ESSAY FEEDBACK
This table is to help you understand (i) how you can improve and (ii) why you
were awarded your mark. Each section maps directly onto the departmental
marking criteria for essays
1. Narrative and structure The narrative style is great, your essay is nicely
written and easy to follow. Structure is solid, all
essential blocks of an essay (introduction, body,
conclusion) are present and well written.
However, paragraphs should be shorter and
should address one key point. Great job discussing
the different cognitive theories in the
introduction. It really helps setting up a theoretical
framework in which to interpret the patient data.
2. Understanding of sources Overall you show to have thought about and
understood the material you discuss. There is only
one thing I pointed out in the text and it’s the
wording you choose to refer to Haxby’s theory.
Brain plasticity refers to ability of the brain to
change and reorganize itself throughout a lifespan.
What you mean here is that according to Haxby’s
theory, visual recognition is carried out by multiple
areas in the brain which work together to process
different aspects of visual stimuli. Also, you refer
to Gauthier’s theory as a distributed processing
one, while her view is more similar to Kanwisher’s
modular view. Both of them think that the FFA is a
face –specific area, but they differ in how they
think this is achieved (for Gauthier it is expertise).
3. a. Answers the question with relevant The material selected is appropriate and well
selected material summarized
b. Going beyond core material Throughout the essay you show to have done
some good reading, going beyond the core
material. Well done!
4. Critical reflection and analytical approach You show to have thought critically about the
issues relevant to visual recognition. For example,
when you discuss Duchaine’s studies on
prosopagnosics you do a good job in analysing
them in relation to other contrasting pieces of
evidence
To improve…
Always try to avoid taking strong positions when writing an essay. Yours must be an attempt of
revising the relevant literature in a critical way. Make sure you always remain in a neutral
territory. For example, see my comment in the conclusion.
, What have studies of visual object agnosia and prosopagnosia contributed to our
understanding of visual recognition?
Brain damage can sometimes impair visual object recognition and face recognition in
patients, whilst preserving more basic visual functions such as colour vision and acuity
(Farah, 2000). Visual object agnosia (VOA) is defined as a difficulty in recognising objects
presented visually that cannot be explained by visual defect, another mental disorder, or
lack of knowledge of the object (Donnelly, 2011). Prosopagnosia (P - either congenital (C) or
acquired (A)) is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to visually recognise
familiar faces, as well as learn new faces (Righi, Jerskey, & Tarr, 2011). Research into the
underlying neurological damage of these conditions can provide valuable insights into visual
recognition, as what these patients lack is likely to be responsible, at least in part, for
recognising faces or objects. There are four contending hypotheses on the neural
mechanisms behind visual recognition: Farah's (1991) hypothesis, which proposes that there
are two independent recognition systems, one part-based and one holistic; Gauthier and
Tarr's (1997) expertise hypothesis, which suggests that the fusiform face area (FFA, an area
strongly associated with facial processing (Steeves et al., 2006) is an expertise area, and can
therefore become adapted to recognising any particular category of object as opposed to
just faces; Haxby's (2001) hypothesis has a more holistic view of the brain, proposing that
the FFA is not a necessity for facial recognition as overlapping brain regions can
compensate; and finally Kanwisher's (1997) theory, which posits the idea of category-
specific recognition modules, where, for example, the FFA is selectively involved in face
perception. The findings of studies into VOA and P are discussed in terms of these theories,
and how they contribute to our overall understanding of visual recognition mechanisms. Commented [A1]: This is great! Well done on introducing
the constrasting theories in the visual recognition literature
This table is to help you understand (i) how you can improve and (ii) why you
were awarded your mark. Each section maps directly onto the departmental
marking criteria for essays
1. Narrative and structure The narrative style is great, your essay is nicely
written and easy to follow. Structure is solid, all
essential blocks of an essay (introduction, body,
conclusion) are present and well written.
However, paragraphs should be shorter and
should address one key point. Great job discussing
the different cognitive theories in the
introduction. It really helps setting up a theoretical
framework in which to interpret the patient data.
2. Understanding of sources Overall you show to have thought about and
understood the material you discuss. There is only
one thing I pointed out in the text and it’s the
wording you choose to refer to Haxby’s theory.
Brain plasticity refers to ability of the brain to
change and reorganize itself throughout a lifespan.
What you mean here is that according to Haxby’s
theory, visual recognition is carried out by multiple
areas in the brain which work together to process
different aspects of visual stimuli. Also, you refer
to Gauthier’s theory as a distributed processing
one, while her view is more similar to Kanwisher’s
modular view. Both of them think that the FFA is a
face –specific area, but they differ in how they
think this is achieved (for Gauthier it is expertise).
3. a. Answers the question with relevant The material selected is appropriate and well
selected material summarized
b. Going beyond core material Throughout the essay you show to have done
some good reading, going beyond the core
material. Well done!
4. Critical reflection and analytical approach You show to have thought critically about the
issues relevant to visual recognition. For example,
when you discuss Duchaine’s studies on
prosopagnosics you do a good job in analysing
them in relation to other contrasting pieces of
evidence
To improve…
Always try to avoid taking strong positions when writing an essay. Yours must be an attempt of
revising the relevant literature in a critical way. Make sure you always remain in a neutral
territory. For example, see my comment in the conclusion.
, What have studies of visual object agnosia and prosopagnosia contributed to our
understanding of visual recognition?
Brain damage can sometimes impair visual object recognition and face recognition in
patients, whilst preserving more basic visual functions such as colour vision and acuity
(Farah, 2000). Visual object agnosia (VOA) is defined as a difficulty in recognising objects
presented visually that cannot be explained by visual defect, another mental disorder, or
lack of knowledge of the object (Donnelly, 2011). Prosopagnosia (P - either congenital (C) or
acquired (A)) is a neurological disorder characterized by the inability to visually recognise
familiar faces, as well as learn new faces (Righi, Jerskey, & Tarr, 2011). Research into the
underlying neurological damage of these conditions can provide valuable insights into visual
recognition, as what these patients lack is likely to be responsible, at least in part, for
recognising faces or objects. There are four contending hypotheses on the neural
mechanisms behind visual recognition: Farah's (1991) hypothesis, which proposes that there
are two independent recognition systems, one part-based and one holistic; Gauthier and
Tarr's (1997) expertise hypothesis, which suggests that the fusiform face area (FFA, an area
strongly associated with facial processing (Steeves et al., 2006) is an expertise area, and can
therefore become adapted to recognising any particular category of object as opposed to
just faces; Haxby's (2001) hypothesis has a more holistic view of the brain, proposing that
the FFA is not a necessity for facial recognition as overlapping brain regions can
compensate; and finally Kanwisher's (1997) theory, which posits the idea of category-
specific recognition modules, where, for example, the FFA is selectively involved in face
perception. The findings of studies into VOA and P are discussed in terms of these theories,
and how they contribute to our overall understanding of visual recognition mechanisms. Commented [A1]: This is great! Well done on introducing
the constrasting theories in the visual recognition literature
