A literature critique using two articles that discuss a common topic but both us

A literature critique using two articles that discuss a common topic but both uses two different methodologies.
Topic I chose: color perception/visual system discussing: The “dress” is it white and gold or blue and black?
Two methods: fMRI and EEG
Instructions: The goal of the critique is to get students to read original research articles with a focus on the methods used to investigate the question under consideration. Students must review two articles that address a common topic, but use two different methods (e.g., patient study and functional imaging study; single cell recording and patient study). The paper will be a maximum of 3-pages (double-spaced). APA style. *Do not plagiarize cite everything using in text citations*. Make references in bibliography format for reference page.
You must make your argument based on two different methods (e.g., patient study and functional imaging study; single cell recording and TMS study). You cannot use two brain-imaging methods, like PET and fMRI. You can use fMRI/PET and EEG/ERP/MEG. You cannot use EEG and ERP, or EEG/ERP and MEG.
Reading science sections from the media (e.g., New York Times Science Section) often have stories relating to cognitive neuroscience. These stories can inspire and guide you as well. Become active in your search for a topic that interests you!
Don’t make your paper about a clinical issue or it will be penalized. you can, if you really really really want, use a clinical population to make a point about cog neuro, but don’t use cog neuro to make a point about a clinical issue. if you are not sure, then ask. Every semester several students write about a clinical topic and receive a poor grade. I would stay away from clinical topics!
—————-
How to write it: First, outline your paper before you start writing. Focus on your thesis sentence (or two). Your entire paper can be summarized in a single question. This is your thesis sentence. A good thesis statement will express one main idea that is the goal of your paper (i.e., your argument, the thing you are trying to convince me of, or a theory that you are addressing). By the end of the paper, you should take a stand and assert your conclusion about your proposed thesis. A strong thesis takes a stand. For instance, “The dosolateral prefrontal cortex supports the maintenance of spatial items in working memory.” This thesis takes a stand and opens up the rest of the paper for you to justify the thesis. A weak thesis might be, “There is some evidence for and some against the idea that the frontal cortex is involved in working memory and other higher level functions.” First, I don’t know if you are going to argue for or against the involvement, or if you are going to focus on why there is mixed evidence. Second, I’m not sure if you are going to focus on working memory or other higher level functions. A strong thesis is specific, expresses one main idea, and gives the reader a clear idea where your discussion will lead (i.e., the resulting discussion is clearly justified). Let your thesis sentence structure the rest of the paper.
Common structure:
1. Intro paragraph about defining the topic or describing its importance.
2. Thesis sentence
3. Transition sentence or two setting up two studies to be described.
4. Describe study 1 – relating it directly to the thesis.
5. Describe study 2 – relating it directly to the thesis.
6. Integrate findings from study 1 and 2.
7. Summary and evaluation of thesis.
8. References
What do I include in my paper?
Please don’t give unnecessary details about the experiments, including unnecessary details about the methods and unnecessary details about the results. Only include the key details that you are using to make your point.
For instance, say I were writing a paper on the hypothesis that spatial working memory was represented in dorsal prefrontal cortex. To support this claim I was using data from a monkey lesion study and a fmri study. I would not blab on and on about the details of each study. I would, and you should, just give the key facts that allow the reader to appreciate your point. Sticking with my above example, I might write sentences like:
In order to test the hypothesis that the dorsal prefrontal cortex supports spatial working memory, Curtis et al (2004) scanned human subjects while they performed an oculomotor delayed response (ODR) task. Increased fMRI signal was found in the dorsalateral prefrontal cortex during the delay period when subjects were presumably maintaining a representation of the spatial location of a single cue. According to the authors, the sustained signal during the retention interval may be related to the mechanism by which we maintain spatial items in working memory.
Note how I didn’t blab on about there were 15 subjects that were right handed; they used a 4T scanner; there were 150 trials in which the locations were randomly presented for memory and were counterbalanced across subjects; the cue was presented for 100ms. Blah blah blah. Would the inclusion of those details make my point any better? Or would those details detracted from my point?
Here I continue with the above example further along in the paper:
However, fMRI is a correlative technique where the fMRI signal is correlated with the observed behavior. Therefore, the delay period activation in the DLPFC reported by Curtis et al (2004) may or may not signify that the DLPFC is critical for the maintenance of items in spatial working memory. Lesion studies, on the other hand, provide a means to test whether a brain area is in fact necessary for task performance. To test whether the DLPFC is indeed necessary for spatial working memory, Funahashi et al. (1993) made focal experimental lesions to the principal sulcus (DLPFC) of macaque monkeys. Compared to presurgery, the monkeys demonstrated clear evidence of impairments in spatial working memory. They made greater errors on an ODR task. Importantly, their errors significantly worsened with increasing delay suggesting that the impairment was related to a problem with maintaining the information. Also, they did not show any evidence of problems when generating saccades to visible targets when no memory was required. This rules out that the impairment on the ODR task was due to a motor problem.
Note: See how I key in on just the important details of the methods and the results. Also, note how I specify what is important about the finding, how it relates to my thesis, and don’t just passively list what they found. Keep in mind at all times what it is that you are trying to argue and use the 2 papers as evidence for your claim. In this example, the claim is that the DLPFC supports spatial working memory. That’s my thesis. Every single thing in my entire paper is included to support that thesis, or to argue that the thesis is wrong. Either way, don’t drone on about irrelevant details. Look at the style of my above example sentences. Your grandmother could read that, even if she isn’t a scientist, and understand my argument. Good science writing doesn’t have to be jargon filled or opaque to the non-scientist. Just because this is a science paper, don’t forget all that you have learned from your English and composition classes about good writing techniques. They apply here as well!