Talk:Integrative agnosia

note

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. --Thatsomaven (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to Reviewers

As Integrative agnosia is very rare, not a lot of research has been done. Most of the resources used for this page were primary sources. There were not enough secondary sources to use while making this page.--Thatsomaven (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This was a very good article considering the little amount of research you had available to you! The picture was very good, however a description would be nice underneath it, possible something like "3D model of areas of the brain affected by Integrative agnosia." Also you should put the banner saying that it is being edited as a school project on the talk page and not in the actual article. In your first section I think it was, you mention a shape test, but don't really go into too much detail about what that shape test is so that might be a good thing to do. Also I would combine your first section of analysis and your diagnosis section since those seem pretty similar. A couple of your sections just have one line, so I wonder if you could put some of the research findings into those sections since that section is so big. Over all, a very good article! Awesomepossum12 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We did make changes to the banner and moved it to the talk page. In terms of the shape test, the article itself was very vague on what the test exactly looked like and what the format of the testing was. How we interpreted that part of the article was that the purpose of the test is to have the subject identify shapes and record how successful they are in doing so. --Mchan19 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary review I think that the authors did a very good job on this article, especially since there was not that much information that they could have built off of on such a rare topic. The information was presented in a well flowing coherent manner and I really did like the use of imagery. The only thing I would suggest is maybe combining some of the shorter sections into others so that the certain headings don't just have one sentence while others have multiple paragraphs. --Tzanon21 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We have chosen to elaborate more on one of the shorter sections, symptoms. We thought that combining that section with the treatment section was not a very good way to organize the information, despite the small amount of information we have. --Mchan19 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review I also think that you did a good job on this article, and I also acknowledge and sympathize on the little information available to you. I agree with the secondary reviewers above in that you could merge some of your smaller paragraphs into larger and more simple paragraphs. I would also advise that you expand your treatment section if at all possible. If not possible, could you expand why the treatments are thought to be effective? SamSchultz1 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We have chosen to elaborate more on one of the shorter sections, symptoms. We thought that combining that section with the treatment section was not a very good way to organize the information, despite the small amount of information. Your suggestion to expand on the effectiveness of the treatment was very helpful and we chose to do that. --Mchan19 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review I think the authors have done a good job with the article and topic, with such little information out there about it. The image caught my eye right away, so great job with that. I would advice moving the treatment section above the research section, as well as adding more to those sections that have just one sentence. If there isn't more information out there for those sections, I would also advice combining them. Some additional links would also enhance the article. Overall, the article gets to the point and gives the reader a quick picture of what Integrative agnosia is. In many cases I myself wish Wikipedia pages were more condensed in order for me to get a quick understanding rather than having to read through paragraphs just to find what I'm looking for. (LucasTichawa (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)User:LucasTichawa)

Thank you for your feedback and we love the image as well! We chose to move the treatment section above the research section because that does seem to make the article more coherent. We also added more to the shorter sections on the page. --Mchan19 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

General; To start, the headline for informing other Wikipedia participants about the page involved in the neurobiology course should be in the talk page and not directly on the article page. In replace of that, a general description of what Integrative Agnosia is could be more appropriate. The diagnosis section is more of a descriptive paragraph and could apply as the general description. I appreciate the fact that the topic has little information, but the proportionality of the article is very noticeable. The research section is the largest by far and maybe some of the information could have been divided differently into subheadings of the research section. The first section, “Assessing Integrative Agnosia,” could be replaced with ‘Identification’ or ‘Testing’ or ‘Diagnosis’ because we already know the topic is Integrative Agnosia. Except for the Causes section, it would be helpful for readers to be able to link to other pages including terms like; ‘Brooks Matrix test,’ ‘Compass Direction Test,’ or ‘Efron Shape Test,’ if applicable. This is a very interesting topic and the information explained is definitely a base for readers to research/ learn more about Integrative Agnosia.

Well-Written; The article text shows grammatical errors and ambiguous explanations. There are ambiguous statements that could use greater detail or better word choice. For example, under research section, the seventh paragraph; “They repeated this again again one” or “This was also echoed the patients.” There are a number of grammatical errors that need to be assessed. Also, for the research section, the two case studies seem to merge as one at times, couldn’t hurt to better describe individually with paragraph or titles. Also, using the term experiment repeatedly confuses the reading, using the term ‘test’ would be appropriate because there are tests of the experiment instead of experiments in the experiment. There are repeated replacements of Integrative ‘Agnosia’ to ‘Agnotia’. Are these different writers, styles or is there an actual difference between them? Since the sections of Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment are so short adding as many specifics can create a better understanding and extend the writing.

2. Verifiable with no original research: The article page does use primary sources, which shows its’ lack of verifiability in the scientific community as a whole. Again, the talk page explained that the disorder, disease, symptom, whatever exactly Integrative Agnosia includes is a rare, which is the cause for primary sources to be used instead.

3. Broad in coverage: The article states that the research completed cannot be applied to general audiences, which is very appropriate to state, but may make the article pointless having little information on symptoms, diagnosis and treatment for a greater audience. I think the additions are great, but for the topic as a whole it is very limited even after the assigned research.

4.Neutral: The article is textbook style and definitely has a neutral tone. There are terms that create a little generalization including global representation or global judgment, which try to show a broad outreach while being unbiased, that is good. But what is the ‘global judgment’ or the ‘global representation?’ Could elaborate.

6. Illustrated: The motion brain picture is very interesting, but needs an explanation. Is the brain an example an Efron shape test or just appealing? More pictures throughout the article would be beneficial for a broader audience with visual learners and may keep readers engaged. Could you find examples for visual or spatial testing to add?

Source Verification; I reviewed the “Visual and Spatial Short-term Memory in integrative Agnosia” article in Cognitive Neuropsychology. After reading the article, the authors seemed to significantly condense or ‘pick and choose’ experiments or conclusions made to add to the wiki page. Was there any specific process of this? The wording is very similar to the sources, which could show reiteration of the material instead of actually explaining and understanding. The one source I read was by no means an easy read showing you absolutely have to be immersed in the topic to understand. There was a lot of information on page 4 that could have been added as previous history about the patient HJA including dates and personal medical testing. Creates a better knowledge about the experimentation and circumstances. Because there is a lot of summarization lots of details are lost regarding certain techniques and experimentation variables, which could be reviewed. The citation looks good and consistent throughout the article. Good Luck! MissKell (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)--MissKell (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. We made changes to the banner so it is now on the talk page. Your suggestion to change the title of the section from "Assessing Integrative Agnosia" to "Diagnosis" was better for the article. In terms of the tests that we mentioned, the article was very vague about each one of them. We interpreted the shape test to be a test to see how well the patient can identify shapes, the compass direction test would see how well the patient could navigate direction, and the Brooks Matrix test was very vague and hard to do research on what exactly it was. We elaborated on the shorter sections. We added a description to the image on our page, but because the research on this topic is already very limited, it was also hard to find images to enhance our article. We do realize that we chose not to add many of the details from the case studies in our research. We chose to do this because we kept in mind that the goal of this Wikipedia page is to combine secondary sources of a disease in a condensed and unbiased manner. By including the details of the case study, like the dates and personal medical testing, on top of the fact that our sources are all primary, we would be drifting away from the purpose of a Wikipedia article. For this reason we chose to condense the information in this manner.--Mchan19 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

The group did a very good job on this article, especially given the fact that there is not much information on the topic. I liked the imagery and the amount of information presented in the research portion of the article. One improvement I would make would be to have an introduction section to the article. It pretty much dives right in with assessing integrative agnosia. Providing the reader with a little bit of background information will help the reader understand what integrative agnosia is and will help them follow and understand the article. But overall, well done! MKClement (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)MKClement

Thank you for your feedback! Based on your comment regarding a summary, we have decided to add a brief synopsis of our disorder. I agree that an introduction section would make the flow of the article better. There is not much information on our topic, so we did the best we could with the information given. I appreciate the constructive criticism! --Thatsomaven (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

To start, I wish there was a synopsis at the beginning of the page. I felt saying it was part of a undergrad course didn't seem appropriate. When the semester is over, obviously it won't be part of it anymore and something will need to be in its place. Another thing I noticed is that there were a few things that could be links that weren't such as agnosia. Also explaining what an Efron shape test and other test also might be an important improvement and well as maybe discussing the scoring system used for them. It's additional information the reader may want to know when trying to understand the testing for the disease. Also this disease seems very rare. Are there any trends forming on who is more likely to get it? What percentage of people have been diagnosed with it? and any other statistical values that may be of importance. Lastly, I noticed that not much was said about the biology or physiology of the disease. I was wondering if there was any and if so, why it was not added? I think possibly talking able what is damaged in the brain might give the rotating brain more meaning to a person who has some biology background.

1. Well Written- The articles overall seems well written. Since English is not a strong suit of mine, I did not notice any drastic grammatical errors besides repeative words that a easy proof read would fix. Besides a few additional explanations, I thought it was easy to read and follow.

2.Verifiable- From the memo that was posted, it is unfortunate that secondary sources have not been created or were not able to be found. In saying that, since majority of the article is the research section, it shows what is currently being done to study the disease more but I also think it makes it too personal to HJA. Results may change from patient to patient who have this disease and it may be interesting if something could be found on another patient who under went similar tests. This way it will become more general and less personal.

3. Broad in coverage- With limited information, it was as broad as could be. With the research section, the authors were trying to give an much information possibly available to perspective readers. This could be good, however, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should give the basic information.

4. Neutral- The tone of the article was very neutral. I did not notice any biases taking place.

5. Illustrated- The rotating brain was a very nice touch. I liked how it showed the exact location of where the problem of the disease would occur. This is something simple that perspective readers would understand even if they did not know parts of the brain.

Source- "A Case of Integrative Visual Agnosia" The article did a nice job of summarizing and presenting the information. It was a lot to take in and try to understand. I believe the authors understand the experiments from the article and did a nice job of simplifying them for the reader. However, I did have one question. Why weren't apperceptive and associative agnosia not talked about in the Wikipedia article? They were mentioned throughout the reading. I feel these are important ideas in the research of integrative agnosia and may give the reader more understanding of the disease as a whole.

Other than that, I hope my suggestions and comments are helpful in any revising of the article!Kkakes728 (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! Based on your constructive criticism, we have added a synopsis at the beginning of our article. I agree that it would better the article. Also, we moved the statement regarding that this was part of an undergraduate course to the talk page. Regarding the Efron shape test, there was not much information in the article pertaining to that test. The purpose of the test was to identify shapes, and we updated that on our article accordingly. There are no trends on who is more likely to get this disease. According to our article and the symptoms we stated, this can occur with other diseases, such as Alzheimer's, or can even occur from lesions. Basically, Integrative agnosia occurs when there is some sort of damage to the extrastriate cortex, so those with damage are more likely to get it. Regarding your statement on our 'rotating brain' image, the highlighted area indicates the extrastriate cortex, which is where integrative agnosia occurs. As the disease is so rare, our article does focus on just a few people. There is nothing we could do about that, is there are not enough patients with this disorder to generalize the research sections. I appreciate your helpful criticism, as it helped us make our article more professional. Thanks again! --Thatsomaven (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. General- Overall I think you guys did a great job! Despite the lack of information available, the article was well organized and the attempts to illustrate the disorder were good. However, I think some improvements can be made to make this an even stronger article. To begin I think a summary paragraph would be helpful which defines agnosia (“absence of knowledge”) and also includes a link to the page on agnosia. Along with this you could include that in the case of integrative agnosia, the absence of knowledge centers on the in ability to integrate perceptual elements of shapes into wholes, as well as an impaired ability to recognize inanimate objects and faces, etc. I also thought that the symptoms section could be expanded, at least briefly, to include some of the diagnostic tests that integrative agnosics tend to perform poorly on. This would give the reader a broader sense of what the condition actually involves. You also might want to rearrange your sections—it might make more sense to put diagnosis and symptoms before “assessing integrative agnosia.” Additionally, either a link to, or an explanation of the “Efron Shape Test” as well as the other diagnostic tests mentioned would be helpful.

2. Well Written- Overall the article was very well written with good sentence structure. The most problematic section was the “Research” section. There were many typos and some of the sentences did not make sense. I think this can be fixed very easily though.

3. Verifiable- Primary sources with original research were used throughout the article; however, given the limited number of sources I think this is entirely appropriate. I thought it was good that you guys included the fact that case studies should never be extrapolated to a broader population. It might be good to include in your beginning summary paragraph that this is a rare disorder and that not much research is available.

4. Broad in Coverage- I think this was done as best it could be given the limited resources and the fact that most resources were case studies of 1-2 individuals.

5. Neutral- The article implies an unbiased viewpoint.

6. Illustrated- I like the picture of the brain and I’m assuming it is meant to depict the bilateral posterior lesions that most patients have with integrative agnosia. It might be good to include a caption with the picture or to refer to the picture somewhere in the text to explain it.

7. Source- I read your first source “A Tale of Two Agnosias” and I think you did a good job of incorporating the information. I know that basically half of it was describing S.A. who had form agnosia and so much of this information is not relevant, and it might be hard to include much of it in your “Assessing Integrative Agnosia” section. It might be good to include more examples of the differences between the two disorders as outlined in the paper, such as the variation in performance on the copying tasks (ie the Rey-Osterrich figure). Additionally, I think it is important to note somewhere in your article that integrative agnosia is a perceptual rather than semantic deficit (as illustrated in the picture naming task) as well as that there is no conceptual deficit in these individuals and that the disorder is characterized by a lack of recognition of objects and not an inability to retrieve the names of the objects from memory. Those pieces of information from the article really helped me to understand what integrative agnosia is. EmmaAWeber (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback, Emma. One thing that would be considered a more difficult aspect to this paper would be the lack of information out there and we did incorporate as much necessary information that was relevant to the disease and we did incorporate that we are not by any means trying to generalize this disease, but provide the case studies and evidence the researchers observed through the testing. I'm glad you caught that. We have incorporated incorporated a summary page and did receive comments about that and took your suggestion regarding linking Agnosia in the summary section in order to connect that Integrative Agnosia is a sub-disease of Agnosia. Also, I appreciate the feedback on the grammatical errors, we have taken the initiative to fix them. Lastly, your last paragraph on source was very helpful in suggesting how to explain thing better as far as our image. That has definitely been taken into consideration as to how we can better incorporate that. HawksHockey21 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Considering you guys made a note how hard info on agnosia is to come by I say good job on providing how much you did. The article I reviewed before this one was incredibly information deficient and seemed like a topic where more info could be found than yours. My main critiques for you guys would be two main ones that I've recommended to everyone. Pictures never hurt anyone they make the article flow smoother and non-scientists like pictures. Although the graphic at the beginning is cool. Secondly there is a great chunk of text in the research section. I think you guys could break some of it up into bullet points and summarize the experiments a little bit so that people can find what they are looking for quick or for non-scientists, digest the information a little bit more easily.--5602krauseb (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I also appreciate your positivity. It is nice to know how our article matches up with those in the class. It was difficult to find information on this topic, but we did do the best we could with the information available. I would have to say that for our article, we could not find many pictures that correlated with our topic, so that is why we only have one picture. Most of the articles we found on our topic had to do with research, which is why our research section is so long. It is a lot, and, based on your comments, we are going to divide the information based on each study. --Thatsomaven (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)