Last Minute Questions

[pyro-53]

Ok. Kind of random  but can I use "eg." in exam? For example, fight-or-flight responses (eg. increased heart rate) will contribute to develop a phobia.

Also, I tend to scribble around the question before I put down my final question. Is this acceptable in exam?

[icecream]

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

[Felicity Wishes]

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

LTP.

[Limista]

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

LTP.

Hmm - also specific stages of developmental plasticity (e.g. circuit formation, you could definitely mention proliferation as this has to do with synaptogenesis, circuit pruning is also good to mention) and talk about the sensitive period since Tolga was mentioned to be a baby/toddler from memory. Basically, you're supposed to be talking about the neural connections. It's a pretty broad question, so I can see why there's a bit of confusion 

[Genericname2365]

Ok. Kind of random  but can I use "eg." in exam? For example, fight-or-flight responses (eg. increased heart rate) will contribute to develop a phobia.

Also, I tend to scribble around the question before I put down my final question. Is this acceptable in exam?

I think both of these are fine (the second one as long as it doesn't make the actual answer difficult to read).
On a related note, "&" probably wouldn't be accepted would it?

[Limista]

Ok. Kind of random  but can I use "eg." in exam? For example, fight-or-flight responses (eg. increased heart rate) will contribute to develop a phobia.

Also, I tend to scribble around the question before I put down my final question. Is this acceptable in exam?

I think both of these are fine (the second one as long as it doesn't make the actual answer difficult to read).
On a related note, "&" probably wouldn't be accepted would it?

I don't see why not, but I would avoid it, just in case you get some stingy examiner marking your paper 

[Felicity Wishes]

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

LTP.

Hmm - also specific stages of developmental plasticity (e.g. circuit formation, you could definitely mention proliferation as this has to do with synaptogenesis, circuit pruning is also good to mention) and talk about the sensitive period since Tolga was mentioned to be a baby/toddler from memory. Basically, you're supposed to be talking about the neural connections. It's a pretty broad question, so I can see why there's a bit of confusion 

Synaptogenesis is a good one but the question is only two marks so I wouldn't go on for too long.

[icecream]

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

LTP.

Umm I have a question about the sample vcaa paper. Q9 SA is it asking for LTP and strengthening of neural connections or is it asking about the proliferation, migration etc stuff?

LTP.

Hmm - also specific stages of developmental plasticity (e.g. circuit formation, you could definitely mention proliferation as this has to do with synaptogenesis, circuit pruning is also good to mention) and talk about the sensitive period since Tolga was mentioned to be a baby/toddler from memory. Basically, you're supposed to be talking about the neural connections. It's a pretty broad question, so I can see why there's a bit of confusion 

Ohhhhhh ok thanks guys

[pyro-53]

Anyone know how to draw out a conclusion for this one? There are 3 levels of significance so I'm confused!

[brenden]

Last minute? Jesus, I've still got like ten prac exams to go! I'm on my third or fourth minute o.O

[maggie000]

Anyone know how to draw out a conclusion for this one? There are 3 levels of significance so I'm confused!

I did this some time, but I can't find the answers.
Anyway, pretty sure it means that the difference between A and B is not significant, the difference between B and C is not significant, but the difference between A and C is significant.
ie. No conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with some background noise, and no conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with some background noise than with loud background noise, but conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with loud background noise (recall is better with no noise).

Sorry that got kinda wordy and messy, but I hope you understand

[pyro-53]

Anyone know how to draw out a conclusion for this one? There are 3 levels of significance so I'm confused!

I did this some time, but I can't find the answers.
Anyway, pretty sure it means that the difference between A and B is not significant, the difference between B and C is not significant, but the difference between A and C is significant.
ie. No conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with some background noise, and no conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with some background noise than with loud background noise, but conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with loud background noise (recall is better with no noise).

Sorry that got kinda wordy and messy, but I hope you understand

That's fine! You're life saviour 
On the other note, is this repeated measures design? What are some weaknesses of the experimental design in this experiment?

[maggie000]

Anyone know how to draw out a conclusion for this one? There are 3 levels of significance so I'm confused!

I did this some time, but I can't find the answers.
Anyway, pretty sure it means that the difference between A and B is not significant, the difference between B and C is not significant, but the difference between A and C is significant.
ie. No conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with some background noise, and no conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with some background noise than with loud background noise, but conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with loud background noise (recall is better with no noise).

Sorry that got kinda wordy and messy, but I hope you understand

That's fine! You're life saviour 
On the other note, is this repeated measures design? What are some weaknesses of the experimental design in this experiment?

It is repeated measures, and I think you could talk about that as a weakness. The participants may have developed strategies for easier recall (practice effect). The fact that they knew what all the conditions were means they were probably able to guess what the hypothesis was, and hence may try to fulfil it or even go against it. A matched participants study design would be better. This would also allow for the same list of 40 words to be used, eliminating the chance of some words having greater meaning to the participants, and hence being easier to remember.
Another weakness is non-standardised delivery of instructions, as different assistants were used for each trial. Differences in tone, volume or speed could make a difference in how easily the lists could be learned.
You could also mention the fact that it is verbal noise, meaning it would be significantly more distracting if you could understand what was being said, so this would have affect if the conversation was loud enough to understand in trial C but not in trial C. This could be minimised by using meaningless noise instead.

[Genericname2365]

General adaptation syndrome (GAS) is a three-stage physiological stress response that occurs regardless of the stressor that is encountered.
Is this an acceptable definition?

[pyro-53]

Anyone know how to draw out a conclusion for this one? There are 3 levels of significance so I'm confused!

I did this some time, but I can't find the answers.
Anyway, pretty sure it means that the difference between A and B is not significant, the difference between B and C is not significant, but the difference between A and C is significant.
ie. No conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with some background noise, and no conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with some background noise than with loud background noise, but conclusions can be made about the difference between learning with no background noise than with loud background noise (recall is better with no noise).

Sorry that got kinda wordy and messy, but I hope you understand

That's fine! You're life saviour 
On the other note, is this repeated measures design? What are some weaknesses of the experimental design in this experiment?

It is repeated measures, and I think you could talk about that as a weakness. The participants may have developed strategies for easier recall (practice effect). The fact that they knew what all the conditions were means they were probably able to guess what the hypothesis was, and hence may try to fulfil it or even go against it. A matched participants study design would be better. This would also allow for the same list of 40 words to be used, eliminating the chance of some words having greater meaning to the participants, and hence being easier to remember.
Another weakness is non-standardised delivery of instructions, as different assistants were used for each trial. Differences in tone, volume or speed could make a difference in how easily the lists could be learned.
You could also mention the fact that it is verbal noise, meaning it would be significantly more distracting if you could understand what was being said, so this would have affect if the conversation was loud enough to understand in trial C but not in trial C. This could be minimised by using meaningless noise instead.

fantastic! thanks so much!