Talk:Dual-coding theory

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

In the first paragraph of the article, the last sentence begins with:

“Both imagined and verbal codes for representing information …”.

Should “imagined” be “image” or “visual” as in “visual codes”? If not, then I think “imagined codes” need to be defined.

--Gbrauen 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the sentence is confusing. I looked at the revision history to try to figure it out. Originally there was a sentence that explained that visuals could be real or imagined; essentially they are processed the same by the brain. The revision moved this text further into the article, but added a section about how Paivio saw mental images as codes. I think the revision meant to talk about the new section that was added on codes, but kept some of the verbiage from the section on imagined images that was moved.

I changed the sentence to read: "Both visual and verbal codes for representing information are used to organize incoming information into knowledge that can be acted upon, stored, and retrieved for subsequent use."

--Craig.borchardt 01:20 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dual-Route vs. Dual-Coding

The article essentially claimed that dual-coding theory is synonymous with dual-route theory. I believe these are sufficiently distinct that the section on reading/literacy should not confuse the two. If anyone can clarify the distinction better than I am currently able to, it'd be welcome. --Mr. Stein (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]