Capstone Seminar on Human Cognitive Neuroscience
Instructor: Michelle R. Greene, Ph.D
Email: mgreene2@bates.edu
Office hours: Happy to meet when office door is open (Hathorn 106)
Logistics: W/F 14:40 - 16:00 (P’Gill 151)
Prerequisites: BIO 244 or PSYC 218 and NS/PY 330
Open to seniors with departmental permission of the program faculty. This seminar focuses on the end-to-end process of scientific discovery using the tools of human cognitive neuroscience. Students will work in groups to uncover an open question in the areas of perception, attention or memory, and then design and execute an experiment aimed at answering this question using EEG or eye tracking. Additionally, students will gain experience in modern data analysis techniques including multivariate pattern analysis, time-frequency analysis, image processing, and representational similarity analysis.
“It’s the questions we can’t answer that teach us the most. They teach us how to think. If you give a man an answer, all he gains is a little fact. But give him a question, and he’ll look for his own answers. That way, when he finds the answer it will be precious to him. The harder the question, the harder we hunt. The harder we hunt, the more we learn.”
Patrick Rothfus, A Wise Man’s Fear
As you reach the end of your college career, you find yourself at a critical juncture of your intellectual development. Until this point, you have played the role of student, a passive knowledge receptacle. This course is designed to help you make the leap from knowledge receptacle to knowledge generator through exploration of topics in at the frontiers of cognitive neuroscience.
At the core, this is a course in how to think about science as a professional scientist does. Together, we will collaboratively learn to ask questions, design experiments, make predictions, take risks, fail, revise, fail again, and iterate until we get it right. Science is a creative enterprise. To create an elegant scientific experiment is to create within a structure, not unlike writing a sonnet or a 12-bar blues. You will be developing your capacity to develop experimental ideas through deliberate practice.
Science is a human enterprise, and we will also devote time in this course to discussing our identities as scientists, and the social landscape of science. We will discuss how these both contribute and hinder the quality of scientific work being produced.
Demonstrate conceptual knowledge of modern analytic methods for high-dimensional brain data in cognitive neuroscience, including the strengths and limitations of the leading techniques.
Be able to critique primary research articles for their merits, contributions, and limitations.
Be able to identify open questions in cognitive neuroscience, and postulate testable hypotheses to shed light on these questions.
Engage with the design process of experiments. This includes being able to identify and ameliorate potential confounding factors.
Be able to communicate effectively and persuasively about cognitive neuroscience to audiences of differing expertise.
Grant Proposal: 70% total
Over the course of the semester, you will identify an open question within cognitive neuroscience, develop a plan for how one could address this question, and write a formal NSF-style proposal detailing your plan. We will have one mid-semester review session in which drafts are exchanged, internally debated, and reviewed. You will then refine and revise your ideas based on the feedback that you get from me and from your peers.
Written component grade total: 60%
Peer reviewing total: 10%
Research Reaction Blog / Journal: 10% Science is a creative endeavor. Scientific creativity is a skill that is cultivated both through the practice of generating ideas, as well as in the exposure to new ideas. To that end, you will be required to write one reaction post per class to a paper that you have read. In addition to summarizing the article, I would like you to generate at least three new experimental ideas based on what you have read. You will be graded only on the volume of ideas, not their quality. Keep in mind: this reaction journal can also serve you in the literature review for your grant proposal.
Class participation: 10% Your thoughtful participation in class is critical to your success and that of your colleagues. Your participation grade will be evenly divided between two items: weekly reviews from your group members, and my observations of your participation. Each Friday, you will send me a synopsis of how work is going in your group. Here, you will rate the contributions of each member to the project, and will have the opportunity to provide your colleagues with specific praise or constructive criticism.
Purposeful work professional development self-assessments: 10% This course is part of the Purposeful Work Infusion Project. This is part of a college-wide initiative that seeks to bridge the gap between course content and “purposeful work,” which may include careers, identity, meaning, and purpose. As seniors in your winter semester, this this is an excellent time to reflect on the skills and knowledge you have gained during your time at Bates, and how these skills will enable your post-Bates goals. All Purposeful Work Infusion courses include three elements: reading related to “purposeful work”; reflective writing, and discussion that bridges the course and “purposeful work”. Although the reading and discussion will take place in an ongoing manner, the written part of this requirement takes the form of a series of self-assessments with reflection at the end of the semester.
Your final percentage score will be assigned a letter grade on the following scale:
| Grade | Percentage | Grade | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A+ | >95% | B- | 71-74% | |
| A | 87-94% | C+ | 67-70% | |
| A- | 83-86% | C | 63-66% | |
| B+ | 79-82% | D | 50-62% | |
| B | 75-78% | F | <50 |
All required papers will be available on Lyceum, and should be done before class.
For all of our deadlines, if you turn in a component late, you will lose 10% of the total score per day. For example, the maximum possible percentage for a paper turned in one day late is 90. This policy does not apply to a documented personal or family emergency.
If I must cancel class due to weather or an emergency, I will inform you via the class email list. Please consider your Bates email to be the default place to look for class-related information and get into the habit of checking it daily.
If you have a condition or disability that creates difficulties with the assignments or quizzes, please notify me as soon as possible. You will need to create documentation with the Office of the Dean of Students, so if you need accommodation, please do this as soon as possible.
Please read Bates College’s policy on academic integrity for students. This guide and its definitions of plagiarism, use/misuse of sources, and cheating may be helpful background. Students’ work will be closely scrutinized for plagiarism and violations of the College policy will not be tolerated. If you are concerned that your collaboration might put you at risk of an academic integrity violation, please come see me during office hours as soon as possible.
In light of our active classroom, it is essential that we build our class community into a place where everyone is entirely comfortable in participating, questioning, and intellectually experimenting without fear of retribution or overly harsh, judgmental, or critical responses.
I expect all students to be respectful of the widely varied experiences and backgrounds represented by the classroom members as a group. Disrespect or discrimination on any basis will not be tolerated. Whether inside or outside the classroom, if you encounter sexual harassment, sexual violence, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, age, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, or disability, you are encouraged to report it to Gwen Lexow, Director of Title IX and Civil Rights Compliance at Bates, at glexow@bates.edu or 207- 786-6445. Additionally, please remember that Bates faculty are concerned about your well-being and development, and we are available to discuss any concerns you have. Students should be aware that faculty are legally obligated to share disclosures of sexual violence, sexual harassment, relationship violence, and stalking with the college’s Title IX Officer to help ensure that your safety and welfare are being addressed.
Introduction to class and to one another.
Complete first self-evaluations.
Read: Bayles & Orland Art and Fear: Observation on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking. Chapters 1-4 (through page 47).
If you have completed CITI training or similar, send me your certificate. If you have not, please complete the training by January 19.
Read one paper of your choosing from a peer reviewed journal and make your first reaction post on Lyceum.
Come to class prepared to tell us about at least one cognitive neuroscience paper from the last five years that really lights you up.
Michelle will present an intro to EEG.
Read: Luck, S. (2005) An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Chapter 1.
Read: Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chapters 1-2.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Continued discussion and extension. Brainstorming possible topic areas.
Michelle will present an introduction to eye tracking.
Read: Henderson (2006) Eye tracking. From Methods in Mind.
Read: Navalpakkam & Churchill (2014) Eye Tracking: A Brief Introduction from Ways of Knowing in HCI. (Chapter starts on page 323)
(Optional) Read: Gopnik (1996) The Scientist as Child. Philosophy of Science 63(4), 485-514.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Based on all of your research to date, come to class ready to make a 5-minute pitch for a topic or technique within cognitive neuroscience that you would like to work on.
We will be caucusing for ideas using a procedure loosely based on Maine’s Democratic Party system. If you are unfamiliar with the system, you may want to read this article.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
We will make our final arguments to sort ourselves into groups of 2 and 3.
Read: Simon, Langley & Bradshaw (1981) Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving. Synthese, 47(1), 1-27.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
We will discuss all of the parts that go into your proposal.
Read: Finger, S. (2015) Advice on Writing Proposals to the National Science Foundation.
Skim the three example proposals on Lyceum. Can you tell which one was funded?
Complete: Worksheet on refining your scientific problem. Bring this sheet to class.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Today’s goal is to get you focused on a specific, manageable problem.
Read: Alon, U. (2009) How to Choose a Good Scientific Problem. Molecular Cell 35, 726-728.
Read: Hamming, R. (1986) You and your Research. Transcript.
Draft of Broader Impact due via email, 23:59
Reaction post on Lyceum
Class goal: develop and group peer review proposed experimental designs.
Read: Cohen, J. (1990) Things I have learned (so far) American Psychologist.
Reaction post on Lyceum
Class goal: revise experimental procedures to make them airtight
Fortify yourself by watching: Why Science Demands a Leap into the Unknown.
Drafts of Significance, Innovation, and Biosketch sections due, 23:59
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Class goal: Do some critical project planning so that your grant reflects the reality of a life with finite time.
Read: Newport, C. “Getting Things Done for College Students: The Full System”.
Reaction post on Lyceum
Class goal: give you the tools necessary to peer review your colleagues’ grants.
Read: Examples of good peer reviews at peerageofscience.org
Full draft of grant due, 23:59
Reaction post on Lyceum
Read your proposals and make notes of strengths and weaknesses.
For proposals for which you are primary reviewer, write a 500-word review using the template given in class.
Primary reviewers will present their reviewed proposal. Class will discuss.
For each non-primary proposal, be ready to vote on the scale discussed in class.
Listen to discussion on your proposal and take notes for your summary.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Submit vote for each proposal before class. Discussion will move proposals up and down the rankings.
Read: Pausch, R. Excerpt from The Last Lecture.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Class goal: science writing can be professional without being dry.
Read: Krzywinski, M., Cairo, A. (2013) Points of view: Storytelling. Nature Methods, 10: 687.
Read: Katz, Y. (2013) Against storytelling scientific results. Nature Methods, 10: 1045.
Reaction post on Lyceum
Class goal: get your reviewer on your side.
Read: Stromberg, J. The science of why we love to root for the underdogs. Vox.
Read: Jackson-Hayes, L. “We don’t need more STEM majors. We need more STEM majors with liberal arts training” Washington Post.
Read: Wilson, E. O. “The Great Branches of Learning” from Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Class goal: add life to your proposal by adding beautiful figures.
Read: Rougier et al (2014) Ten Rules for Better Figures. PLoS Computational Biology.
Read: Konkle et al (2010) Scene Memory is More Detailed Than You Think. Psychological Science
Reaction post on Lyceum
Class goal: understand how to create a pull figure, or visual abstract of your project.
Read: Data Storytelling Tips.
Read: Rolandi et al (2011) A Brief Guide to Designing Effective Figures for the Scientific Paper. Advanced Materials.
Come to class with an example of a figure that visually tells the story of the paper.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Class goal: give your proposal authority via quantitative estimation; understand the move away from null-hypothesis significance testing, and be aware of its alternatives.
Read: Cohen, J. (1994) The Earth is Round p<0.05 American Psychologist
Read: Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124.
Read: Calin-Jageman (2017) After p Values: The New Statistics for Undergraduate Neuroscience Education. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
NO CLASS: MOUNT DAVID SUMMIT
No reaction post
Complete final self-evaluations.
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Final grant proposal due 23:59
Reaction post on Lyceum.
Read proposals as before and review if primary reviewer.
For all other proposals, rate on scale with one sentence about why.