presentation: 10-15 minutes 20 • Modern Discussion: 5-10 minutes • Contrasting Classic/Modern will be very instructive • Creating a „conference“ atmosphere – get used to it early on.

  12. The papers are a selected subset from the large set of physiological papers that satisfy the following criteria: • They are either truly classical papers in the field or they are recent breakthroughs that probably will become classics. • They are related to topics that are previously discussed in class. • Arranged in a way to maximize didactic benefit

  13. Reading/Presentation List Week 1: 09/28/2004 Introductions no readings Week 2: 10/05/2004 Methods Paper 1 (Psychophysics, Classic): Orban et al., 1984 Paper 2 (Electrophysiology, Modern): Freeman et al., 2003 Week 3: 10/12/2004 Retina Paper 1 (Classic): Kuffler, 1951 Paper 2 (Classic): Barlow, 1953 Week 4: 10/19/2004 Subcortical structures in the visual stream Paper 1: (SC, Classic): Sparks et al., 1980 Paper 2: (LGN, Modern): Weyand et al., 2001 Week 5: No session - away at a conference no readings

  14. Reading/Presentation List Week 6: 11/02/2004 Primary visual cortex Paper 1 (Classic): Hubel & Wiesel, 1968 Paper 2 (Modern): Issa et al., 2000 Week 7: 11/09/2004 Higher visual perception: Contours Paper 1 (Classic): von der Heydt et al., 1984 Paper 2 (Modern): Bakin et al., 2000 Week 8: 11/16/2004 Higher visual perception: Objects and Space Paper 1 (Classic): Mishkin et al., 1983 Paper 2 (Modern): Logothetis et al., 2002 Week 9: 11/23/2004 Higher visual perception: Motion perception Paper 1 (Classic): Movshon et al., 1982 Paper 2 (Modern): Born et al., 2001 Week 10: 11/30/2004 Taste & Smell Paper 1 (Modern): Kay et al., 1999 Paper 2 (Modern): Chaudhari et al., 2000

  15. Scientific reading Questions that a presentation of a study should address: (The QALMRIP-method)

  16. The following points don´t fit every paper. Particularly not reviews, highly theoretical papers or studies that are merely descriptive. But it IS an excellent template to analyze any empirical hypothesis- driven study.

  17. Q What is the problem in the field / what is the theoretical question?(Introduction)  Disc: Is the problem / question real? Are the authors missing something? Does it only follow from their unwarranted implicit assumptions? Is the problem already solved/the question already answered?

  18. Why is it important to solve this problem / answer the question? Why did the authors chose to address it?(Introduction, often implicit, subtle) • Is the problem / question really important and interesting? Why or why not? Are the authors merely chasing phantoms to get tenure? • Nothing more insulting to the audience than taking their attention for granted.

  19. A What are the theoretical alternatives?  Are different empirical answers to this problem even theoretically possible? If not, the question is not posed in a scientific way.

  20. L What is the logic, rationale of the study? (Methods, Introduction, often implicit)  How will we be able to decide between the alternatives if we look at the empirical results? What links the outcome to the conclusions (in regard to the theoretical question)  What are hidden assumptions in this logic? Are the assumptions parsimonious or warranted by the literature? Does their logic hold? Do the possible conclusions necessarily follow, based on their rationale?

  21. M What did they do?(Methods)  Are the methods appropriate to address the question that they claim to address? Did they do it properly? What would be alternative, more promising methods to solve the problem or answer the question?

  22. R What did they find?(Results)  Are they using statistics correctly? Are there missing results? Are there obvious mistakes (typing errors, etc.)? Do they really just descriptively report or do they report data in a suggestive manner?

  23. I How did they interpret their findings?(Discussion, Conclusions) What have we learnt in terms of the original problem / question that we didn´t know before?  Is the interpretation sound? What threatens it?  Does the conclusion logically follow from their data and their explicitly stated assumptions? What are logically possible alternative conclusions?

  24. PWhat are problems in the study that threaten the conclusions of the authors?  These can be both conceptual and empirical. From experience, there is almost no empirical paper that doesn‘t have at least one hole that threatens the conclusions. Some of them are riddled with problems.

  25. Q: Theoretical QuestionA: Theoretical AlternativesL: Experimental Logic, RationaleM: MethodsR: ResultsI: Interpretations, ConclusionsP: Problems Developed by Kosslyn @ Harvard Highly efficient method to analyze and understand papers quickly  Clarity of thought

  26. Mini-QALMRI: Each item (Q,A,L,etc.) consists of only one sentence Mirroring the real life situation Of one of the two papers OPTIONAL: To be handed in on a sheet each session

  27. Further questions?

  28. Who goes first?

More Related