Teaching » L4 Critical Review » Perception 2007 T2

Username:
Password:

Papers for the Perception section

(424 kB)	Dal Martello, M. F., & Maloney, L. T. (2006). Where are kin recognition signals in the human face? Journal of Vision, 6, 1356-1366.
(296 kB)	Vogt, S. & Magnussen, S. (in press). Expertise in pictorial perception: eye-movement patterns and visual memory in artists and laymen. Perception.
(520 kB)	Barton, J. J. S., Radcliffe, N., Cherkasova, M. V., Edelman, J. & Intriligator, J. M. (2006). Information processing during face recognition: The effects of familiarity, inversion, and morphing on scanning fixations. Perception, 35, 1089-1105.
(148 kB)	Montagne, B., Kessels, R. P. C., Wester, A. J., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2006). Processing of emotional facial expressions in Korsakoff's Syndrome. Cortex, 42, 705-710.

A password is required to download these articles

Anti-Plagiarism

It is very important that you submit your papers to Turnitin. Read a tutorial if you are unfamiliar with this system.

Username: Your UNI email address
Classid: ???
Password: ???
Assignment: Your group letter (e.g. X for Lisa's 28-09-06 group)

Resources

Aberdeen e-journals
Google scholar can be a good source of papers not carried by the University.
Web of Science (WOS)
- Search for words from title/intro of papers, but try selecting the ‘review’ option from the scroll menu at bottom of page (rather than ‘all document types’). Review articles may help you get a handle on the general topic of your target paper and may even include some criticisms of the target paper (or highlight confounds not addressed by the target paper).
- Click on ‘times cited’ to get papers that have cited the one you're reviewing. These may have some criticisms in them or have used different (and potentially better) approaches to investigate the topic.
APA crib sheet: Citations in the text and your reference section should be in APA format.

Common mistakes in level 4 critical reviews

Only criticising and not ‘appraising’ (i.e. flag both the good and the bad aspects of the paper).
Being too descriptive about the paper at the expense of ‘appraising’. Don't spend too much of the review summarising the 'target' paper itself (obviously you have to do this to some extent though) - summarize it as succinctly as possible.
Criticizing the sample size or number of participants is typically a very poor criticism, unless the authors are interpreting a null finding or you can demonstrate through power caluclations that the sample size was too small to find a previously demonstrated effect.

How to impress the marker by demonstrating compelling evidence of ‘further reading’

You can incorporate evidence of futher reading on the topic by relating criticisms (and also 'good points') of the paper you are reviewing to other papers on the same/similar topics (i.e. compare the 'target' paper with others in the area - some may have controlled for confounds not addressed by the target paper, for example)
You need to JUSTIFY your criticisms by explaining why they might be a problem. If you think the authors have tested too wide an age range, for example, or not given enough info about participants, then you should explain why this might be a problem. For example, in a between-subjects design in a RT study, it may be important to ensure the ages and sex of the 2 groups of subjects are equivalent to control for established effects of sex and age on RT (which you would cite).

Return to Teaching

Disclaimer: The information found and the views expressed in these homepages are not the responsibility of the University of Aberdeen nor do they reflect institutional policy.