Talk:Object recognition (cognitive science)

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

inactive

.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

On 9 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be

Visual object recognition. The result of the discussion was Moved to 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. ^[1]

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)[reply]

References

doi:10.1068/p7721
.

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
talk) 04:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Requested move 9 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Object recognition (cognitive science). (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visual object recognition (animal test) → Visual object recognition – This article does not deal specifically with animal testing, and it is unclear why animal test is part of the page name. ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to Object recognition, a fundamental task in Computer vision. @Randykitty: The current title makes no sense to me. See also the above April 2020 comment by Jarble. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Object recognition (cognitive science) sounds good. There are cases where it is not clear whether the recognition is, perhaps, tactile or olfactory, not necessarily visual. --Randykitty (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ParticipantObserver Any objection to Object recognition (cognitive science)? — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sounds good to me! ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Object_recognition_(cognitive_science)&oldid=1209470043"

[1] :10.1068/p7721
.

[1]