@anking-mcat-maintainers double-check me here on phrasing and any other thoughts.
I’m not married to this particular phrasing, but wanted at least to get this on the board for consideration before it wallowed too much longer
Reference examples for sources:
Kaplan:
UWorld:
Khan:
The khan academy video comparing sensory adaptation and amplification exclusively refers to sensory adaptation as down regulation.
I have yet to find a good way to articulate this so let me know if this makes no sense. I dont think we can do anything about it but I think the issue that is arising is sensory adaptation is being used as both a descriptor and a term in different videos/books. Like when the eyes adapt by dilating or constricting we would DESCRIBE that as adaptation. Essentially the colloquial meaning of adaptation is used in the Kaplan books. However, sensory adaptation itself as a term exclusively refers to down regulation.
Thats why there’s a whole Khan academy video on sensory adaptation VS amplification both as a TERM. UWorld also follows the term definition.
Yep, but the other video explicitly states that we can get up and down-regulation. We can’t gloss over this:
Regardless of which way KA goes, UWorld and Khan are at odds so it’s not a tie-breaker in either event and the discrepancy remains for us to address.
I don’t think we do anything about it, as it’s not for us to do about. We note that there are differing framings in primary sources and that’s about the limit of our role as curators. We can’t override, or editorialize on top of, primary source material, really.
I just mean we might want to revise the Khan academy bullet to say it appears to exclusively refer to sensory adaptation as down regulation in certain videos whereas in others it refers to sensory adaptation as both up regulation and down regulation.
Card looks good to me now!