Tags: Dissertation Chair CommitteeThe California Critical Thinking Skills Test College LevelHow To Do A Market Analysis For A Business PlanConflits De Lois Dans Le Temps DissertationAp Biology Transpiration Lab EssayUniversity Of Queensland Thesis SearchEssays On The Law Of NatureHouse On Mango Street EssayEnglish Lit EssaysHow Do You Write A Dissertation
The results of the content analysis of this study did not support this finding ...By not presenting consensus, distinctiveness and consistency information simultaneously, the present research design has successfully avoided the criticism of lacking real world characteristics directed at other research testing Kelleys covariation theory, research such as Pike & Bewer (1992) and Fergis, Nok & Layman (1996).
Results can take the form of data, hypotheses, models, definitions, formulas, etc.
(I imagine the Results section like a dance with swords -- sometimes you are engaging your partner with the pointy end and sometimes you are gliding along side them).
The discussion section is a framing section, like the Introduction, which returns to the significance argument set up in your introduction.
So reread your introduction carefully before writing the discussion; you will discuss how the hypothesis has been demonstrated by the new research and then show how the field's knowledge has been changed by the addition of this new data.
: In vivo two-photon calcium imaging enabled us to characterize the functional architecture of neuronal populations in layer 2/3 of the mouse primary auditory cortex with high precision. Tonotopy and gradual decrease of signal correlation with distance were found when examining larger distances.
It thus seems that local heterogeneity is embedded in larger-scale order in A1.
Specifically, at short distances we observed both very large and very small correlations, while at longer distances we observed only smaller correlations..., the strong correlation between the signal correlation of pairs of neurons (generally attributed to common input), and the noise correlation between them (generally attributed to direct synaptic connections) of strongly coupled subnetworks that share common input.
Such a model, with partially overlapping, strongly connected subnetworks that share common input, has already been suggested for L2/3 neurons in the visual cortex Different experimental procedures, including direct mappings of synaptic connectivity in local cortical circuits, would be required to reveal the underlying organizational principles of the auditory cortex.
Are there any obvious organizational principles in local populations?
And to what extent are the responses of individual neurons in the network independent or correlated?