1. Project number and Title:  (10) Inducing Out-of-Body Experiences by Visual, Auditory and Tactile Sensor Modality Manipulation 

2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? No

3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? No

4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity of the project report? 7

5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 7.5

6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results? 7


Overall, is the project report clear, concise, and well-organized?
	This report is clear most of the time and it was better than the proposal.  However, the grammar of the report still distracted from the ideas just as it did in the proposal.  However, most of the paper was clear enough to infer what was actually meant to be said.  This paper was concise enough given the page requirement.
	This paper was fairly well-organized.  It followed a consistent pattern and was predictable, which was due to the table of contents that was an the beginning.  I also liked the abstract at the beginning.  The flow of the information in the paper made a lot of sense and was easy to follow.


How does the project idea and methodology fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
	This project can be definitively related to the framework of developmental robotics.  One reason for this is that it involves the sensory modalities.  Humans will be tested with artificially created sensations.  This is also related to self-detection, because an alteration of the senses may cause the subject to feel things that are not actually related to their body.  I found it interesting that the environment, despite how isolated the experiment was attempted to be made, was still able to influence the outcome of the experiment (though probably only to a small degree).
	This follows the methodology of Developmental Robotics because they are trying to prove previous experiments to be true and also build on top of what has been previously done.


Describe what you like BEST about the project?
	I like this idea because it is an interesting concept.  Tricking a human into thinking that their body is something that it really is not can cause some interesting reactions.  It is particularly interesting because they will feel something that does not even affect their nerves.  I also like that the idea is also strongly tied to the idea of self-detection, which is very important to developmental robotics.


Describe what you like LEAST about the project?
	I do not like this project because it is not an original idea.  This is something that has already been done by somebody else and is going to be done in a very similar manner.  Being able to reproduce the results of others (or not, and disproving them) is important to the science community.  However, I feel that it is easier to reproduce an idea than it is to come up with an entirely new method and solving a new problem.  Coming up with variations on the experiment to find out unconsidered variables in previous experiments was somewhat redeeming though.


Do the methods, results and contributions of the final project correspond to what was presented in the initial project proposal?
	Everything corresponds well to the initial proposal.  Obviously the final report contained a lot more detail than the proposal did and as such was much more interesting to read.


Are there any major details left out with regards to the methods, algorithms, or experimental design described in the report?
	There were no major details left out of the final report.  They explained their project in very good detail, perhaps even more than some may deem necessary, but I thought their report definitely covered everything they needed to.  I liked the detail they put into how they set up the experiments, including who conducted the experiments and what time of day/night they were done.


Do the experimental results reported in the paper demonstrate success?
	With such a small data set, the results appear to be successful.  Over half of the subjects experienced OBEs within the time frame of the experiment which would seem to indicate success.  However, I feel that because the target group is so small (less than 100, which would not have been possible for the group in the timeframe given) that the results are not as powerful as they could be.  Repeated success would make the results much more powerful.


Do you have any suggestions for improvement and future work?
	There are a lot of grammatical mistakes that are distracting and could be fixed.  Grammar errors were common, especially conerning tenses (past, present, future).  One instance of this is as follows: “The tapping was synchronize so that the subject saw the researching in front of the virtual head.”  The grammar mistakes were distracting from the actual body of the paper, but I do not mean that the ideas in this paper are bad.  Avoiding heavy repetition of words and phrases could also improve this paper.  One particular example is the following:

	“The subject was asked to remove the in-the-ear headphones still with their eyes closed. The subject was asked to stand up and was then led out of the room. The subject was instructed to open their eyes and fill out the survey on the computer presented to them.”

Something they may want to consider doing (if they were to redo or expand on this experiment) is getting a more stable environment to work in (one that is less noisy and closed) and try to figure out more technical problems that could happen in the experiment so as to reduce the effect on results.


How close is the final project report to being publishable as a conference or journal paper (consider the research papers that were part of the course reading)? What would it take to get there? 
	I think that the ideas in this paper are good, but the execution of the experiments and the small data sets would need to be increased.  I also think think that the experiments discussed in the future works sections should be implemented to find other factors that may affect their results.  Grammar definitely needs to be improved to be taken seriously (in my opinion).  However, the organization was satisfactory and the diagrams helped explain ideas and experiment layouts that otherwise may have been more difficult to understand.