Talk:Eye movement in reading

message: I've removed
==Peripheral input and integration across fixations==
==Refixation==
==The eye–voice/eye–hand span==
because they were empty.  If someone was inprogress with them I appologize and suggest adding them back in as you have content ready.  --SB 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: I thought this article was about how the eyes move while reading printed language. I see only history and methods of measuring eye movements. --Kvuo 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right: the article has only just begun. I sort of have the knowledge to complete it, but only until about 2000. I'm waiting for someone else to volunteer. Tony 15:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page needs to return to its original title: Eye movement in language reading: in answer to the assertion in the edit summary, no, wrong, you read music and you read language. Expecting a reversion very soon. This is not the way we do things. You raise the issue on the talk pages first, and wait probably two weeks for feedback. Tony (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eye movement in reading, formerly named Eye movement in language reading, is over-elaborated: the "language" portion is unnecessary as there can be no reading unless there is  language medium. Furthermore music is also a language, and naming an article explicit in reading text would not clarify it any futhur. I apologize that the warrant came after the move; seeing that the discussion pages has been well under-develop (last addtion: almost a year ago), a sign of inactivity, there was no need for one.  The main purpose for this renaming was to help clarify it for the disambiguation page.  Wikipedia does not have a consensus that a move warrent requires a wait of "two weeks for feedback"; in fact it is quite the opposite, if a change occurs: it can be challenged, and either removed or improved. WP:Be Bold WP:BRD ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'll thank you not to vandalise the link to "Eye movement in music reading". How dare you. Heck, I think I'm going to treat you like a vandal from now. Tony (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Your presumption that I am to be marked as a "vandal" or a "sock puppet"link is offensive and unsupported. As you have stated language has too many implications for it to be unambiguous; therefore it should be omitted.  In its place, "text" or "linguistic text" should be added to avoid a distinction and subsequent subordination between the (former) Eye movement in reading and Eye movement in music reading. "...that I think might pass by most readers..." We do not want a name that simply passes for most readers, we want a name that effectively and specifically describes the content. I have requested for mediation, a consensus cannot be achieved with two opposing parties. WP:3O WP:CON WP:NC. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind "Eye movement in the reading of linguistic text", I suppose, except that it's a mouthful. Is anyone going to take the current title the wrong way? Is it at all ambiguous? You'll find language reading in many places in the literature. As for the breadth of the article, yes, I started it as a stub, and was hoping people would come along and expand it. I'm not up-to-date on the field over the past, say, eight years. I could do it, but I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort right at the moment. I think it's a pity to significantly change the scope of the article just because it's incomplete. What about a "Expert needed" tag at the top? I withdraw my comments about vandalism and puppetry; but you did prompt an angry response by making the unilateral change (for which you did apologise) and by messing with the link to the related music article. We need more input before deciding on whether the current title changes. The situation is not helped by the fact that psychology is very poorly served on WP. I've given this section a proper title. Tony (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: For naming the article see above (thanks Philip Baird Shearer). An "Expert needed" tag is unnecessary. This article goes into detail on how the eye operates when reading, the main thing I see at the moment is perhaps restructuring the article so that adding information would become easier, but I would like to finish Talk:Eye movement in music reading first. I'll add more input later, see the superscript the text. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of title and scope 

message: This is a very good article; very interesting. However, it needs more citations, and a little information from reliable sources. I have decided to work on this article to help bring it to a good article standard. I will add articles or references to support some information provided in this article. 
I don't think the beginning sentence is necessary, so I will add a sentence describing 'eye movements.' I will also add a little information to the introduction, including citations. The sub-heading, "Cognitive psychology, infrared tracking and computer technology" needs a little improvement, so I will add more information and citation.
Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Psychology of Language9APSWI323
Julietbee (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revision 

message: What about languages like Arabic (right to left) or various Chinese languages (top to bottom)?  And is there a difference when the language is written pictographically (again, Chinese languages) as opposed to phonetically? It would be good to see this explicitly addressed in the article. If the findings are the same it should be stated, and if they are different these differences need to be discussed. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about  reading languages not written left to right?  Or pictographic writing systems? 

message: I've changed headings to remove the Cognitive Psychology etc information from under the History heading. 
Paula Marentette (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on GA submission 

message: I first learned of the word "saccade" in this interesting article about word recognition. It seems like some of the material might be useful in the wiki article. -- SpareSimian (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello SpareSimian, thank you for sharing. I agree this would be useful to add. The information should come from academic research papers (journal articles or books/book chapters) rather than this site; I know such research exists, I'm just not familiar enough with the eye-tracking literature to know any sources off the top of my head. Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of typography 

message: The article states, "Leonardo da Vinci, (1452-1519) was the first in Europe to recognize the special optical qualities of the eye."  Of course that is speculation; there is no way to know who was first, and "special optical qualities" is vague.  You would have to know the mind of every European who ever lived, from antiquity with the Neanderthals to da Vinci, to make such a statement. (EnochBethany (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: He Was the First To . . . ???

message: It is not grammatical to pluralise "movementS" in this context. Someone moved the page: who??? Tony (talk)  07:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is now wrongly named 

message: "There are 4 major cognitive systems involved in eye movement in reading: Language processing, attention, vision, and oculomotor control."
This assumes that the reader isn't "speaking" the text aloud. In that case, the musculoskeletal control system is also involved. Perhaps:
"Four major cognitive systems are involved in eye movement in silent reading: language processing, attention, vision, and oculomotor control."
I'm a little suspicious of "attention". Very little work has been done on this: a notable piece was by 2003 Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, but back in the early 80s, I think. Then he dropped it. Tony (talk)  02:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening text

message: I am moving all the dyslexia relevant lines to the dyslexia subheading. it's frankly messy. there have been attempts to define dyslexia as a single disease with many research papers describing it as such and the same authors alternating between definitions of simply the inability to read to a distinct disorder with those same authors claiming to be dyslexic in almost the same breath. In truth there are many reasons why someone might have difficulty reading or miss age related literacy milestones. I will leave one hyperlink to the main dyslexia article and keep relevant lines. there was at least one line with a citation needed tag from 6 years ago so that will go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  dyslexia cleanup