Talk:McGill Picture Anomaly Test

Untitled

Our names are Micaela Thibault and Julia Wardwell and we are Neuroscience students at Middlebury College and we created this page and will be editing it until December 7th. Jwardwell6 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have recently edited the experiments section by adding a little bit more information about experiments using the Picture Anomaly Test. Jwardwell6 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Comment One

Hi guys, your article is very informative but I think it would benefit from being longer and more in-depth, with a few more sections and discussions. Here's a few ideas. First, I think you should give some more in-depth historical background about the creators of the test. Right now you don't even mention the year they created the test, which is very confusing (without looking at the notes section there's no way of knowing what time period you're talking about!). Also, if you can find pictures to illustrate the "out of place" part of the picture anomalies test that would be extremely helpful! In your experiments section, you might want to explore one or more specific case studies in depth. This would make it more interesting to read while still illustrating your points. As a whole, you need more sections - with all your sources, surely there are more places to explore than just the basics you cover right now. Look at the neuroethics page (which I also was assigned to comment on) for a really good layout of sections that you might want to use to help come up with additional things you can say.

One more thing - is it the McGill picture anomaly test or the McGill picture anomalies test? (That is, is "anomaly" singular or plural?). You use the two interchangeably, and you should either keep it consistent or explain that your sources use them interchangeably (if that's true).

Thanks, Neuroit (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback! We have added a more in-depth background on Hebb and his many accomplishments in order to give the reader a richer amount of information. When it comes to adding a picture to the page, we personally contacted the APA to obtain copyrights to the pictures from the McGill Picture Anomaly Test but were denied the copyrights and are not allowed to post them. We understand that a visual example of the test would be extremely helpful and wish that we could add the photos, but instead we added a little part to the section "Conducting the test" and described one of the first photos and how it would be interpreted by a person with lesions to the right temporal lobe. We have added more sections by splitting up a lot of our information and have corrected everything to say the McGill Picture Anomaly Test although both names were used interchangeably throughout many studies. Thanks so much again for your feedback, it was greatly appreciated and taken into consideration! Jwardwell6 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment Two

Your article does a very good job of laying out a general description of the McGill picture anomaly(ies) test, and draws good connections between the test and the brain structures and functions that it targets. To start off, the opening paragraph of your page could probably benefit from a little bit of variation in the structure of the sentences; right now it's a little bit redundant, and a couple changes (not beginning every sentence with "The test" or "The McGill picture anomalies test") could really make it flow better. I also must agree with fellow commenter, Neuroit, and urge you to choose one name or the other for the test, and refer to it consistently throughout the article. To continue, you don't offer a particularly detailed description of the test (maybe present a case study that explains the test a bit more specifically) nor do you present a detailed enough explanation of the connection between the test and the temporal lobes, aside from pointing out Broca's area, Wernicke's area and the ventral stream. Additionally, in your experiments section, you introduce verbal absurdity tests, which prior to that section, was never discussed and I don't see the significance it has to your topic. The article might also be able to benefit from a few pictures to help the reader visualize the test more easily. Overall, in lieu of a few criticisms, I think this article presents the reader with a very good general understanding of the test and its connections to structures and functions in the brain. Good job guys!

Thanks, Jcschneider17 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jcscheider17. Thanks so much for your comment. As we mentioned in our response to the first comment, we have chosen to only refer to the test as the "McGill Picture Anomaly Test" throughout the whole article. I agree that we need to change the beginning of our sentences in order to improve the flow of our article and we will certainly make those changes. Unfortunately, we were not granted permission by the APA to use the picture from the original test and therefore cannot put them on the page. As for the verbal absurdity test, we will be sure to either eliminate that sentence or define it so that the reader is not left confused. Thanks for your feedback, it was super helpful! Jwardwell6 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Great job informing the reader what McGill Picture Anomaly test is. Good introduction. I think your background information touches on good points. Very easy to visualize, great job explaining the relationship each structure has. Your case study Is short, but precise. It explains, and informs the reader exactly what is said about your topic. Nice job linking back pages and adding foot notes. Overall, Great. --Rterrones (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Three?...

Hey guys, So overall I feel that your article definitely gets the job done: you hit all the big points about the McGill Picture Anomaly Test so that I can have a general understanding of the test. That said, I do feel that some information is missing and can greatly improve the reader's understanding and comprehension of the test. My first suggestion is to - if possible - find an exemplar image that would be used during the test, and go through in a paragraph about how the examiner would interpret a patient's reaction to the image and what it means. While you explained what the purpose of the images were and what the experimenters were generally looking for, information like this I feel would solidify what exactly the test is, well, testing! Also, there are some points I feel were they could just be extrapolated on a bit more. I notice that you guys used a total of 16 sources in your footnotes: I feel for such a large number of footnotes more detailed information, whether from a case study, an experimenter's conclusions, their interpretations, etc., should be included. But, it still gets the job done! Good job! Akohutnicki (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! You've given us a lot of good feedback! Unfortunately, we are unable to add a photo because the only photo we have found that would be helpful to add, we cannot gain the rights to use. However, we have added a written out example of what a photo used in the test may look like. Hopefully this will be useful in giving the reader a better idea of what the photos may include. Also, we haven't been able to find a large number of worthwhile sources involving our topic and the ones we have used have been used repeatedly throughout our article. It is for this reason that there appear to be so many sources in our footnotes. Thanks for your suggestions, we really do appreciate them! Mjthibault (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Comments

Hi All! Thanks so much for all of your comments they are very helpful. In response to the addition of a picture, unfortunately we tried adding a photo but due to copyright issues it was too risky and therefore did not add a photo, but we are currently working on figuring that out! We also are trying to find more articles on the McGill Picture Anomaly Test in order to provide more in depth sections to give the reader more information. However there are not many articles on the test because it has had little to no success rate in diagnostic scenarios, but one of you suggested that we should dive deeper into even one of the experiments we found that used it and I think that would absolutely improve our page, so thanks for that suggestion! Thank you all for your feedback it really helps us put together the best page possible! Jwardwell6 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)