Talk:Chromostereopsis

This page is a work in progress that we are continuing to edit. Editing this page was part of a project we are completing for a neuroscience class that runs until the end of the semester. Peer review will begin shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Barry0531 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Chromostereopsis group! Great work here. I think you are getting too specific in the initial intro paragraph. There seems to be a bit too much on history – I would suggest focusing on the very basics here. You guys added some awesome pictures for visual learners like me and they are very appropriate for the topic as it is a visual phenomena. Although the history of the phenomena is probably an essential section to have, I feel as if a lot of attention is given to this rather than on the neurological basic of how it is generated by the retina. Overall, you have some good sections but all are a bit random and the order doesn’t seem strategically placed. I suggest combining some sections under a few unified headings. For example, methods of testing could be placed under the general heading of recent research; binocular nature, Stiles-Crawford effect and reversal effect could be placed under a general heading of mechanism of Chromostereopsis; history could encompass the theories discussed as well as the evolutionary significance. Overall a well-done article, especially in regards to the visuals. Ritterlb (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This article was very interesting and informative! Especially, I liked how unfamiliar terms such as LCA or TCA were explained concisely within the paragraphs and how pictures were incorporated in the article for easier understanding of the content. However, I have few suggestions that may help improving your article.

First, regarding formatting, there were few grammatical errors including punctuation so you guys might want to proofread again. Also, I found that few of your references(reference #:7, 10, 14, and 15) were original researches, which are not secondary sources. (Were these included because sufficient information wasn't found in the secondary sources? I tried to find other secondary sources but there were not many...) It would be also helpful if DOI/PMID is added to reference so that the journal articles can be linked. And hyper-linking major terms would provide a convenient and accessible way of understanding to the reader.

As for the content, I would suggest expanding further research topics as there are still broad aspects of chromostereopsis not fully understood or discovered. In the article, it is implicit that chromostereopsis is seen only during binocular viewing but it would be helpful if the fact that the effect disappears in monocular vision (reference #11) is explicitly stated. Lastly, although this article contains considerable amount of information on chromatic aberration, I think it could be shortened because there is an existing wiki page specifically for chromatic aberration. Information regarding chromatic aberration in this article could possibly be merged with the existing. Kwakg (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC) wiki page.

I really enjoyed your article! Overall, it is well written and thorough. It seemed like some of the earlier sections could be shortened and made more concise while your last section on recent research could delve into new information much more so. The article includes a lot of information on the history of chromostereopsis which was helpful to some degree but I think you could stand to include just the key discoveries. I would be much more interested to hear about any new research that’s going on instead.

Beyond that I have a few suggestions. I think it would be helpful if your group hyper-linked more of the terms in your article in case your reader doesn’t understand something. I would recommend making the image of the eye diagram larger so that people who look at your article can actually read the labels. But overall, nice work! Sarah.lord (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that you did a very good job explaining and elaborating on this topic. You went really in depth and I thought the evolutionary significance was interesting and informative. I also enjoyed your use of pictures and think that they helped add to the overall strength of your page. However, I think that you should link some key terms to other wikipedia pages. That would help answer any questions a viewer might have when on your page and would make your article really strong. There were a few grammatical errors throughout the article but nothing a little proofreading wont fix. I also think maybe it would help to elaborate on the recent reasearch and maybe throw in an experiment if you can find one. These minor changes would help pull you article together and make it a really strong piece, but other than that I think you did a really good job. Cameron Perry 91 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your page thus far represents a complete and fully structured piece. The past and present were connected well through your use of descriptive elements of the topic. Your introduction should be revised: separate into distinct paragraphs, and the later information should not be examining so in depth at that location requiring movement into a body headline. Further hyper-linking is definitely needed since it is currently dense wording. You cover the relevance and macro understanding of chromostereopsis. What could really propel this page further would be a better coverage of current research. Could this be related to diseases that are being researched now? Most of the work going further lies in the the last two sections, with micro information and more citations. It would be good however to go back and start to sharpen and cut out repetitive or unnecessarily wordy statements. Overall, however, this has the form of a well planned and thoroughly written page. MURTAGH.KEVIN (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I found the topic of this article very interesting. The images used were also helpful in understanding what chromostereopsis actually is. I think you guys hit on all the important aspects of this topic. However, one change I would make would be shortening some of the paragraphs, like the introduction or the history. You could combine some of the introduction with the theory section or even to the binocular nature section. Also, if you make this change, it may be useful to take out the sub-headings under the history section and make them their own sections (binocular and reversal effect sections). Although these have historical relevance, I feel you could make them their own sections and add to them outside the historical context. Another aspect of the page I would fix would be the hyperlinking. Outside the introductory paragraph, there are several somewhat copmlex terms that could be linked to other pages that may help the reader understand the topic a little better (stereoscopy, binocular, accumodation etc.) There are also few grammatical changes I would make, like taking some words out of lengthy sentences. Other than these alterations, this is a well explained article! Tyler.Popp (talk)10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.58.83 (talk)

Overall, I found your article to be very well written and felt that you did a great job providing a comprehensive and informative description of your topic for your readers. The images that were used definitely helped to illustrate the various concepts that were mentioned in the article. However, it may be clearer to just have one image per section. In addition, your overview provided a very detailed summary of your topic, which you may consider shortening so that it appears as more of an introduction than a summary. I found the “Evolutionary Significance” section of your article to be particularly interesting, although it may make more sense to put the section closer to the end after the analyses of the various mechanisms involved in Chromostereopsis. In terms of the “Theory” section, I was confused as to how it stands alone from the other sections that also mention various theories. Lastly, the two sections you had under history might make more sense to be included in their own sections although they could still be mentioned in the history portion. In general though, I really think that you guys did a great job with your topic and feel as though I learned a lot by reading your article. Cmrossin (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Review
First thing is to only put references at the end of sentences, not half way through. This is for reading purposes and you do it for some sentences but not for others. The rest of your page is very good and thorough though, very good. The only thing that you are really lacking is the hyperlinks to other wikipedia pages. This function is vital for people reading your page so they can jump to a topic/subject that they are unfamiliar with. Those are the major fixes that need to be done to this page. AdamMJenks (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes Made
1. As suggested by several reviewers, the summary paragraph was slightly shortened and broken up into discrete paragraphs.

2. Hyperlinks (when applicable) were added throughout the article. Some of the names and/or words that we had wanted to hyperlink did not have pre-existing wikipedia pages, therefore, they were left unlinked (i.e. Bruecke did not have a page). The DOI/PMID number and url address were added to the cited article.

3. It was suggested by a reviewer that we make the eye image larger. Since this image was merely copied from another wikipedia page, there is no real way to alter it unless we got an entirely new image, so it was left as is. The image can also be clicked on to be enlarged. It was also suggested that we reduce our images to one per section. The image of the cuttlefish was removed as it was too large and cluttered the page. Now only a maximum of one picture per heading is present, making the article look cleaner. The images mainly serve to add some color and possibly a little bit of information to the page.

4. Any citations that appeared in the middle of a sentence were moved to the end.

5. The "Binocular Nature of Chromostereopsis" and "Reversal Effect" sections were taken out of the "History" section and separated into their own categories. I agree that this makes more sense since they are really their own topics. The rest of the "History" section was kept the same as I believe it provides a good overview of the important people involved in the beginning studies of chromostereopsis and the contributions they made.

6. One reviewer had noticed our use of primary sources. This was a major concern for our group, however, we found it difficult to find many secondary sources, leaving us to depend on a few primary sources for information. We would have lacked a sufficient amount of information if we did not include these sources. I attempted to find more secondary sources today and while I did find one more, I could not open it due to restricted access to the website.

7. Several reviewers suggested we add more information to the recent research section of our page. While a majority of the articles and reviews available are quite old, the most recent research involves the identifying the neural correlates of the chromostereoptic effect. An additional paragraph was added in the "Recent Research" section to discuss these recent findings. However, this is primary literature and appears to be one of a very few number of studies done regarding this aspect of chromostereopsis. Therefore, only a brief summary of their findings was included.

8. The paragraph of evolutionary significance was relocated and placed towards the bottom of the article. This was done so that more similar topics are now closer to each other.

9. The article was proofread multiple times and any preexisting grammar mistakes or run on sentences were corrected. . Kelly Barry0531 (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanjayrau (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Karam91 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Cataracts and intra-ocular implants
I have had cataract surgery and have intra-ocular implants.

I do not see these effects. Since my lenses are rigid, I surmise that this is due to the fact that there is no focussing mechanism available. Alternatively, it may be that the material that my implants are made from does not have significant red/blue difference in refractive index.

Does anyone know? Is there research on this? Bill Jefferys (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Muzeum Sułkowskich - Zabytkowy Witraż.jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Muzeum Sułkowskich - Zabytkowy Witraż.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 27, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-03-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Other theories?
Are there other theories that should be documented? I experience this effect (or an effect like this), but not in chromatic order, nor reverse chromatic order, and the degree to which I experience it changes with cognitive state. (Some days, it is so strong that looking at the expanses of bright color on the front of a typical breakfast cereal box is disconcerting, because the surface appears to be both flat and very not-flat at the same time!) I have heard of color-depth synesthesia as a secondary phenomenon for some people with grapheme-related types of synesthesia (which I don't have, though). Maybe this is something different and a link to part of a synesthesia article would be relevant? Idk. Just thought I'd mention. os (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, yeah I have noticed that the effect I experience along these lines doesn't require both eyes to be open, so there may be something else as well. I haven't been able to find anything about this type of effect in any literature besides what's in the article and what I mentioned above, at least not yet. os (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * With the image "that may show four different layers of depth. From near to far: red, yellow, green and blue.", I see yellow, red, green and blue. I'm not aware that my eyes are unusual. Errantios (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)