This was one of my top favourite psychology subjects and it gave me a taster of the more neuroscience aspects of psychology, which is my personal interest. I can see how this subject may not be for everybody though and there were some parts of the subjects that I wondered whether or not was relevant to learn (such as how an MRI works) but I think it gives a good foundation of what biological psychology is. Cognitive psychology in semester 2 also links slightly with this subject, so there can be some "eureka" moments when you take the two. The lab report was definitely on the more challenging side as the topic can feel very "black and white" (e.g. there is not as much interpretation as a social psychology lab report would have)

Unless this subject is a part of your major do not do it, lectures are boring, lab reports are marked extremely harsh even if you follow lab report criteria and rubric and then contest it with your tutor. The exam is even worse, they don't give you a proper prac exam in the way dev psych does so they don't even prepare you much. And sorry but how is understanding the "basic physics" of MRI in any way relevant to my psychology major. Do yourself a favour and don't bother, or do and hate your life.

The content is very rigorous and the lab report was very objectively graded. The lectures were well-structured and the tutorial classes were very relevant. It was very interesting to learn about how biologically-based influences affect our perception and cognition.

Interesting content once you understand it which you really have to take time to do so especially with Bode's neuroimaging lectures. Really struggled to grasp some things in the beginning but took time in SWOTVAC and tried hard and ended up with an overall H1. I'd say it's helpful that it's objective especially in the exam as you know only one answer can be right unlike Developmental Psychology which can be a bit subjective thus you may think many answers are right on the exam. Lab report was easy as they give you all the information, lit review, limitations etc. unlike DEV where you have to do the research yourself and develop your own arguments. Carter's section on neuropharmacology is soooooo interesting! Best lectures I've ever watched, so interesting and she explains it all amazingly. The fact that she expresses how much she loves the content also helps get into it! Overall, hard to understand at first but really interesting content, wouldn't recommend for non-sciencey students who aren't doing psych in future.

The contents were so interesting for this subject. I recommend!

This subject covered four topics — neuroimaging techniques (Bode), statistical hypothesis testing (Cheng), sensory systems/memory/attention (Forte) and neuropharmacology (Carter). Bode was brilliant. Probably the best lecturer I’ve had thus far tbh, he was very funny/dorky whilst still explaining things in a comprehensible way. Great choice as the introductory lecturer to the subject. Forte’s lectures were a little monotonous and his first few lectures involved slides with no words and only pictures. Whilst it does force you to write notes, it concerns me that it may not be as accessible to some people. Carter is wonderful, she has such a grounded and confident yet receptive presence about her and her section is taught very concisely. She also makes a point to show and link multiple additional (optional) videos which I think is great. I’d say, overall, the neuroimaging section was conceptually the hardest. It involved (basic) physics and in general, there are a lot of processes to understand and is not as directly applicable to oneself (it honestly blows my mind how someone even invented MRI after learning about how it works lol). There are a lot of small nuances to wrap your mind around, and it takes the longest to revise too if you aren’t actively revising throughout the sem. Particularly MRI, fMRI and EEG. Though not as conceptually difficult, I believe that Forte’s section was the hardest to follow along with. It was hard/overwhelming on first run through, however upon subsequent visits of the material, it was easier to grasp. This section is a bit more geared towards rote learning, I’d say. Neuropharmacology was perhaps the most straightforward, especially if you have a background in biology. Nonetheless, it was quite interesting as many others have noted. The exam was a little difficult and less straightforward than I initially thought (and had hoped) it would be. However, it wasn’t terrible, and I think I went well in the end. Compared to developmental psychology, it is much more “science-y”, dense and objective. There is also more content but it is not as convoluted. If you’re an arts student, or primarily interested in the humanities aspects of psychology, some of this may be a drag for you.

Straightforward subject, easy to score well in. Forte's lectures were a major pain point, he forgot to edit most of his recordings which left us watching him rehearse and get frustrated at himself. Started out funny but quickly got sad. Content was mostly very interesting - lots of people found Bode's section dry but it is very relevant if you are interested in/have participated in research studies, and he is very engaging. Neuropharmacology was the most interesting topic to me. Lab report was as expected and marked fairly, exam was very easy and not rushed.

Do me a favour by not touching and doing this subject if you don't have to! The exam is stuffed, and too time-constraint, and the content is mostly dull (aside from pharmacology).

easy to score high in especially for the lab report (H1). the modules and content that is released though is kind of a mess at times because there was missing slides or wrong information in the slides that ultimately had to be addressed. the tutors and coordinators were super lovely tho and easy to get help from.

Very well taught/coordinator subject. Interesting too.