Talk:Psychophysics

message: I've never heard of it. Has anybody else? Can we get a citation? Considering this section says that "it works best with complex stimuli", does it even count as a psychophysical method??? Famousdog 13:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of propellers 

message: Would a section outlining the important early discoveries of psychophysical measurement be appropriate here?  Such as the Weber-Fechner_law, Stevens'_power_law etc.?  They are outlined in more detail in their own pages, but is worth a cursory introduction here (IMO).
I came here to look up those Laws and they're not here.  So a section outlining the discoveries of them would be very cool.  And also a section that says a thing or two about what psychophysics is good for nowadays; eg taste tests for new food products.Richard8081 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To back it up I have put in a reference to Fechner's book, Chapter IX, which is called "Das Weber’sche Gesetz" Strasburger (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychophysical "Laws" 

message: I believe "Notes" and "References" should be swapped. In scientific context, I am used to call it a "Reference" if I cite a paper/book/other_previously_published_work in text, and then list (reference) the bibliographic information at the end of the document. This could also be called "bibliography" or similar. In my understanding, this is also the reason while the syntax-tag that creates this list of references is called "reflist". "Notes", on the other hand, could be anything, including suggested additional literature (if it wasn't cited like a reference). See e.g. the "Psychology" main article.
I have previously swapped the labels/headlines, but the change was reverted. I will now wait a while to see if anyone objects, then I will swap the names again. JDrewes (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITESHORT. If the sources in the “references” section aren’t actually specifically cited anywhere, it should probably be renamed “Further reading” instead. –jacobolus (t) 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References vs. Notes 

message: Hi, there should be a link to Steven's power law somewhere in the text. Ben  T/C  11:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  link missing 

message: I think Psychophysics is a psychology branch rather than a neuroscientific one. That's why I removed the category. --Maaaty (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Experimental psychology and perception research can be seen as part of the neurosciences, so the category "Neuroscience" is appropriate. Strasburger (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychophysics: Neuroscience category? 

message: The sections describing thresholds do not really make clear how this concept while have practical uses in experiments are problematic in terms of their psychological reality.  The entry would benefit from distinguishing psychophysical methods which are in common use in many fields, and the atomistic sensation model that Fechner put forward, which is largely rejected as evidenced by the widespread use of signal detection theory. Harmonybelle (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thresholds