Talk:Dissociation (neuropsychology)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Expansion of This Article[edit]

I would like to make a go at expanding this article. I think the term "double dissociation" in particular requires some additional discussion. My suggestion is to explain the usefulness of a double dissociation in terms of how it internally builds in both a positive and negative control.

I would also suggest that the stub as currently written places too much emphasis on Oliver Sacks in particular. While Sacks is certainly prominent, and his works are well-known, he can't be said to have invented the double dissociation or used it to any greater degree than other neuropsychologists or, for that matter, other natural scientists.

One problem that may exist is that this article is filed under "neuropsychology". Dissociations and double dissociations are certainly a prominent methodological consideration in neuropsychology, but they are not restricted to that field. In fact, as the example with the TV set suggests, it is more a philosophy of science topic rather than a topic limited to a particular discipline.

I will watch this discussion page for a few days and then, barring objections, jump in.

SJS1971 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though you don't need anybody's consent to change or add to this article, you might want to consider writing a new article Dissociation (philosophy), because what is described here in this article is a specific method of a specific science. The TV example only serves to make the concept easier to understand. Broadening the subject might result in loss of acuity. --Arno Matthias 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arno. In fact what I had in mind was that the same approach can be taken by a physiological psychologist, in which, rather than studying human cases with brain damage, one might instead use experimental lesions to make the same inference using double dissociation. Or a psychologist can study the behavior of normal individuals to infer separate processes. As a simple example, the serial position effect: the primacy effect is disrupted by different things than the recency effect is. This fits the 2x2 design with opposite results criterion of a double dissociation and suggests different mechanisms account for the two parts of the serial position effect. So I'm not sure it makes sense to have an entry on "dissociations in neuropsychology" when they are, in principle, no different from dissociations in other experimental sciences.SJS1971 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article like dissociation_(scientific method) with a neuropsychology section? Now that I think about it, there are plenty of examples of dissociation in the animal literature too, I'm thinking of some basic memory experiments in planaria... can't remember the details...--PaulWicks 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do a search with "double dissociation" in Medline and you'll get any number of hits. In fact, I believe there was a special issue of the journal Cortex on the topic which would probably be good reading for me before I start. I propose to edit this page and if we all feel it belongs in its own place, we could move it later. The most logical thing would be to have a page named something like you say with a link from this page to it. Something like, "While an important method in neuropsychology, double dissociations are employed in many disciplines of experimental science." Then the link on those words to a page with a more general treatment. SJS1971 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing! I totally agree with both of you. Except I now think that it should be one article, headed by, like you say, something like Dissociation (experimental design), with subsections like ==Dissociation in neuropsychology== and so forth. --Arno Matthias 10:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree (experimental design) is better than (scientific method). --PaulWicks 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to expand/edit the article, can I suggest that the Sacks example be clearly identified as a single dissociation? The paragraphs preceding this section discuss the idea of a double dissociation, but the Sacks example is of a single dissociation. The later TV example appears to be provided to distinguish between single and double dissociation, but this difference is not made explicit in the preceding text.Cmhickey 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd clarify the Sacks example, and start organizing the article into sections. Hope my edits help. Allesset1.618 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a more general definition of double dissociation in the second paragraph; hope it helps clarify the meaning of the term. Allesset1.618 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

broca and wernicke[edit]

i'm going to add so info on fluent and non-fluent aphasia as a classic dd. it was also very important in the idea of separate brain areas for different functions. i think this is more relevant than sacks both in terms of dd and the hstory of neuroscience.--Dylan2106 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example. I've edited it very slightly. I changed content in only one case; the idea that language is 'more complicated than Broca or Wernicke could have imagined' seemed to do these researchers a disservice.Cmhickey 08:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, good edit. the phrasing is much better!--Dylan2106 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]