1. AIM 1 HYPOTHESIS: DETECTION AND DISCRIMINATION ARE ENHANCED BY PERIODIC INPUT. Our preliminary results establish new behavioral methods for detailed characterization of odor detection and discrimination thresholds. We show that detection thresholds are greatly enhanced when odor is pulsed at the wing beat frequency relative to a continuous stimulus. Using these methods we will manipulate odor pulse frequency, velocity, duty cycle, pulse-train duration and concentration in both tethered and restrained moths to test the working hypothesis that periodic input lowers detection and discrimination thresholds while concomitantly enhancing salience; hence olfactory learning will be enhanced. AIM 2 HYPOTHESIS: NEURAL REPRESENTATIONS OF ODOR ARE OPTIMIZED BY PERIODIC INPUT. Preliminary data, using stimuli matched to our behavioral studies, demonstrate that both the antennae and AL track pulsed stimuli and produce odor- dependent representations that are distinct from those of continuous stimuli. Using measures of antennal input, as well as intracellular, local field potential, and simultaneous behavioral and neural ensemble measures of AL processing, output and behavior, we will test the working hypothesis that the antenna and AL are more sensitive to periodic stimulation, and, that the AL produces more distinctive spatiotemporal representations at lower concentrations than to continuous stimulation. As written, why do these Aims suck?

2. As you write you specific aims section keep in mind: 1.Reviewers/panels have potentially ~100+ proposals to review as perhaps 16 hours to do it 10-20 discussion for any one grant (if your lucky) 2.Only 2-3 primary reviewers (NIH) will have read your grant. 3.The rest don’t know your field. 4.The rest will be reading your SA page while the primary reviewers discuss why it should be discussed (or not) 5.If your grant comes up at the end of the day or on the last day people will be exhausted. Therefore the specific aims section MUST be devoid of details as possible As organized as possible: Clear hierarchical structure with logical flow Properly highlighted subtitles

3. What makes a good set of specific aims paragraphs? They fully address the central hypothesis They do not go beyond the central hypothesis They fill the identified gap in knowledge They are logically related to each other but…. They are functionally independent of each other (failure of one SA does not cripple the others) They are doable given: Your space/resources Your ability The limited time of the funding cycle

4. How are the specific aims paragraphs best articulated: They describe WHY you are going to do WHAT you propose They have a clearly articulated working hypothesis The working hypothesis is supported by preliminary data. They are limited in scope to what is feasible and to specifically addressing the central hypothesis.

5. The payoff paragraph: What will you provide at the end of this funding Three statements are needed and need to guide the reader. Tell them: 1.“The proposed research is innovative because…” 2.“The expected outcomes are…” 3.“These expected outcomes will have an important positive impact because…” This last sentence ties your results directly to filling the gap in the field and or moving the field forward.