Talk:Object recognition (cognitive science)

Untitled

This paper presents the history of visual field neurons in a descriptive and detailed way that gives a good account of Hubel and Wiesel's experiments on receptive fields.

I think a section should be added that describes the background experiments and history of visual object recognition. This would include the structures of simple and complex cells as well as several of Hubel and Weisel's experiments on receptive fields on ganglion cells of the retina. Kibarhorst (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Sanocki, T., & Sulman, N. (2009). Priming of simple and complex scene layout: Rapid function from the intermediate level. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 35(3), 735-749. doi:10.1037/a0013032Kibarhorst (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Kibarhorst (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kibarhorst, Jackkennedy17. Peer reviewers: Vewalke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Critiques

This article lacks a strong opening, which provides a basis for what the rest of the article will be about. In addition to the opening lacking, many of the sections need more depth and detail, such as the entire "Recognition Memory" section. While the sources seem reliable and relevant from the ones I looked at, I feel as though a lot of them are not used or explained properly. The writing style could also be refined a bit to sound more scholarly and less subjective. The Alzheimer's discussion, for example, is unclear in the information that it is trying to give off, as the last two sentences seem to contradict each other. Overall, the piece needs more depth, accurate details and more objective, unbiased writing. Jackkennedy17 (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Jackkennedy17 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounding "more scholarly" shouldn't be a goal. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable

Also I doubt that adding more depth and detail to all the sections would improve the article. This is because most sections have their own article as well. For example

• Object constancy seems to be about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_constancy
• Recognition memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_memory

I think the readability of the article would be improved if this article contains all or most aspects of object recognition with a short clear explanation.

More detailed information about the aspects can then be found in the mentioned articles.

VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Visual object recognition (animal test)"

@Randykitty: I don't understand this article's new title: it doesn't specifically mention animal testing (and also describes object recognition in humans), but its title was changed to Visual object recognition (animal test). What is the reason for this new title? Jarble (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)