BMS1052: HUMAN NEUROBIOLOGY

40% from all labs
2 x 10% mid-sems
40% end of semester exam

Overall impression and lecture content: The unit was structured well until week 10, the vignettes block of lectures which were extremely disorganised. I felt this is because it’s meant to be an odd-sock drawer for content that don’t fit in any other module. Anyways BMS1052 is by far the most intellectually stimulating unit of 1st year biomed, and I enjoyed learning new stuff everyday about how the brain creates the world around us. However, I rate this unit poorly because of the main lecturer, Nic Price’s attitude towards the students. Although he appears normal IRL, he can be quite rude and abrasive on the Moodle forums. Once, I asked him if we could do a role play for creativity marks in our journal club presentation. He told me that it’s a bad idea and that we would look like idiots. Another time a girl asked him something while typing in a hurry, he told her to pay attention to her spelling, punctuation and grammar on a freakin public forum. Apart from that, the sheer volume of content also made memorisation a necessity, which I don’t like at all. Ari made the foundation lectures mainly taught by Nic more bearable because he’s epic at teaching us instruments in neuroscience research. Helena was an absolute legend at teaching us the ANS, everyone enjoyed her saucy jokes and wicked sense of humour. The dev bio lecturer was clear on what’s assessed and what’s not and was rather motherly, while the learning+memory lecturer just read off her wordy slides. Pharmacology was my favourite of the vignettes lectures, cuz it’s essentially application of our ANS knowledge in a biochemical context.

Mid sems: Nic deliberately provided us with practice quizzes but didn’t give us any answers at all. Everyone complained about this on the forum but Nic debated against it. I respect his decision, but am appalled at how some a*sekissers were labelling us as spoonfed and telling us it’s time to grow up. My mates have a theory that they were being so obsequious to gain favours with the lecturers to maximise their chances of getting into med. I partially agreed with Nic’s decision after he cited his reasoning with relevant education research, but that sort of condescension from some of my peers is absolutely unacceptable: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B_H7Fj2GgsFyQslO8N5HZPg8KH1FRrYm/view?usp=drivesdk. Sometimes, toxic people like these are the reason why I felt biomed has been so detrimental to my mental health and I thought about transferring to BSc many times. Anyways, I proposed a compromise system on the forum where we’re only showed the right answer if we got it right, but it was rejected. In order to do well in the actual mid-sems, you’ll need to do the practice quizzes and find the right answer for each one, no matter how much effort it takes. The answers are in your lecture slides 90% of the time, but if they’re not, the prescribed textbook has the rest of the answers.

Labs: Similar to our previous physiology unit (1031), the labs were trainwrecks, but nowhere as bad as physics. The scratchie pre-lab quizzes were particularly bad (only scored 7.5-8.5/10) because I’m usually stuck with bad tables. The best labs were the “electrostimulation of dismembered cockroach legs” and “giving yourself an electric shock” ones, they were very enjoyable. The same can’t be said of the sensation lab which was organised very poorly, we had to swap stations way too frequently due to the amount of content and we had incomplete data. Luckily, the post prac quiz wasn’t overly difficult. The worst lab is the journal club group project. So much drama happened in that. I had to carry the group along with a hard working awesome group member. I wrote the script for everyone to memorise but one of my trash members kept telling me that the part I wrote for myself was too boring during a rehearsal. When I asked him why and how I may improve it, he just repeated that my section was crap. I tolerated this for 5 minutes, then I had enough, broke down and yelled at him for his destructive criticism and for him to write his own damned script if you think you’re so smart. He ended up memorising the script I wrote for him. The TAs were pretty unpredictable in their assessment of the oral. When we finished, they told us that we did really really well. However when we got the results back, it was a miserly 80.3%. Nic said we have no chances to appeal our grades since we should’ve asked for detailed feedback on the day.

Exam: Was very similar to the mid-sems in terms of difficulty, 95 multis in 2 hours so you have to work pretty fast and accurately. To prepare for it, I’d highly recommend looking at the mid-sems’ solutions once they’re released to figure out what questions you’ve gotten wrong and will likely get wrong again. Many of the ethics questions were curveballs NGL. In the end, I walked out thinking I aced it, but when the results got released, it implied that I only got 78/95 on the exam, oh well, c’est la vie, at least it’s still an HD.

Nic Price
Ari Pinar
Helena Parkington
Brian Oldfield
Siew Chai
Elizabeth Davis
Sonja McKeown

No, only some revision questions in SAQ format while the exam is multi-choice

2.5 out of 5

Yes, with screen capture

Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain, really good textbook, helped me understand lecture content and saved my GPA.

3 x 1 hour lecture
1 x 3 hour lab every second week

2019 Sem 2

86 HD

BMS professional development module 2 (2%)
This was the second part of the BMS professional development program. This involved a careers-oriented lecture, with the assessment involving us reflecting our career-related experiences from module 1, and also forming a map of our careers network.

Practical assessments (3 x 2% + 10% + 10% + 12% = 38% total)
Each of the first 3 practicals began with a pre-practical, group MCQ quiz (3 x 2%) of around 10 questions, based on pre-class material on Moodle. These were done on IF-AT cards, so you were given feedback immediately. The questions were fairly accessible, so most students did quite well on this.

Practical 1 (action potentials) was assessed via a group practical report (10%), where we were required to interpret and (statistically!) analyse provided data. Groups consisted of 2-6 students, and we were allowed to choose our own groups. Feedback and marks (via a rubric) were returned within a few weeks.

Practical 2 (sensation) involved a variety of experiments relating to audition, vision, and somatosensation. The assessment was an open-book (but individual) MCQ Moodle quiz (10%) relating to the practical content, which was completed in our own time, and was open for around 1-2 weeks. Only a numerical mark was returned for this quiz.

Practical 3 (movement) involved a experiments relating to muscle movement. This prac was assessed as part of mid-sem test 2.

Practicals 4 and 5 were dedicated towards the preparation and presentation of a journal club presentation, which is essentially an overview presentation of a research article. Practical 4 involved the formation of groups (of 4-6), selection of a journal article, and planning. Marks (2%) were given for attendance at this session, and also briefly discussing your article with a demonstrator. We were then required to research and prepare our presentation outside of class, with practical 5 (week 11/12) dedicated to the presentations (10%). Each presentation was to be 6-8 minutes (strict maximum - many groups were required to stop as they went overtime), and the practical class was split up such that we were presenting to around 10 other groups. Only a numerical mark was returned for this assessment - which was somewhat annoying, as we weren't given any group-specific feedback regarding our performance.

2 x mid-semester test (10% each; 20% total)
Two (yes - two!) MSTs for this unit. Both tests were 45-minutes long, with around 30 MCQs. They were held online (but closed-book), with the option of completing the test on campus (in a computer lab), or on your own laptop (via Respondus lockdown browser + webcam monitoring). Results, along with the questions and answers, were released within a few weeks. Some revision content was provided on Moodle.

MST 1 was held in week 6, and covered content from the first 11 lectures (on foundations and some sensation lectures). MST 2 was held in week 9, and covered content from the movement lectures and practical (prac 3).

End of semester exam (40%)
The end of semester exam was 2 hours long, and consisted of 96 MCQs on all lecture content (only). Most questions were relatively fair, although some focused on specific detail. Some revision content was provided on Moodle (depending on the lecturer). Must pass the exam (hurdle requirement) to pass the unit.

This unit provides a very good introduction to neurobiology. It expands on the membrane potential content from BMS1031, and provides a gateway to BMS2031 (physiology). The lecture content is interesting, and you are exposed to a wide variety of concepts across neurobiology. However, as has been stated in past reviews, this unit is arguably the most difficult of first year BMS units, and you are warned of this by Nic himself at the beginning of semester. Each assessment is worth a significant amount of your overall grade, and these are spread throughout the semester, so it's important that you try to keep on top of everything so that you don't get lost.

The lecture topics covered in this unit can be generally divided into:
1) Foundations - basics of neurobiology, including action potentials and signalling
2) Sensation - covers the senses of vision, hearing, somatosensation (touch), and hearing
3) Motor control - how we use our nervous system to coordinate muscle movements
4) Control - autonomic nervous system, hypothalamus and hormonal control
5) Vignettes - covered different miscellaneous topics (1-2 lectures each) related to neurobiology, including neurodevelopment, pharmacology, animal ethics, neuroprosthetics, neuroregeneration and repair, learning and memory

While this unit can be difficult, it also covers interesting concepts, and provides a good foundation for second year units (especially in first semester).

- Dr Nicholas Price (unit coordinator) - foundations, sensation, movement, neuroprosthetics, and animal ethics
- Mr Ari Pinar (co-coordinator) - foundations
- Prof Helena Parkington - autonomic nervous system
- Prof Brian Oldfield - hypothalamus and hormonal control of body function
- A/Prof Siew Chai - neuroregeneration, learning and memory
- A/Prof Elizabeth Davis - pharmacology (peripheral targets)
- Dr Sonja McKeown - developmental neurobiology

No (as per faculty policy).

4 out of 5. Marks were mostly fairly distributed across assessments, and unit was generally well-structured.

Yes, with screen capture. Live-streaming available via Panopto and Echo360.

- Highly Recommended: Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain by Bear, Connors & Paradiso. We were told that any lecture content (for Nic's section) which was extended on within this text was assessable, so I would recommend having a copy of this if you want to do well in this unit.

Per week: 3 x 1-hour lectures
Throughout semester: 5 x 3-hour practicals

The practicals were spread throughout semester (generally every fortnight). The first 3 practicals covered the themes of action potentials, sensation, and muscle movement, while the final 2 practicals dedicated towards preparation and presentation of a journal club-style oral presentation. In all practicals, table groups were not assigned, and so you could work with whoever you wanted.

Semester 2, 2018.
This unit is only available in Semester 2.

Not yet available

Overview
This is a core first-year biomed unit, and is admittedly surprisingly in-depth for a level-one unit. It is certainly the most content-heavy level-one BMS unit, though fortunately I found it to be one of the more interesting and engaging ones. A big benefit was that BMS1052, despite being a fairly general introductory neuroscience/neurophysiology unit, was more specific in its content and structure than other units - in particular the incredibly hotchpotch BMS1031 (N.B. this may have changed since I took BMS1031 in 2013 - I bloody hope so).


Lectures
As a brief overview, this unit is broken up into several lecture/topic blocks:

• Foundations - Covering basic neuroanatomy and neurophysiological principles (action potential generation etc.), neuronal cell signalling and neurobiological experimental techniques. The Foundation lectures are delivered by Nic Price.
• Sensation - Ostensibly looking at sensory organisation and processing in humans. This lecture block looks at the neurophysiological basis of vision, somatosensation, nociception, thermoception and audition. These are also delivered by Nic Price.
• Movement - Moving on from the sensory-based Sensation lecture block, the Movement lectures look at reflex and voluntary action outputs resulting from external and internal stimuli. These lectures cover muscle anatomy and innervation, proprioception and spinal/reflexive and cortical control of movement. These lectures are also taken by Nic Price.
• Control - In which the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and the influence of the hypothalamus on diet and behaviour is investigated. The ANS lectures are delivered by Helena Parkington, and Brian Oldfield covers the hypothalamus lectures.
• Vignettes - Basically an assortment of various neuroscience topics that don't fit in any of the previous lecture blocks. The vignette lectures were neurodevelopment, neuroregeneration and repair, and learning and memory (Siew Chai covers these topics); ethics and neural prosthetics by Nic Price, and a couple of guest lectures from Motor Neuron Disease Victoria and Di Ashworth, who was the first Australian bionic eye implant recipient.

The lectures are all very good in terms of content, interest and delivery (in particular, Nic Price is a quality lecturer). The vignettes were particularly personally engaging: I have a strong interest in neurodegeneration, neuroregeneration and general regenerative medicine, so Siew Chai's lectures were extremely interesting to me. It was also great to hear about the practical side of neuroscientific research via Di Ashworth and the MND Victoria Foundation.

However, it did at times feel like the lectures were trying too hard to cram information in for the sake of producing lots of examinable material. In my personal opinion (albeit one shared by several people I have discussed this unit with), the lecture series - and ultimately the unit - would have been better off if the lectures were better spaced. This doesn't necessarily require the cutting of content from the course, but possibly some more direction towards self-directed learning and readings.

A final note: GO TO LECTURES. 'Tis a bit hypocritical of me but this is a given in biomed units, and it's a lesson learned the hard way by me. The examinable content assessed in the MSTs and exam (and to a lesser extent in the labs) is drawn almost completely from lecture content. If you don't keep up to date you're going to have a bad time come SWOTVAC - which I did. For me, SWOTVAC consisted almost solely of 1. Freaking out big time and 2. Noting the lecture content which I missed.

Ladies and Gentlemen: 5 days well spent... unless you are my carpal tunnel.

Nope! However there were some practice MCQ quizzes available on Moodle covering much of the course, and Prof. Helena Parkington posted 5 or so SAQs on Moodle some time prior to the exam.

Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain - Bear, Connors and Paradiso

There are other neuroscience textbooks available (see the references listed on lecture slides), but the prescribed one is generally all you need. I would recommend buying it, it is a great textbook and I referred to it often throughout semester.

3.5-4 out of 5

Yes, with screen capture.

Occasionally it felt as if the labs were trying to cram too damn much into 3 hours. This was most evident in the second lab, which aimed to fit ALL of the vision theory and ALL of the somatosensation theory and ALL of the audition theory into a single lab. Nope, didn't work. The fact that there was so much to do, yet the assessment associated with labs was done via Moodle quizzes, made for a rather jumbled and seemingly pointless three hours. On that note, having none of the lab assessment occur during the labs was annoying. By the time I got onto the Moodle lab quiz I'd forgotten plenty of important lab details, i.e. whatever I hadn't recorded because of the hectic nature of the labs themselves. Also, the first lab was just pointless; if you've done one osmosis/membrane permeability lab, you've done them all. I'd done identical labs in BIO1011, BIO1022, BMS1011 and BMS1031 if I recall correctly. Just once would have been enough, thanks Monash.


Other in-semester assessments
There were two MSTs during the semester; the first covered the Foundations and Sensation lectures, while the second covered Movement and the ANS lectures. These were purely lecture-based MCQ tests, and they're really not so bad if you're up-to-date with lectures (lol). The downside was that unlike in many other units with MSTs, the MST material is still examinable on the final exam. Seems a bit pointless to have an MST then - let alone two.


Exam
The exam was a little bit different. Total 40 marks (i.e. 1 mark = 1% of the unit grade); 26 MCQs work 0.5 marks each and 27 marks worth of SAQs (though truth be told most of the "short-answer questions" were basically long-form responses.

If you know you're course material to a fair degree of detail then you'll be fine; however the difficulty lies in that there is a vast amount of examinable content - basically the whole unit minus labs (and the labs are just reflections of part of the lecture content anyway).

But yeah, I've had worse exams. The good part is that the exam format was disclosed well in advance of the exam so I had a general idea of how to approach everything and study strategically - which is a must for this unit... unless you have an eidetic memory (you lucky bastard).



Overall, a solid unit. Good lectures, great lecturers and a good range of topics. Would benefit from some better organisation and mark allocation to tasks. The labs need a major do-over in terms of structure, content and assessment but they're not bad enough to ruin the unit. One of the best first-year biomed units (though it's not like you have a choice whether or not to do it ).

The labs themselves weren't too bad; the lab work was hands on which was a nice break from some of the more boring biomed "labs" (looking at you, BMS1031). The best lab was either the 3rd or 4th one; the Human EMG prac consisted of delivering repeated electric shocks to a poor lab partner (all in the name of SCIENCE), which the fourth was stimulating movement in a disembodied cockroach leg by everyone's favourite mad-scientist trope - electricity! The primary reason that these two labs stand out as superior was that they A) Reflected the lecture content quite closely and/or B) Didn't try to do to much. I'll get to this point in the following section:

Sem 2, 2014