Talk:Backward masking

Actually this is just wrong[edit]

In cognitive psychology "backward masking" doesn't refer to hiding "subliminal messages." It just refers to the fact that if you follow a brief visual stimulus with another stimulus in the same part of space less than 100 ms later, you don't see the first stimulus.

Here's a link for a PubMed search for '"backward masking" visual' that leads to hundreds of papers on this topic. Here is the Scholarpedia entry on Visual Masking, written by the expert Bruno Breitmeyer.

The use of the term "afterimage" here is also wrong. A stimulus first has to be consciously seen to have an afterimage, not vice versa.

Someone with more time on their hands who's taken an intro psych class could write a proper entry on this.

You don't consciously see the first stimulus. It still has an effect on context. I wrote the entry, and I've TAUGHT intro psych classes. FiveRings 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can you cite reliable sources as to this effect? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of references in the literature. Here is an abstract from PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9742717&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum

Perhaps the writer of the original comment should look up the technical (not popular) definition of "subliminal" FiveRings 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one I linked to above from Bruno Breitmeyer? He writes: 'Visual masking is the reduction or elimination of the visibility one brief (≤ 50 ms) stimulus, called the “target”, by the presentation of a second brief stimulus, called the “mask”.' The mask does prevent the masked stimulus from crossing the threshold of perception: hence sub-liminal, or below the limen, Latin for "threshold." No "messages" need be involved, just a stimulus that fails to pass the threshold into consciousness because of interference from a temporally proximate stimulus. It is common for masked stimuli to be individual letters, Gaussian gratings, simple contrast steps, etc. "Subliminal messages" may well be presented using masking techniques, but they are by no means part of the definition of masking, backward or forward. See Breitmeyer's article for basic methodological details and extensive references. --human_fella 16:50, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any discrepancy here. It doesn't say it *always* is used to manipulate the subject. It says it is *notably* used. I'll do a rewrite for clarification. FiveRings (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That "notably" is from an edit I just did :p Human fella (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... your edit just bounced mine. FiveRings (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the text now uses the popular meaning of subliminal. Ok. Whatever.FiveRings (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the aspect of this entry that makes its use of the term "subliminal" "popular"? I left in the claim that masking can be used to present subliminal messages. This is not a defining characteristic of backward masking, for the reasons reviewed above. I would think that you meant the reference to manipulation was the problem, except that you put this in yourself. Human fella (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Subliminal" to an experimental psychologist just means "below the threshold of consciousness". To a layperson, however, it implies propaganda and manipulation. So which definition do we go by? The article on subliminal messages does a good job of explaining the difference, so I linked to that. FiveRings (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be improved upon in several areas. To begin it does not start with a clear lead section. There should be a summary of what the article is about and what areas of research it is going to cover (backward masking). Since the article is mostly dealing with the cognitive aspect of backwards masking this should be made clear at the beginning. Either more information should be given to the other meanings of backward masking or they should be removed. The structure of the article is not clear either. The topics discussed should be clearly marked from one another under separate headings to help make clear which areas of backwards masking are being addressed in each one. There is also a lack of references to sources in the article, with only two being presented for the section dealing with the cognitive aspect of it. There are no references that provide more information to the non-cognitive areas dealt with in the article. The actual definition of what backward masking is, is also unclear and should be further elaborated to improve the article's quality.McCrae Jones (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not a disambiguation page[edit]

This page doesn't disambiguate between articles, and isn't a disambiguation page. There's no way to apply WP:MOSDAB. Should the {{disambig}} template be removed? Or should it just be deleted? -- Mikeblas 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not a disambig page, so the template should be removed. However, it is linked to by a variety of sources, so this "definition page," if you will, may have to stay. -ExNoctem 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see only two links to the page. It's trivial to fix them both. -- Mikeblas 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]