|WikiProject Cognitive science||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class)|
In the first paragraph of the article, the last sentence begins with:
“Both imagined and verbal codes for representing information …”.
Should “imagined” be “image” or “visual” as in “visual codes”? If not, then I think “imagined codes” need to be defined.
--Gbrauen 16:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the sentence is confusing. I looked at the revision history to try to figure it out. Originally there was a sentence that explained that visuals could be real or imagined; essentially they are processed the same by the brain. The revision moved this text further into the article, but added a section about how Paivio saw mental images as codes. I think the revision meant to talk about the new section that was added on codes, but kept some of the verbiage from the section on imagined images that was moved.
I changed the sentence to read: "Both visual and verbal codes for representing information are used to organize incoming information into knowledge that can be acted upon, stored, and retrieved for subsequent use."
--Craig.borchardt 01:20 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Dual-Route vs. Dual-Coding
The article essentially claimed that dual-coding theory is synonymous with dual-route theory. I believe these are sufficiently distinct that the section on reading/literacy should not confuse the two. If anyone can clarify the distinction better than I am currently able to, it'd be welcome. --Mr. Stein (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
1) What does it mean that he "first advanced" it? Did he define it, or did others, and he was just the first to write a book on it?
2) Was the first mention of the theory in his book, "Mental representations: a dual coding approach" from 1986. I think so, but I am not sure.
I am going to be editing this article for a project in my history class. I plan to organize the material better as well as make it more clear. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Breaugha1 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Breaugha1, and welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 11:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)