Talk:Eriksen flanker task

Someone who has read the paper and understands cog psych should rewrite this article it is worse than bad. It is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.178.12 (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on this. I have rewritten the description of the flanker paradigm, and described the different variants that exist. I will add a section describing the varied ways in which flanker tests have been used, including basic cog psych (understanding inhibitory processes), drug studies and psychiatry. I have taken off the misleading tag, as I think what is there is fit for purpose, even though it should be added to. Kognos (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Middlebury College Student Contribution
Hi everyone,

We're a pair of Middlebury College undergraduates working on a project for our Introduction to Neuroscience course. We will be making some modifications to this article during the next few months. Thanks! Angelinerodriguez (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2013 & Janessaaag (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again!

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have added a few sections to the Eriksen Flanker Task Wikipage. I edited a few things as well, and added two images as well as a link to a website in which individuals can find an online Eriksen Flanker Task that they may take and discover how they do in this test. Feel free to let me know of any changes you feel that I should make or any errors that I have made. I used the same references for a few things, but cannot figure out how to make the number in the brackets the same for all of them. I will keep looking, but if anyone could help me out with that it would be much appreciated. Myself and my partner, Angelinerodriguez, will be working on the page until 12/7, but plan to make all our corrections within the week. Thank you! Janessaaag (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Comments
Hello,

We have seen and read all the comments made on the Eriksen Flanker Task Wikipedia page. Since then we have begun to address the comments made, and make alterations to the page based on the suggestions made. I am writing to inform you that the page has been updated and we have finished addressing all the comments that were made. If we did not address your comment, we made sure to leave a reply underneath your post. I hope you are satisfied with the resulting alterations. Thank you! Janessaaag (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 1
Hey guys- awesome job on this article! The introduction is concise but detailed, and the withholding of specific examples encourages further reading. I would add additional citations to the first paragraph, though, even if it is just repeating the first citation at the end of the paragraph. The procedures and methods section is also really well done. I personally appreciate the clear break down with examples, as I was having some trouble conceptualizing the task (due to my own spatial incompetence...). The visuals in the section are also really helpful, and provide an accurate depiction of what the task might actually look like in a research setting. And way to go above and beyond by including an external link to an actual online test. (I did not take the test, but maybe note the comment below from NeuroBuddy1?).

The effects on performance section is really interesting, and although I think it would be out of the scope of your topic to delve into how these findings relate to drunk driving or taking antihistamines while driving, it might be worthwhile to mention the implications these results have for driving safety. This way, you could illustrate the kinds of important applications the Eriksen Flanker task has for tangible, real world problems.

In terms of formatting, I think overall the article is clear, concise, and well-written. There are a few small typos here and there- a rogue "c," a misplaced apostrophe in the word "subject's," an incomplete phrase (stimuli to be more readily).

Overall, an extremely good article. I normally have more to write for peer edits (seriously..I am that kid), but I really don't know what else to say- you guys nailed it. Abbychick (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply 1
Because more comprehensive analysis of the task's applicability to driving safety can already be found in the link to the Raemakers study itself (and the paragraph referencing it is already a bit lengthy), I did not go into great detail over the real-world connection but I did add a brief reference to the implications of flanker task results at the end of the paragraph as per your suggestion. I also repeated the citation in the introduction to account for the claims made at the end. I think my partner has already fixed the other typos you pointed out - thanks for spotting those errors and the thorough overview!Angelinerodriguez (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2
You did a wonderful job of having your article progress from simple to more complex, allowing readers like me who have never heard of the Eriksen flanker task to follow the article. The Procedure and Method section was particularly helpful in that you defined the three types of stimuli in a clear and concise way. You also provided specific examples that break down what you are discussing in a digestible way and make abstract concepts more specific. The images in this section are helpful. However, I would suggest moving the images to the end of the section so that they do not fall before your description of different representations of the Eriksen flanker task. I would suggest placing these two images next to or below the following sentence: “Other variants of the Eriksen Flanker Task have used numbers,[4] color patches,[5] or arrows as stimuli. Also, although most Eriksen Flanker Tasks show the flankers the left and right of the target, they can also be placed above or below the target, or in other spatial orientations.” In this section you also mention that stimuli can be oriented non-horizontally. I would be interested to know if reaction times tend to differ with different stimulus orientations and whether the brain processes these orientations differently.

In the Experimental Findings section, you describe that earlier work used “visual search.” I would include a sentence describing what this means exactly.

In general, you do a great job of linking to other Wikipedia pages. I would link to the “Autonomic nervous system” Wikipedia page when you mention the role of the ACC in autonomic functions in the Neurological Basis section. In this section, the word “activate” should be changed to active. In this section, what do you mean by the “amount of control the participant has on the next trial”? Perhaps when you finish the sentence mentioned by Abbychick that ends with “to be more readily,” this confusion will be elucidated.

Yet again, in the Similar Conflict Tasks section, you do a great job of providing clear examples like when you describe the words in the Stroop task. Well done.

I would suggest putting the Effects on Performance section at the end of your article. That way, when one reads the article, one has more information about the neurological basis of the task before learning about how antihistamines and alcohol can impair task performance. Moving this section to the end would also be a great way to finish because it relates your topic to everyday situations.

Overall, you did a great job with this article—it is clear, descriptive, and insightful! KerzNeuroscience (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply 1
Thanks for spotting these! I added a clarification and a link to the relevant wiki article for visual search - I believe my partner has addressed/is in the process of addressing your other notes as they were relevant to sections she authored. Angelinerodriguez (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3
Hello there!

I would like to start off by saying that the organization of this page is excellent! It the setup that you guys decided to use for from the section headings to the placement of the pictures makes the page easy to read and even engaging! The first introduction paragraph is right to the point and even briefly explains the three major stimuli. Although it the first paragraph is short and concise, like Abbychick above said, it just made me want to read on to figure things out!

As said before by the other reviewers, the use of examples is more than just a little helpful. The way that you wrote Produre and Method section as well as the picture that goes along gives a straightforward and clear explanation of the test. This type of writing that was used is exactly what is needed in order to fully convey the messages to the Wikipedia community.

A section that I found interesting was the Neurological Basis section. There is a sentence in this section that I found to be worded strangely, the fourth one where it says ' It is believed that the ACC may monitor the amount of conflict in and Eriksen Flanker trial and that the measured conflict is used to enhance the amount of control the participant has on the next trial.' I found it to be not sound as coherent when said verbally so please look into that! Also perhaps maybe adding any information on how people found these neurological basis would be helpful to how realizing that areas like the ACC were involved.

Great work so far though! This was very fun to read and I can't wait to see anymore changes you decide to make!

Tsmithrandle (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello From Neurobuddy1
Hey Guys! I just wanted to tell you guys that your page is very informative. And, thanks for putting the online test for free!! at our disposal. However, there are few concerns of mine that I want to let you know of: 1. The page did not mention any problems with this test, or why this test could go wrong. Assessing the validity of the test through reseach material will assure that the test actually does accomplish its goal and it is not bad to let the readers know of the probable errros. I took the test and realized that there was a general pattern with which the stimulus came. I just had to pay attention to first few trials to see the context and then I was all set. I didn't need to actually see the target stimulus to point out what directional response was taking place, the non target stimulus was the cue. I highly suggest looking out for the errors that can result in this test and ways of minimizing the errors. 2. The intro paragraph ends with the information about purpose of the test,which is not common knowledge, I recommend looking backinto your research to add citation to this part. Hope it helps! Neurobuddy1 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Neurobuddy1Neurobuddy1 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply 1
Thanks for taking the test and reporting back on your observations - I looked into possible tests of validity for the Eriksen Flanker task but, as far as I was able to research, the nature of the test is such that any anomalous results do not reflect a margin or error for the task itself but rather call for different conceptual explanations for why the task works. The increase in proficiency over repeat testing you experienced isn't a technical error but a well-documented phenomenon called the Gratton Effect - I have added a brief overview of research involving the flanker task and conflict effects to the Experimental Findings section to help account for this. Angelinerodriguez (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)