Not really fond of this card in the first place.
In the deck we have:
The opposite of sensory adaptation is {{c1::amplification}}.
{{c1::Sensory adaptation}} (or {{c1::neural adaptation}}) is a {{c2::decreased}} responsiveness of a sensory neuron over time in response to a constant stimulus.
which would imply that sensory adaptation involves a decrease in response to stimulus. I dont really know how to articulate this well but there is sensory adaptation as a term and as a concept but these cards seem pretty counterintuitive/contradictory.
Nothing really to do with ur edit but this reminds me these cards are kind of a problem.
Related UWorld:
Sensory adaptation (or neural adaptation) is a decreased responsiveness of a sensory neuron over time in response to a constant stimulus.
Cant edit anything.
The opposite of sensory adaptation is {{c1::amplification}}.
This is UP regulation.
is what we have. The second one I put in is from the UWorld one that I made cant fix it.
The existing card isnât great. I think we can tweak a bit more, though, imo:
- Current suggestion: {{c1::Sensory adaptation}} describes how {{c2::our receptors can increase or decrease their sensitivity to a stimulus.::do what?}}
Iâm thinking something like:
- {{c1::Sensory adaptation}} is the process by which {{c2::sensory receptors increase or decrease their sensitivity to a stimulus over time.::do what?}}
or
- {{c1::Sensory adaptation}} is the process by which {{c2::sensory receptors adjust their sensitivity to a stimulus, either increasing or decreasing their response over time.::do what?}}â
Whatâs your opinion on the fact that this current card contradicts our definition for sensory amplification?
We have this other card:
The opposite of sensory adaptation is {{c1::amplification}}.
This is UP regulation.
Which would suggest that sensory adaptation is a decrease/downregulation in sensitivity. Rather than our current card which suggests that sensory adaptation is an increase or decrease in sensitivity.
Notably, UWorld also seems to take the hardline approach that:
Sensory adaptation (or neural adaptation) is a decreased responsiveness of a sensory neuron over time in response to a constant stimulus.
which also contradicts our definition in this card. It seem like in this card we are describing the concept of what adaptation means rather than the actual term sensory adaptation.
We can dig deeper, but Iâm not sure there is one consensus on this.
For example, Kaplan discusses physiological (sensory) adaptation to light, and gives the example of both constriction and dilation while noting that it âgenerally raises theâŚthreshold for sensory response.â
Khan goes the same angle: âSensory adaptation is a change in the sensitivity of perceptionâŚwe can get both up- and down-regulation.â
Whereas UWorld really lines it up as âsensory adaptation occurs whenâŚfewer messages to the brainâ which obviously hews to only the attenuation angle.
If so, we have another example of discrepancy in source material.
In these occasions the safest thing is probably to append a note in the Extra field to account for the discrepancy in primary reference sources.
I agree. Thats why Iâm wondering if it makes sense to just define sensory amplification in the card about sensory amplification rather than defining it by comparing it to sensory adaptation. As is, these cards donât really work together.
Well, are we just going to change the other card from:
âThe opposite of X is Yâ to âthe definition of X is ____â
Iâm not sure changing the structure of the card wholesale is fair to existing users, really.
Do we know the source material for the other card?
I donât see the term âamplificationâ in either UWorld or Kaplan. It also strikes me as an odd word choice, in that youâre typically talking about sensitization or desensitization/habituation, rather than amplification which is typically more related to the signal than the reception.
I agree itâs a big change but donât the two definitions actually not work together at all? Sensory amplification canât be the opposite of adaptation if adaptation is both upregulation and down regulation.
I agree itâs weird word choice but I donât think desensitization or habituation can be described as the opposite of sensory adaptation either if we define sensory adaptation in the deck as an increase or decrease in responsiveness. By not making it a comparison card we arenât forced to take a hardline approach with whether or not sensory adaptation is an increase or decrease or just a decrease since there is a discrepancy between sources.
Itâs all discussed here:
^ adaptation vs amplification
There is a discrepancy, yeah. This is the same issue weâve run into before, and until such day as all sources are completely vetted against each other we wonât ever entirely avoid all of them
I understand the point/s, but I would reinforce that changing the content of a card on unsuspecting users is not an appropriate avenue, imo. Thatâs not great conduct as curators, short of absolute errors.
If you want to suggest a change we can vote on it like anything. Iâm of the mind here that we shouldnât, and/or canât, dance entirely around all of these discrepancies to avoid them entirely and trying to do so is a recipe for failure. At the very least, one could argue that dancing around them does not address them and could very well lead to more, not less, confusion for some users.
Editorializing around them is not our role, in my opinion; where primary sources disagree we should point to the presence of disagreement and note as such. If and when we find a corroborating AAMC source, we can defer to it as ground-level truth.
TL; DR: where discrepancies exist, I think we note them as such and clarify. Itâs not appropriate to our role to editorialize around them, imo
Indifferent on the change. No objections if you guys like it.