Submited on: 15 Aug 2013 07:54:17 PM GMT
Published on: 16 Aug 2013 05:19:41 AM GMT
 
How to Catch a Yawn
Posted by Dr. Nigel North on 09 Sep 2013 09:53:30 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The paper examines a relatively new and promising area of research that of yawning.  The paper assesses a way of looking at yawning using psychophysiological measures and presents some important insights into this.  It moves the area of study forward in an interesting and innovative way.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims are completely novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes the claims are well placed within the existing literature but also advance our knowledge.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results support the cliams made in the paper.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No deviations are made from the research protocol.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes the claims are entirely valid and the methodology properly explained.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No other experiments or information are required.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes the paper is outstanding in this area of research


  • Other Comments:

    The paper presents new and valuable information into the area of yawning.  It advances our knowledge and makes an important contribution to the field.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have published in related health fields in clinical health psychology.

  • How to cite:  North N .How to Catch a Yawn[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(9):WMCRW002864
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review of Thompsons How to catch a yawn
Posted by Dr. Tony Laurie on 07 Sep 2013 10:51:18 AM GMT Reviewed by Author Invited Reviewers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    One of the main claims is that it is indeed possible to profile the yawn process using EMG. This is an exciting application and this avenue of research needs to be explored further. If patterns of electrical nerve impulses during this process can later contribute contribute to the early diagnosis of neurological disease, this would be incredibly beneficial to clinicians, patients and to health service's budgets.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    I am not aware of any other papers that report attempts to profile the yawn process using EMG in this way.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    There is a developing body of research into the yawning process – these claims not only fit well within the research findings to date but contribute to the expansion of the same by opening up a new exciting research pathway.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results that are provided support the claims made and clearly suggest the need for further work in this field. A revised version of this article may benefit from a more detailed presentation of the results however the author does cite the base study from which the current study continues


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No deviations apparent from a standard RCT.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The method appears valid. A more detailed presentation of the methodology would enable easier replication, however this information can be sourced from the referenced article.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This article raises questions for investigation in several research avenues. The addition of more detailed methodology and results information may benefit others equally stimulated about this exciting new way of profiling the yawn process. However, this information can be sourced via the referenced article.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Using EMG for profiling the yawn process is an exciting new venture and one that should be explored further.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Chartered Clinical Psychologist, PhD in Cognitive Psychology, PsychD in Clinical Psychology, PgDip in Psychological Research Methods.

  • How to cite:  Laurie T .Review of Thompsons How to catch a yawn[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(9):WMCRW002862
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review - How t catch a yawn...
Posted by Dr. Nat Jones on 31 Aug 2013 07:34:40 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    It is a piece of original research that captures a yawn for the first time in respect of electomyographical measurement.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes they are novel. I have certainly not read similar reports about this aspect previously.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes they fit well within the previous literature. Indeed, they contribute to the advancement of knowledge in this area.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes they are appropriate.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    N/A


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes the methodology is appropriately detailed. It is also valid. The description of EMG data collected allows he reader to replicate the work. I find the results interesting and a unique addition to previous findings in the subject area.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No, I understand description and paradigm which fits in with they usual methodological approaches.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes I believe this contribution is significant and therefor outstanding in its field. As stated previously, I am unaware of previous descriptions / measurements that capture the yawn in this manner.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Extensive assistance in the rehabilitation environment.

  • How to cite:  Jones N .Review - How t catch a yawn...[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002856
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review
Posted by Prof. Kulvinder K Kaur on 20 Aug 2013 04:51:38 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The author has described a study in 20 male and female volunteers between 18-53 years -who were exposed to conditions that provoked yawning( like videos,satillphotosofanimas/humasyawning)  in a randomised control trial and further say this paper is a discussion paper about some of the findingd from thelarger study-and found yawners had higher level of electrical musular jaw activity 50(at rest) and175(at stimulation)on EMG before and after yawning as compared to nonyawners 10(at rest) and 80(after stimulation) suggesting yawners are possibly more active in terms of neural activity and perhaps susceptible toyawning and they intend to conduct further indepth study in terms of working at looking at a yawning envelope ie lowest and highest levels of electrica activity during yawn phase to see if this is generalizable across people and experimental situations and use it to sevelop as aearly catching tool for some neurologic diseases in wake Walusinkis findings in early stroke besides in brain stem lesions findings however the word of caution is that yawning phase is indicvidual and variable and tends to be v small measurement of a millionth of a volt.No mention about the temperature at which recordings were done.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Although i do consider it novel what weakens 1)Gallup AC,Eldakar OT.The thermoregulatory theory of yawning :what we know from over 5years of research Front Neurosci 2013;6:1-13where he describes how in summers at temp 37 c as compared to winters in arizona study yawning was more in winters at 22degree and envirenmental temp affected describing role of yawning in thermoregulation 2)Walusinski O,Neau JP,Bogousslavsky  JHand up!Yawn and raise your arm Int J Stroke 2010fef=b5(1):21-7-this suppirts the notion of yawning where brain imaging shows smal vascular esion in interna capsule and reason given by him is when phylogenetically primitive structures disinhibited,they regain autonomyin homeostatic process-associating massive inspiration of yawning -a behavioral form which stimulates vigilance -they coined term parakinesia brachialis oscitans3)Eigsti IM-Areview of embodiment in autism in spectrum disorders.Frontiers in Psychology 2013;4:article224page1-10.-yawning and mimicry can be explored in autistic children -contagious yawning toomuch4)Gupta S,Mittal S.Yawning and its physiological significance.Int J Appl Basic Res 2013;3(1):11-15


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    I feel the recordings should be done taking room temperature in consideration and separate studirs in summer and winmter to set a normal standard becuse of a definite effect of temperature in induction ofyawning .what were the cortisol levels in yawners as compared to nonyawners.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The author has not provided details of the large study from which data taken and of 20 how nany male and how many females-no methods provided which should be adequalely provided rather than summarize in discussion and abstract which the reader has to look for what the details are.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Detail methodology not provided at all -the author should provide full material and methods and results separately


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes if temperature controls done and cortisol levels simultaneously presented at the time of EEG recordings to see if the inctreased levels found in cortisol in yawning phases corelate with the increased neyral activity in yawners or not


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The work needs to be completely done although it is a very innovative idea


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    There is a corelation of oxytocin stimulating both yawning and erection control and various neuroleptics used for psychiatric druds addecting yawning implying various neurotransmitters like apomorphine which induces erection has yawning as a side effect and D3 RECEPTORS have been seen to have a corelation and the complexity in thermoregulation and impirtance in brain metabolisn &how critiques of that theory is countered is beautifuly summed up by gallup in 2013 review articl;e where he explains derailed points for this theory and negates the people who are against and harms of going away from the theory.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    PRESENTED role of dysregulation of autonomic nervous system versus altered HPAin drug induced obesity in 7th IBRO WORLD CONGRESS IN NEUROLOGY IN australia in july 2007 and confused hypothalamus as a cause of worldwide obesity in xiii world congress of gynaecological endocrinology and working on gynaecological neuroendocrinology research on obesity

  • How to cite:  Kaur K K.Review[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002847
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
How to catch a yawn
Posted by Mr. Santiago Perez Lloret on 19 Aug 2013 01:01:50 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    A difference in neural activity was found between yawners or non-yawners.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Results are not clearly described, therefore it is impossible to evaluate if they support any type of claim. It is not enough to give a succinct description of what was observed. Indeed, it is important that results are described in an extended and statistically-valid form.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    In this study, readers were that this was a randomized controlled trial and nothing else. The detailed description of the protocol is needed to evaluate potential bias and to further assess the results.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    As a protocol was not provided, this is impossible to evaluate.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    It would neccesary that the authors post the complete protocol and a good summary of results.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. As the protocol and the results were not described in an acceptable manner, it is impossible to evaluate their meaning and validity.


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I'm a pharmacoepidemiologist with expertise in clinical trials and clinical pharmacology

  • How to cite:  Perez Lloret S .How to catch a yawn[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002846
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Review - How to catch a yawn...
Posted by Mr. Brian Thompson on 18 Aug 2013 01:43:23 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The first observation of a yawn using EMG. This is very important as it is entirely novel and therefore, a significant contribution to the subject area.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes. They are the first to my knowledge and therefore highly significant.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes - definitely. They fit in to the existing literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes - follows on from previous work by the author. Particularly, recently completed work covered in the Interative Medical Journal.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes - it is interesting methodology and novel findings. I look forward to reading further work in this are.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes - not only does it support the claims made, I feel it is novel and a great contribution to this intriguing subject.


  • Other Comments:

    Interesting contribution to the scientific literature! Most interesting.

  • Competing interests:
    0
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Rehabilitation.

  • How to cite:  Thompson B .Review - How to catch a yawn...[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002843
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This paper discusses the findings that those who yawn have higher levels of electrical muscular jaw activity both pre and post yawning.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The "yawning enevlope" is a novel area of research currently being undertaken by the author. 


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, the paper extends current research into yawning, specifically the finding that yawning plays an importnat role in the protection of our immune system. 


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes, the discussion paper shows that 


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    As a discussion paper, there is need to refer back to the orginal paper in order to determine the strength of the protocol used. 


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    As a discussion paper there is need to refer to the orginal study for a more indepth methodolgy. What is stated appears to be valid. 


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    The only additional imformation that would improve the validity of the paper would be a larger sample size and across various groups, ie. age, gender, culture.  However, as stated by the author, more indepth work will be conducted to ascertain whether the results can be generalised. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    I believe the paper is well on the way to contributing to the research into the "yawning enevlope."


  • Other Comments:

    I look forward to further developments in the "yawning envelope" research area.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a competent clinical researcher

  • How to cite:  Chinnery H .How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomised controlled trial[Review of the article 'How to catch a yawn: initial observations of a randomized controlled trial ' by Thompson S].WebmedCentral 2013;4(8):WMCRW002841
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you for your valuable comments - they are very much appreciated.
Responded by Dr. Simon B Thompson on 18 Aug 2013 11:27:50 AM