Talk:Hyperacuity

The newer version of the entry, which had been displayed here as a draft, has been moved to the main page.Gwestheimer 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On two occasions 155blue of whom there is no trace otherwise in Wikipedia has objected to this entry, once because it was deemed self-serving and now it is proposed for deletion because it fails the notability guideline. Notability guidelines are not spelled out in Wikipedia, but for the record the term hyperacuity has been in use for 40 years and brings up over 300 references when entered in PubMed as a keyword. Many scientific papers with the word in the title have been cited several hundred times.

The charge that it is written in a rather complicated fashion must, of course, be taken seriously. Many paragraphs are written clearly in lay language, but specific indications of what sections need improvement -- and perhaps even suggestions of how this might be accomplished -- would be welcome. Gwestheimer 16:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of hyperacuity mechanism
Attention editors: Ian Overington (1992). Computer vision: a unified, biologically-inspired approach. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-88972-0. could be used to improve section ‘Analysis of hyperacuity mechanism’ (in particular as discussed in Chapters 2 (pages 4 - 15 & 21 - 22) and 3 (pages 30 - 36, 46 - 47 & 61 -72)). A new Section, possibly entitled ‘Secondary analysis of hyperacuity groups’, could usefully be added - to deal with some multiple items such as involved with curvature, corner features, stereo analysis and optical flow, which can all be readily derived from secondary analysis of primary hyperacuity outputs. For this, Chapters 9, 10 & 12 (in particular, pages 244 - 258 for curvature, pages 218 - 229 & particularly Fig. 10.5 for stereo and pages 177 - 188 & particularly Fig. 9.13 for optical flow) provide a wealth of potential material. Full disclosure, I'm the author Ian Overington.


 * Moved above talk page type material from article space to talk page.North8000 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to add some clarification to some references?
Hello user IanOverington, thanks for the contribution. A few of the references seem to be very abbreviated, could you expand/clarify? :


 * The Kolb reference: could you clarify "Soc Lond B 258,261 1970"


 * The Marr reference: is there anything that can be added?


 * The Hubel et al reference: Could you clarify "Phil Trans R. Soc. B 278, 377, 1977"

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I received the info and put it in. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dab page not needed
This should be in base position. A hatnote to the album will suffice In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)