I found the Kellendonk et al. paper to be pretty straightforward. Their formatting, specifically the headlines before each section made it very easy to follow. I also found it very specific. They start off talking about schizophrenia and how we need to understand the underlying mechanisms and then zoom all the way in to D2 receptors and how it affects D1 receptors in the PFC. I just felt like their scope or reasoning dwindled as the paper went on in that their experiments don’t really seem to tie back to their proposed larger picture. It just feels like they are sort of throwing this fact out into the world and saying “not really sure what this means but its important.” Outside of that, I thought their experiments and findings were valid.
The Moore et al. paper was interesting in terms of being very different from papers we have previously read. It was easier to read as they pretty much just documented their fancy model which, to me, was a nice break from super confusing papers with crazy figures we have recently read. It was a nice pairing with the Kellendonk paper in terms of their focus on schizophrenia but I liked how there was a firmer conclusion in the Moore paper, in terms of the experiments relating back to schizophrenia. That made the difference for me in my preference of Moore over Kellendonk.