Overview • When in doubt, follow APA guidelines • Say it once, clearly. • Everything in its place – don’t overlap information in multiple sections. (discuss in discussion the implications of results)
Title Page Running head TITLE AUTHOR FIRST MI. AUTHORLAST Institution
Abstract No more than 200 words. Summary of article: intro, methods, results, conclusion
Introduction Introduce the problem What is the point of the study? How do the hypotheses relate to the problem? What are the theoretical implications? (what was done and why, in a few paragraphs) Develop the background Discuss the relevant literature, not an exhaustive review Cite previous work: first study, in-depth study, recent review, if large body of literature exists, USE APA reference format Close with What variable were manipulated? What outcome was expected? Why?
Methods Describe what was done under these headings: participants stimulus and task design (or materials) analysis Describe in enough detail that a reader could replicate the study.
Results What happened? Means, outliers, other descriptive statistics Paired t test: Effect of gap duration? Figure or table: means(SD) figure: appropriate type (bar, line), label axes Include errorbars Add features only where necessary table: label rows, columns, format (no vertical lines) Other tests? See APA manual for formatting, statistics
Discussion What do the results mean? What else could the results mean? Could P’s have used an alternate strategy to get to result? -order effects (within-subjects) -unbalanced groups -confounding variable across groups -correlation is not causation Any other interesting findings, not directly related to the hypothesis? Conclusion – what is the overall significance. Big picture.
References Bernstein, L.E., Auer, E.T., Jr., Moore, J.K., Ponton, C.W., Don, M., and Singh, M. (2002). Visual speech perception without primary auditory cortex activation. Neuroreport 13, 311-315. Calvert, G.A., Bullmore, E.T., Brammer, M.J., Campbell, R., Williams, S.C.R., McGuire, P.K., Woodruff, P.W.R., Iverson, S.D., and David, A.S. (1997). Activation of Auditory Cortex During Silent Lipreading. Science 276, 593-596. Calvert, G.A., and Campbell, R. (2003). Reading Speech from Still and Moving Faces: The Neural Substrates of Visible Speech. pp. 57-70.
Tables, Figures Figure 1. Time course of N100 face responses in auditory core and lateral belt regions. Mean responses (in µV) from core electrode sites (gray, N=18) and lateral belt (black, N=61), +/- SEM (thin lines). Although the core and lateral belt responses show a similar onset time and response slope, the lateral belt response continues, resulting in a longer latency to peak. Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis of the response to each exemplar. Each plot shows the results from one electrode site in auditory cortex. For each site, the first two principal components of the responses are displayed. A black line separates face (red) from object (blue) exemplars. Within the face category, expression exemplars (diamonds) are not separable from neutral exemplars (filled circles). [ Title, description of axes, decoding colors, lines. **Must be referred to somewhere in text: “ the effect was significant (Figure 1)”]
Tables, Figures Figure 1.
Ex. Methods:Participants 35 York University students 27 female Tested as 2 groups: N=18 and N=17 Treated in accordance with APA ethical standards
Ex. Methods:Stimulus and Task Design 4 world lists; 12 words per list Serially presented at 2 sec. per word 60-seconds free recall time after each list Non-target word font, size,color: Arial 24 black Target word font, size, color: Comic Sans bold 54 purple
Ex. Methods:Stimulus and Task Design Target word: Item 5-8, avoid primacy or recency effects from beginning and end of list, respectively. Target position: sampling randomly without replacement All words were of same frequency of use Instructions(Paraphrase this, don’t quote!): presented 4 word lists of 12 words each. After each list, write down as many words as possible. Don’t write anything until the end of each word list.
Ex. Methods: Analysis Items 5-8 analyzed For each participant: 1. mean % recall of 4 target words 2. mean % recall of remaining, non-target words (3/list x 4 lists = 12 items) generating 2 distributions for comparison Within-subjects design Student’s t-test, alpha p < 0.05 n.b.: (You are permitted to include the following passage verbatim, and must state something to this effect, for accuracy): For the first group of participants (N=18), one of the non-target words from position 5-8 of list 4 had erroneously occurred earlier in the list, and was consequently discarded from analysis. Thus, for this group, only 2 non-target words were averaged from the 4th list.