Talk:Psycholinguistics/Chronometry

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Chapter Review: Chronometry[edit]

The chapter summary on Chronometry was structured and communicated well. It was nice to have such a well-defined outline at the beginning. The introduction was also precise and well written, but it might be nice to add some excitement to entice the reader to read on. Maybe some statements on what makes the models interesting and how they apply to real life. Overall very good introduction but as the reader I think it would be nice to have some interesting applications or facts to excite the reader about the presented topic.

Under the Naming Latencies section a lot of important knowledge was presented. I appreciated the clarity that the author used here. Especially in a textbook, format, for historical facts, it is so nice to read something that clearly states names and dates the way it is in this section. I also enjoyed the example with Steven Fraisse experiment, if gives a nice perspective and summary of the topic. Overall very good summary.

The Stroop Paradigm section clearly reiterated the classic study. I have no critiques on this section. It is well defined, and easy to understand and apply.

Picture/ Word Interference Tasks; I like how this section refered nicely to the definitions presented in the Stroop section. For a reader, it is really nice to have words emphasized ( like in this section in italics) to remind the reader that the presented definition is important. Also all of the studies presented nicely and precisely outlined the topic, its nice to read studies that 100% reiterate the presented knowledge rather than only kinda summarizes whats presented.

Implicit Priming; again very well structured and communicated. It might be nice for those who are new to cognitive psychology and linguistics to summarize priming generally. I found this section really interesting, the summary or Roelofs and Meyer’s experiment nicely flowed through and provided some interesting information. I really liked how at the end of this section you extrapolated and looked at the bigger picture. The last sentence about articulation is nice because it opens the reader’s mind and pushes them to really think about how to take what is presented and apply it to another topic. Very well done, there are some odd grammatical issues in this section.

The section on word frequency effects was again well written, very textbook-like. My only suggestion would be to add some “human “to it, meaning that with sections so heavy with research and findings its nice to add some sentences that in everyday terms confirm what the take home message is.

Interactive Models; for this section I would like to see a diagram or flow chart. I find with models it is much easier to understand when you can follow the sentences with a figure. I thought the last paragraph chronometric results not reconciling with interactive models was really interesting and well said. Its always nice as a reader to be given exceptions to the models presented.

The discrete Process Model section was good. Again I think it would be nice to see some accompanying diagrams or something because the two previous sections can be kinda word-heavy and hard to visualize.

Neuroimaging Research and the Time Course of Speech Production; this I found to be the most interesting section. It was nicely presented as well.

Overall, the chapter showed strong knowledge of the topic and was extremely well written. All the references were cited nicely and outlined important and interesting studies in the field. I think it would be nice to add a little more to the introduction on why this is important and what makes chronometry interesting. Also I would add a conclusion or key points of the chapter, those are always helpful. Very few spelling or grammatical mistakes. Overall very interesting and well written read, good job!

Em736458 00:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)