Talk:Visual search

message: The reference 'Trick & Enns, 1998' is not cited. --141.51.50.12 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This section lacks good citing and referencing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.225.56 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of Autism 

message: I believe the article gives itself a counterexample on what it is claiming. "The red X is a color feature, the O is a shape feature. Both can be found efficiently.". Difference between B and P is also shape feature, because the letters B and P have different shape. Therefore finding the B among the P's should be found efficiently - but it isn't, as I can see when I try it, and as the caption say: "The more distractors there are, the longer it takes to find the letter B in the array" 84.72.8.29 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: In the section concerning visual orienting and attention, I am concerned with the lack of citations for the definitions of visual orienting, foveation, exogenous orienting, and endogenous orienting. Also, some of the experimental evidence of consciously locating an object in a sea of stimuli in the opening paragraph seems to be very vague and unreliable in its description. Are these experiments from a reliable source? Despite the lack of citations, vagueness, and poor explanations throughout the article, the intent of this article does seem to be factual, unbiased, and relevant in origin.Ashleyickes (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of the Article 

message: In the section regarding visual orienting and attention, I plan to edit the definitions for endogenous and exogenous orienting in order to provide more reliable information from a reliable source.Ashleyickes (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Plan 

message: There are some grammar mistakes throughout the article that, if fixed, would help give the article more credibility.  A couple errors to fix would be adding commas in some places, such as in the "conjunction search" section; it should be "Conjunction search (inefficient search), also described by Treisman and Gelade (1980), occurs when the target..."
Fixing a few other technicalities would also help with the flow of the article.  For example, there are a few times you say, for example, "an example of 'this'; this what?  This concept? Idea? Which idea?  It could be a bit easier to follow if you just specify what "this" is referring to in some cases.  There are also some other technicalities that could be fixed like letter that are capitalized and should not be.
Another thing that I thought made the article a bit choppy was the frequent use of parentheses.  You could change the wording of some of these sentences so that parentheses are not necessary and the ideas are easier to follow.
I like the way the article is divided into sections and subsections, along with the use of pictures to demonstrate ideas, although I do not see citations with each picture saying where you got them.]
A couple other ideas regarding areas that could be improved would be being more specific in explaining studies and results.  For example, in the "Autism" section, it says "studies have consistently shown..."  What studies?  You gave citations for these studies but I think describing these studies a bit more (ex. who did these studies, what kind of studies were they, etc.) would help build credibility for the article.  Also it says "several explanations for these observations have been suggested," and you list these possible explanations but do not include who came up with them.  Although they are cited, it would be helpful to include who came up with the explanations and maybe when or where.  For example, if the study was conducted at a respected institution, it could help show that the information is valid and credible.
There are a few cases where I cannot tell if you're taking the information you've gathered and making an inference or if the conclusion you come to is actually from your sources; it's not a good idea to make your own inferences since as Wikipedia authors we're supposed to present facts and not make our own facts out of them, but if the inference is coming directly from a source, it needs a citation in order to show that you're not the one making the inferences.
There are many other things that could be tweaked in order to make the article better, such as getting rid of passive voice and being more specific in details of studies and explanations.  Overall, however, I like the organization of the article, and as a reader I was able to follow the concepts explained and learn about visual search. Katesingletary (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections to Make/Ideas 

message: In order to add to this article, I corrected some small grammar errors or details in order to make it flow a bit better, I added some words for clarity, and I found a sentence in which the author seemed to jump to a conclusion based on facts, so I changed it so that there was no inference and merely a stating of fact. Katesingletary (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions 

message: In the feature search section, I plan on first editing the rough, choppy sentences with vague explanations in order to make the meaning of this kind of search clearer than just simply defining it as a parallel process. In addition, I plan on further elaborating on the pop out effect as well as contributing a new experimental example that is more reliable. In the conjunction search section, I plan on removing confusing and ambiguous descriptions and adding a more direct definition of this search type rather than just simply a description of the surroundings that are present when this action occurs. Also, I will provide a less confusing experimental example and review the "neutrality is disputed" report on the top-down processing in order to make the article more reliable and clear. In the end, I plan on providing an additional section that elaborates on how visual search operates in real world scenarios. Ashleyickes (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Plan for Visual Search Types

message: Ashleyickes (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography for my Editing

message: In order to improve this article, I plan to add some details and information in the feature integration theory section by discussing a study done on visual search that has results that support the feature integration theory's hypothesis.  I will also use a source that reviews data associated with this theory in order to support it.  I also plan to add more information in the section on face recognition.  I plan to use a source that explains a connection between facial recognition and culture, along with another source that discusses facial recognition and the effects Alzheimer disease, so I can also use some of this information to add to the section on Alzheimer's.  I also plan to make some changes in grammar and sentence flow in these sections, as some sentences are difficult to follow and there are some grammar mistakes.  
Bibliography: 
Bora, E., Velakoulis, D., and Walterfang, M. (2016). Meta-analysis of facial emotion recognition in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: Comparison with Alzheimer disease and healthy controls. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology 29, 205–211.
Chan, L.K.H., and Hayward, W.G. (2009). Feature integration theory revisited: Dissociating feature detection and attentional guidance in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35, 119–132.
Kaspar, K. (2016). Culture, group membership, and face recognition. Commentary: Will you remember me? Cultural differences in own-group face recognition biases. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
Quinlan, P.T. (2003). Visual feature integration theory: Past, present, and future. Psychological Bulletin 129, 643–673.
Katesingletary (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions