Talk:Mismatch negativity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pulvermuller refs[edit]

The reference to the articles by Dr Pulvermüller and colleagues are typographically inconsistent with the rest of the article and incomplete. For instance, now the entire author list is missing. Further the chosen references are somewhat inappropriate in the context of the present article. The suggestion is that the individual removing the edit please exercise a little more quality control and basic respect for other contributors. There is the opportunity for someone to write a decent section on Dr Pulvermüller's contributions to research upon MMN and MMNm in the context of language; a section where these references would be rather better placed. Until then, when the writing of such a section happens, the suggestion is to simply remove the inappropriate references to the Pulvermüller et al. work, which is now placed there almost randomly, in a typographically-inconsistent incomplete manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I have fixed the author lists so the coauthors are listed. If you have other concerns with "typographical inconsistencies," again, you are welcome to write out the citations the way you want them; references should never be removed just because of their citation style.
As for why the content of the references is inappropriate, you still haven't addressed that here (you have said something about it on my talk page, which I will get to after this). If you believe there are better references for the statement about MMN and attention, you are welcome to add those references, or to qualify the statement, but simply removing the references leaves the article with a [citation needed] statement that doesn't help the reader or the editors. There is nothing "random" about where I put those references; I included them there as examples of studies attempting to support the corresponding statement in the article. I apologize if they're not the best examples, because I'm not an MMN expert, but if they're not the best examples then you can replace them with better ones, rather than simply deleting them without explaining why. Politizer talk/contribs 15:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed my mind a bit. I'm glad you added the Naatanen paper, but I don't see what's wrong with including at least the 2009 Pulvermüller et al paper as converging evidence, especially since its experimental design was set up specifically to test the effect of attention on MMN amplitude (using active distraction). I'm leaving the refs hidden in the article for now (commented out so they don't show up to readers) pending further input from uninvolved editors. Politizer talk/contribs 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Trying to understand what is going on here, it isn't so easy. I don't think it is appropriate for two Pulvermuller refs to be the only two refs that appear in the lead. Either every statement in the lead should be ref'ed, or else the refs should all be deferred to the body. (Another alternative would be at the beginning of the lead to give one Näätänen review paper and one by Pulvermuller -- his Prog Neurobiol paper probably -- and defer everything else to the body.) Looie496 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me; the refs and statement in the lead were really just mirrors of the same refs and statement later in the body, and keeping the refs only in the body wouldn't be a problem with me. The real question, I think, is whether to include the refs at all, anywhere; my stance is that at least the 2008 one is fine, whereas's is that they should both be removed. Politizer talk/contribs 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think either needs to explain this issue more clearly or else yield the point. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion is to refer to Politizer's talk page, where a resolution was met. It seems the references have reverted to the original state. If Looie or someone else is knowledgeable enough to write a section on Dr Pulvermüller's contributions to research upon MMN and MMNm in the context of language, then such a section could be a way forward. Until this happens please understand that the best course of action is that the inappropriate references are removed again. (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are the references inappropriate? You keep saying the same thing over and over, but you never give any explanation. Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC), I already gave my rationale above regarding why I think the references should go there: the sentence in question is talking about whether or not the MMN is affected by whether or not the subject is paying attention, and that is the very question that the Pulvermuller (2008) paper addresses. You didn't respond to that message for over a week, and then the moment I restored the reference you tried to revert my edit. Could you please explain (using concrete reasons, not just saying "it's not appropriate" or "doesn't fit there") your rationale for why the references shouldn't go there? If I am understanding your messages correctly, you seem to be suggesting that these papers are irrelevant to MMN research because they deal specifically with the MMN elicited by linguistic stimuli rather than other MMNs...but I don't see how that should keep them from being relevant; they are illustrations of a more general point. Furthermore, Risto Naatanen's own research on MMN focused largely on MMN (for example, one of the seminal papers was comparing phonemes in Hungarian and Finnish, I believe), and you have been strongly in favor of including Naatanen references. Politizer talk/contribs 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Politizer. It seems that you would like me to spend my time on writing a rationale for the deletion of 2 references. I would be concerned that if I did, then it would not be understood. For instance "Trying to understand what is going on here, it isn't so easy.", and then there would be yet another U-turn. Please understand that in the time that I write such a rationale, it would be possible for you to write an adequate section on the neurolinguistics of MMN. There are many published papers that demonstrate that MMN is task-independent and has thus been dubbed unconscious or not attentional. When this is considered, the work cited seems a somewhat arbitrary choice. There are many definitions of attention, which by-and-large are rather vague. To resolve, 1) the citations will be removed to leave only the seminal work. 2) Attention will be given a link to another relevant page. 3)Before you press the revert button, it is suggested that you consider writing a section on neurolinguistics, if you expect yet another rationale to be written.

Additionally, if the article to be professional, perhaps cite the article fully and be consistent in the referencing style, in the way you might see in the literature when you read it. It can be seen from the weblink in the article that the University of Helsinki is one of the major centres of expertise upon MMN, so blocking that IP blocks some expert contributions to the article from a large number of relevant experts. (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First, about citation style: Wikipedia is not an academic journal and the citations don't need to be the same as in what's in academic journals. The {{cite journal}} template is commonly used in Wikipedia articles, and the output it produces includes all the relevant information (journal, authors, date, title, volume, issue, doi, pages, anything else you want) so I don't see why you are complaining that the citation style is not "professional." And, for the last time, you cannot remove good references just because you don't like the format of the citations; if you don't like the format, you are welcome to change the format, rather than removing the citations.
Now, about the references there. Maybe it seems "arbitrary" to you; the neurolinguistics literature is what I'm most familiar with and so that's where most of my sources happen to come from. In any case, the reference does not contradict anything already in the article; it is simply converging evidence for the Naatanen paper, stating one more example of where the MMN has been shown to [probably] unconscious. The fact that it's a linguistic MMN is an irrelevant detail; it's still part of the MMN literature.
Please understand that Wikipedia works by consensus (see the policy page Wikipedia:Consensus), and simply coming here over and over and and telling people that you're right and they're wrong, and that they should listen to you just because of which university you're affiliated with, is not the appropriate way to participate; refusing to give your rationale is an especially poor way to get consensus. Now, I have already gone out of my way to post messages at appropriate venues (WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, WP:WikiProject Linguistics) asking for outside input, and another editor has come here and given his two cents; if you want to change the page, please do it through consensus, rather than by repeatedly reverting edits and saying that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You are welcome to go to those venues I listed above and seek more input. Politizer talk/contribs 17:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The rationale has already been available for you to read: There are many published papers that demonstrate that MMN is task-independent and has thus been dubbed unconscious or not attentional. When this is considered, the work cited seems a somewhat arbitrary choice. (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes one published paper better than another published paper? This paper also argues that the MMN is unconscious. Politizer talk/contribs 14:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's quite a lot to be said about that question. It is realised that no rationale will be safisfactory. But here goes: The Näätänen et al Acta Psykologia paper demonstrates for the first time the discovery that there is an MMN that is task-independent and isolated from the "attentional" processing negativity. Consider the number of citations of this paper in the published literature for instance on ISI and then compare the number of citations to the contrastingly arbitrary Pulvermüller papers mentioned, then this gives some insight into the relative importance of the work for the field. Obviously, this needs to be interpreted with some caution and is not the gold standard in measuring how good a scientific work is. If it is necessary to include Friedmann ulvermüller, Yury Shtyrov and Bob Carlyon's papers, it would be better to say something about the content of what is new about the work in the article. For instance, a section on neurolinguistics and MMN would really add well to the work. (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a science journal, and there's no requirement to demonstrate that the refs I'm including are "new" or groundbreaking. WP is simply a resource, a collection of materials, and as such there's nothing wrong with providing extra examples of sources/research that back up the original claim. In this case, the extra examples I provided are from the linguistic MMN literature because that's the only MMN literature that I am familiar with. And, again: the fact that a paper is relevant to linguistics doesn't automatically make it irrelevant to the MMN. You haven't yet shown that these refs are irrelevant to this article; only that they're not "groundbreaking" enough for your tastes. Politizer talk/contribs 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Also (I am writing this here rather than at your talk page, since you are editing from several IPs so you'll be more likely to see the message here), please refrain from re-inserting extra analysis in the Neurolinguistics article. As you can see, I have already added a bit to accomodate your analysis, and the extra stuff you're adding is just more of the same (and written in more detail than is desirable there, since Wikipedia articles are meant to be written in a summary style). That article is in line for a quality assessment (after two months of hard work improving it—compare the current version with the version before I started editing it), and I would appreciate it if you don't destabilize an article under assessment by making it the subject of an edit war. Politizer talk/contribs 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, the "war" exists in the mind of one student of linguistics only. It seems that the multiple rationales provided repeatedly are found as unacceptable by just one student of linguistics, who, as yet, has been unable to provide a decent section on the neurolinguistics of MMN, which at present is crowbarred into a section on the characteristics of MMN, which is arguably a very distinct phenomenon. The only rationale that student offered for one such change is "ugh". This is, indeed, a burden that makes it very difficult to make a constructive contribution to this article. (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Think again. At least one other editor has already come to the article and agreed that the refs belong here. As for "ugh," it wasn't my rationale (if you want to see my rationale, look at every other message I have put above on this page), but just my expression of frustration at having to rehash the same thing again. Finally, I do not really appreciate your trying to belittle my contributions just because I'm still a student; you have no idea what level of student I am in my graduate studies, and besides, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Politizer talk/contribs 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The rationales offered above seem full of links to wikipedia policy but lack any convincing content. This seems to be an open place where is would be alright to quote one of the main contributors to this article: "Anyway, thanks for devoting your time to Wikipedia. There are very few Psychology academics who do, with the result that most of the Psychology information is very bad. I alternate between hope and despair over my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope that this is a useful medium through which to communicate science to the public, but I despair that most other academics regard it as a complete waste of time, that the scale of the task is so huge, and that the pearls you and I cast into it will be obscured by ill-meaning, and even well-meaning, swine." (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a grand total of one policy link in the entire discussion above, and plenty of content (Looie496 above sure seemed convinced). Please stop misrepresenting my contributions. Politizer talk/contribs 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just one policy link, but it seems to be a running theme alongside the "in-words" for how people on wikipedia should behave. There is no discussion of genuine content. The references in question were removed and then Politizer hid them in the code so it would be possible to inappropriately resurrect them later. The resolution met with Politizer (alluded to above) has now been removed from Politizer's talk page in revisionist fashion. It seem that Looie did not understand and can no longer refer to the resolution upon Politizer's own talk page. But yet another additional rationale is that the influence of grammar on that form of MMN is revealed by MCE to involve a distinct section of cortex and is thus a distinct phenomenon not to be bracketed in with pitch, intensity and duration MMNs that are thought to be generated by a different parts of the brain. Surely, some additional content is needed to justify the Pulvermüller inclusions, not just contentless citations. Ít's necessary to quote again, in case this is obscured at some point, "Anyway, thanks for devoting your time to Wikipedia. There are very few Psychology academics who do, with the result that most of the Psychology information is very bad. I alternate between hope and despair over my involvement with Wikipedia. I hope that this is a useful medium through which to communicate science to the public, but I despair that most other academics regard it as a complete waste of time, that the scale of the task is so huge, and that the pearls you and I cast into it will be obscured by ill-meaning, and even well-meaning, swine.". (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's been removed; I simply archived the thread, which is common practice. You can see it here. And the main thread is still in my main (un-archived) talk page here. There's been nothing "revisionist" at my talk page. Politizer talk/contribs 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's progress. Good work. (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Carlyon (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No other neurophysiological evidence for the formation of the memory representation of those regularities[edit]

It is not clear to me what this statement claims. Certainly there are memory representations in the brain and there is plenty of information about these. Memories are acquired as a result of training, even if by trial and error, and in a sense they represent some type of real world regularity. There are also associations between representations, such as the sound of a word with the way it is written and its semantic meaning. There are also neurons that respond to pair associates of the same sensory modality in the perirhinal cortex. Perhaps there is relatively little neurophysiological evidence for specific things such as words for numbers (although there is some) but even then, that would not mean that the words for numbers are not represented in the human brain. The same can be said for musical tones, vocalisations, rhythmical patterns, etc. There is neurophysiological evidence, even from non-human primate studies, even if it is sometimes controversial. So what exactly is meant here with this statement?Skamnelis (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

>>There is an assumption that a memory trace, of a repeated sound, for instance, accumulates by some neurophysiological process. The manner in which that memory trace is measured is by MMN to a deviation, for instance from that repetition. There is no online neurophysiological recording made of the accumulation of the memory trace inferred during, for instance, the repetitions of the sound. Positivity1 (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)