User talk:Jmn96/Benchmark III: Results
-Be careful of typos (first sentence second paragraph- "system")
-Some figures don't include legends or units, it may be helpful to include those
- There is a lot of detail about the inputs for the Hodgkin Huxley model but the biological explanation is lacking (you mention "physiological behaviors", what are those "physiological behaviors"?). Also you mention spike heights being different in the two models, but do not explain what the spike heights represent in a biological sense, why is it important that these spike heights are different?
-Overall the explanation of results is pretty good.
- What are behavioral bifurcations? Why did you use this terminology instead of just the word "bifurcations"? This could have something to do with your papers that I am just unaware of, but if you are going to use similar terminology in you introduction, I would suggest offering a quick definition of what this means.
- You did a good job at explaining how you replicated the figures from your papers and how your results differed from your expectations.
- The way that you incorporate your hypothesis into your paper could be a little stronger. Since your hypothesis is one of the most important pieces of your paper, it deserves its own sentence so that it can be as clear as possible. The sentence you have introducing your hypothesis has three things going on at once: you are telling the reader that your goal is to compare the two models, then you are stating your hypothesis, then you are explaining how you will test your hypothesis and then how you will check to ensure that your results are accurate. Additionally, it would be good to explain your reasoning for why you think that "the Izhikevich model is able to fully capture the behavior displayed in the more complex Hodgkin Huxley model." If it is a simpler model, why do you think it is able to capture the same amount of complexity that the Hodgkin Huxley model can? One example of a stronger statement of your hypothesis might be "Because A, B and C, we hypothesized that the Izhikevich model would be able to fully capture the behavior displayed in the more complex Hodgkin Huxley model".
- I like that you arranged the smaller figures within Figs. 3 and 4 in a table, but the axes do not have labels. You might be able to get away with just defining them in the figure descriptions.
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Yes, except for the interactions between the neurons.
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- To some extent.
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
On the whole, this is a good to very good first draft of the term paper Results section. The most serious omission is that you have not shown any network interactions between the model neurons, which was the focus of the Izhikevich reduction. Showing even a relatively small network of interactions would be very useful. The comparison to the Hodgkin Huxley model is OK, but would be stronger if you focused more quantitatively on features of the Izhikevich model that do or do not replicate what is shown in the Hodgkin Huxley model. For example, can the Izhikevich model capture the current versus firing frequency characteristics of the Hodgkin Huxley model in at least one of its versions? Showing a dynamical analysis of the Izhikevich model will be an important extension.