User talk:Jmn96/Benchmark I: Introduction

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

I thought your introduction was very thorough. I appreciated the background information you included in describing the symptoms of narcolepsy and the differences between the sleep cycles and waves of "normal" individuals and ones with narcolepsy, as it aided in my visualization as to how you would actually use your model for analysis. One thing that might be helpful is identifying in your hypothesis what specific combination of factors you will be looking for. --Marlowe Susselman (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

One thing I noticed is that your hypothesis mentions synaptic strength and thalamic input being responsible for abnormal sleep cycles, but that your paper itself does not describe either of these terms or how they may be responsoible for abnormal sleep cycles.

The first paragraph has a lot of excellent information within it, but I am not able to see how the information provided relates to your hypothesis.

I thought your paper was good, but ultimately did not always relate to what your argument is.

--Jacob Boitnott (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Significance of problem?
    • Yes
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • Yes, but there are significant pieces missing. Re-creating changes in synaptic strength or thalamic input must be based on detailed neuroanatomical or neurophysiological studies, which you do not cite. Without taking into account the details of neural architecture, it is not clear that your hypothesis can be tested with the model that you are reconstructing, and this will fatally weaken the quality of your term paper. You need to either create the detailed chain of reasoning from biology to the model you are re-creating, or re-think and re-define your hypothesis.
  • List of references?
    • yes, 16
  • Properly formatted references?
    • Yes

On the whole, this could be an outstanding draft of an introduction, but for a different paper, whose focus was creating a detailed and realistic model of narcolepsy. There may be such papers in the literature, but you have not chosen such a paper as the basis of your term paper. Thus, you should either carefully establish the chain of reasoning from what is known about the underlying neural mechanisms of narcolepsy, the neural architecture of the related brain structures, and other information to provide an appropriate basis for testing the hypothesis you propose; or you should re-think and re-work the hypothesis so that it can be addressed by the model that you are reconstructing.

You are being given credit for the excellent writing and the carefully referencing for what is here; but the concerns raised here could be fatal for an excellent term paper. You are encouraged to re-submit an Introduction that addresses these issues.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2017 (EDT)