 Hi. A couple of you have asked how you can actually approach a lot of the information that we have available to you in the bundles. One of the things that came up was that it would likely be easier to approach all of the research that's available if you understood how to break down the structure of scientific articles. So one of the things that we mentioned to you in previous videos on how to do Google scholar searches is that finding these keywords is important in limiting the timeframe. It's actually also beneficial in reducing the number and getting higher quality information. And then choosing, you can look and see the types of journal article names that appear here. So for example, we know in neuro image, their focus is going to be very much in the neuro correlates of mindfulness practice from a very technical point of view. We might think though that something else like this particular article that's from family therapy with adolescents, it would be a different kind of a focus. So depending on what your research question is or your focus is, you can choose one of these types of articles. Once you get into the article and you open it and you can actually have a look at it in digital format is slightly different from what you're going to find in the paper copies. But if you're lucky, you'll have a hyperlink to the PDF of the article itself. And when you open the article, you'll immediately see a couple of things that you should pay attention to. One is to note that, yes, indeed, this is coming from neuro image, a pretty prestigious peer review journal. And you'll see that this is telling you the volume number and the series number, which in this case is just the year of publication, followed by the page numbers. If you do take a direct quote off of something, you will need to indicate the page numbers, which sometimes in electronic versions, you're not going to see it. This one, it does have it. So you're okay there. But you can cite an electronic version as if it was the real hard copy you had in your hand. So long as you have the specific page numbers available. Okay. A second thing to look for is to understand that after each that after each author's name, they're going to give you an affiliations. This is the Canadian authored article, which was a kind of a transdisciplinary look because you have some people from psychology, you have other people from brain health and other people from philosophy participating in this article. So that gives you a little bit of information about the background of the individuals listed there. You'll see that immediately you're given basic information. How long did it take to go through peer review? So this was sent in in December of 2015. It took four months before it was actually revised and then there was a decision to accept the article and then another week before it actually made it up online. So you get a sense that this was something that was likely not sent for too many revisions because it actually came back and forth within a reasonable amount of time a couple months, which is typical for journal articles. So the number one thing we want to motivate you to do is to start off by looking at the abstract and get a good sense. Who, what, when, where, why, how. Think of the question that you're most interested in and try to see if the study was actually conducted on an audience that's similar to the one that you're working on or that's related to your specific topic. So if we look at this, thoughts arise spontaneously in our mind with remarkable frequency, but tracking the brain system associated with early conception of a thought has provided challenging. This means that they're identifying off the bat. We know something, but we don't know other things, which is why there's a space for this article. So justifying the existence of the article. Okay, here we address this issue by taking advantage of the heightened introspective ability of experienced mindfulness practitioners to observe the onset of their spontaneous arising thoughts. So now we know what exactly did they do. They wanted to measure spontaneous arising thoughts and to understand if mindfulness rehearsal practice habituating that way of thinking about things would make you more aware of those spontaneous thoughts. Okay, so now we know exactly what they did. And so what did they find? We found subtle differences in timing among the many regions typically recruited in spontaneous thoughts. And we know that this is a brain imaging study. So what they were actually trying to find out or identify is what parts of the brain were activated, right? And then they give us some more particulars. And then if you jump down to the bottom here, you'll also see very good authors will be humble. And they'll also say what we still don't know based on all the stuff we're going to tell you. There's still some things that we don't know. So our findings highlight a temporal dynamics of neuro recruitment surrounding the emergent spontaneous thoughts and may help account for some of the spontaneous thoughts peculiar qualities, including the wild diversity of content and its link to memory and attention. Okay, so basically saying we're still opening up. We need to know more things about memory attention to be able to say that this is a definitively important topic. What you don't find here, which is very important to note, is that they haven't told you who participated in this. Was this kids? Was this adults? If you're doing a study on mindfulness practice in children, could you actually really extrapolate and say, okay, I'm going to use this information to talk about children if all the studies were on adults. So make sure you have to figure out now who was this done on and to make sure it's a credible study exactly how many people participated. So while the introduction is going to globally tell you this is what we already know, this is all the stuff that's happened beforehand, before they tell you their methodology and what they did, this is all background information in the introduction, right? But when you get to materials and methods and methods or methodology, you'll figure out exactly how many people were in this study. So here we realize, okay, these are 18 students, not equally balanced between male and females, because there's eight males, 10 females, and the average age, these are adults, older people, okay? And we had a huge range of people who participated in this experiment, okay? So we know that we're looking at an adult study with 18 people. 18 isn't bad, but 18 isn't, you know, a thousand, and 18 also isn't just a case study. So we know it's somewhere in the middle as far as being reliable in their results or the generalization that they'll have with their findings, okay? So again, we've got the title, we get the basic information, we know what they found, what they say that they found, if you want to know exactly the background and the way that they are approaching this, because they will cite certain authors that will give you a hint as to the types of studies that they are considering valid to lay the groundwork upon which they are going to build their study, so you get a sense there, you understood how they decided on their participants, and then the exact materials and methods that they used, the procedure that was followed with each of the participants, how they were stimulated, so you get a description of what happened in their particular activity, and after you do that, then you'll get an analysis. So basically, how did they gather this data, and then how did they process the data that was gathered, and then what did they analyze, what did they actually find by doing this, and so the results that they will suggest have to do, in this case, a lot of numerical analysis about exactly what regions of the brain seem to be stimulated, with what types of activities, what types of neuronal recruitment happened there, okay, they share the other data that they have as far as the actual brain imaging and how these were colored in based on the stimulus that they found, and then after they've sort of analyzed and helped you understand what they found in the data, they want to discuss, and they want to tell you, okay, what does this really mean based on the information that we just had, so how do we get this, now that we know all this data, what does this actually mean, so the discussion opens up the possibility of reinterpretation of the information, it's just not that A was equal to B, but you know what, since A happened at the same time, C happened, may be B and C are also equal, right, so they give an interpretation through the discussion, they don't definitively say this is how it is, but they actually, that's why it's called the discussion, you're actually throwing out some ideas to say this is what we think is happening based on the information that we have here, okay, so the discussion and the analysis, discussion are and conclusions are the longest parts of any article, because that's the most creative and interesting aspect of the article, okay, so after you get their discussion, you're going to have these conclusions that say, okay, this is what we now think we can say, based on the data we can elect it, and based on the information that was shared beforehand, okay, if it's a paid article or for somebody that was supported by some kind of a grant, you have to state that clearly here, and then the references listed in alphabetical order, okay, so that's basically the structure of a scientific article, and hopefully it helps you understand a little bit better how to approach, how to tackle the information, and decide if the article is useful to you in your own research, number one, be sure you're reading the abstract and deciding, if based on the abstract and based on the methodology, we can say, okay, this is a good group of people, it's related enough to my own research question, go ahead and continue reading, and get the details. A lot of people, because time is short and there's tons of things out there, a lot of people will make sure that they get the headline, they get the abstract, they'll understand the basics of the methodology, and they jump to the conclusions. Other people who care very much about how the evolution of science occurs will spend a lot of time looking at the discussions, and how that information actually contributes to a newer, different understanding of their information. So depending on your objective, when you approach the article, you know, take it as you like, but choose the parts that will give you the most information that will help you advance your own personal research. Hope this was helpful.