Talk:Priming (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The current entry is more a definition of spreading activation rather than priming (in either the way that cognitive or social psychologists use that term). (Nickyee 20:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
- Yeah, I noticed that too. The dutch, french and german-language articles are somewhat better in that respect. GL 12:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you maybe import some information from those articles? I can't read those languages, but I can tell this entry needs work. Priming is an important topic in psychology and deserves a more in-depth treatment.
The 1st paragraph needs to be replaced, it is about activation and activation spreading, not priming (as pointed out above). Also I don't see what priming has to do with neurons etc (except in the sense that any human phenomena does). TheBrainSlug 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now all mentioning of neurons and nervous system is gone! Lova Falk 08:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To the BrainSlug
Hi! I just undid your revision. The text that you changed was well referenced and comes from authors that are experts. You can't just change that text and still keep the same reference!
Actually, I think we agree. :) You wrote: "However this interpretation is undermined by normal or near normal priming using nonverbal materials in amnesic subjects." If you read the first line of the paragraph, it says: "An important feature of a priming task is that amnesic subjects perform as well on it as control subjects do." So I can't see any disagreement on this! It is just the fact that amnesic subjects perform well on priming and not on explicit learning tests, that is taken as evidence that implicit and explicit memory are different.
Maybe the order in which I have written is confusing, so I'll see if I can change the order of the sentences. Lova Falk 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To lova falk
I have no argument with the implicit-explicit memory distinction. My issue was with the "dependent on existing memory traces" bit. These are two separate issues. Perhaps I was not clear. Amnesiacs experience priming with NOVEL non-verbal materials, just not with non-words. Non-word priming is rather fragile in normals, and many people who do priming work do not believe in it, so it is not clear that there is a difference between normals and amnesics here. I said: "That amnesic subjects do not show priming when nonsense words are used as stimuli has been argued to demonstrate that priming depends on existing memory[1], however this interpretation is undermined by normal or near normal priming using nonverbal materials in amnesic subjects." I had presumed that the argument was: 1. Amnesics cannot form new memory traces. 2. Normals can. 3. Normals show priming for all kinds of materials BUT 4. Amnesics only show priming for materials they already know. 5. Since amnesics cannot establish new "memory traces" and they don't show priming for novel materials, priming must depend upon existing "memory traces". Of course, as I pointed out, amnesics do show such priming (just not for non-words) so this argument does not follow. In other words the argument from amnesia is an argument for activation theory, and the argument is at odds with the data. In response to this Eysenck and Keane comment "the fact that one of the main predictions of activation theory has been disconfirmed repeatedly reduces it's value" (cognitive psychology, 3rd edition).
Also I referenced an original source (Bowers and Schacter, 1993), not just the under-grad text book you referenced. I will change this back AGAIN. Please read Bowers and Schacter before changing it again. If there is more recent data which puts a different light on all this then please reference it so that we can all be clear on the current state of affairs.
ALSO I would like to get the references to the brain, neurons, etc. out of this article at some point in the future. We do not understand the neurological basis of priming at all, and talking about priming in those therm is therefore pseudo-scientific. Any help on this would be appreciated. 60.242.91.158 11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi User:60.242.91.158! Thank you for your explanation. As you can see, I changed it back again, though with slight rephrasing (because I have a reference, I want to be exact). By the way, why don't you register and log in, it's always nice to know whom I'm talking with. :) Lova Falk 15:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
