User:ScarlettRidley/sandbox

Section for deletion:

"Even more recently, modern neuroscience techniques are being applied to study the cocktail party problem. Some notable examples of researchers doing such work include Edward Chang, Nima Mesgarani, and Charles Schroeder using electrocorticography; Jonathan Simon, Mounya Elhilali, Adrian KC Lee, Shihab Shamma, Barbara Shinn-Cunningham and Jyrki Ahveninen using magnetoencephalography; Jyrki Ahveninen, Edmund Lalor, and Barbara Shinn-Cunningham using electroencephalography; and Jyrki Ahveninen and Lee M. Miller using functional magnetic resonance imaging."

Reasoning: There are no citations to what the work is, it's just a list of names. This doesn't expand the article or provide more meaning to it so I believe it should be deleted.

Little things:

Added links to: sensory memory, inferior frontal gyrus, intraparietal sulcus, speech processing, fMRI, Amphibians, songbirds, bank swallows, king penguins

Corrected links to: superior temporal gyrus & binaural unmasking, fMRI

Deleted some spacing issues

animal cocktail party

Animals that communicate in choruses such as frogs, insect, songbirds and other animals that communicate acoustically can experience the cocktail party effect as multiple signals or calls occur concurrently. Similar to their human counterparts, acoustic mediation allows animals to listen for what they need to within their environments (e.g., mates, threats, etc...). For Bank swallows, cliff swallows, and king penguins, acoustic mediation allows for parent/offspring recognition in noisy environments. Amphibians also demonstrate this effect as evidenced in frogs; female frogs can listen for and differentiate male mating calls, while males can mediate other males aggression calls. There are two leading theories as to why acoustic signaling evolved among different species. Receiver psychology holds that the development of acoustic signaling can be traced back to the nervous system and the processing strategies the nervous system uses. Specifically, how the physiology of auditory scene analysis affects how a species interprets and gains meaning from sound. Communication Network Theory states that animals can gain information by eavesdropping on other signals between others of their species. This is true especially among songbirds.

Source ideas and brain storming for "Cocktail party effect" article
The issues with this article that I've seen after reading the whole talk page is that other students in the past have worked on it and used primary sources rather than secondary sources. That's made some of the other editors of this page sorta mad, so I'm nervous to edit it, but I'll try!

First task is to link more words in the article. One of the main editors mentioned that the article is severely underlinked, so I think that would be a good contribution even if I can't find enough secondary articles to add.

Secondary articles not currently cited on the page:
https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/psycarticles/docview/874187564/E5D8F639527E4A61PQ/3?accountid=8240"Szalma, James L; Hancock, Peter A.Psychological Bulletin Vol. 137, Iss. 4,  (Jul 2011): 682-707. DOI:10.1037/a0023987"https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/psycarticles/docview/614488783/347C1E23570D414APQ/1?accountid=8240"Bee, Mark A; Micheyl, Christophe.Journal of Comparative Psychology Vol. 122, Iss. 3,  (Aug 2008): 235-251. DOI:10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.235"https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/psycarticles/docview/614508336/347C1E23570D414APQ/2?accountid=8240"Snyder, Joel S; Alain, Claude.Psychological Bulletin Vol. 133, Iss. 5,  (Sep 2007): 780-799. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.780"https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/psycarticles/docview/614396062/347C1E23570D414APQ/6?accountid=8240"Lachter, Joel; Forster, Kenneth I; Ruthruff, Eric.Psychological Review Vol. 111, Iss. 4,  (Oct 2004): 880-913. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.880"

Thoughts on sources
I think these sources are good start. The oldest one is from 2004. While Wiki asks you to have sources no older than 5 years, that's impossible for this subject since studying this effect isn't exactly a hot topic. I think these sources are probably the cutting edge for this field.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT YOUR SELECTED ARTICLE AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD! I WILL SAY THAT I NEVER CONSIDERED THE COCKTAIL PARTY EFFECT IN ANIMALS, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF EXAMPLES WHEN I STARTED TO REVIEW THE NEWS MEDIA AND LITERATURE:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/frog-hunting-bats-have-%E2%80%98cocktail-party-effect%E2%80%99-workaround http://blogs.nature.com/news/2008/12/ocean_noise_is_no_cocktail_par_1.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11050215 (LIKELY PRIMARY LITERATURE AT FIRST GLANCE)

I also think adding an "animal" section will be good! How this effect works with non humans. That's not represented at all in the article.

ARTICLE EVALUATION
Choose an article, and consider some questions (but don't feel limited to these): Cocktail party effect

·         Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

Just about every sentence ended with a citation, and if it didn't, the next sentence had a citation to cover it. The only area I saw a lack of citation was after the sentence "Taboo words do not affect children in selective attention until they develop a strong vocabulary with an understanding of language". This didn't have a citation or follow up citation. Another area with a partial citation but no link can be found in the "visual correlates" section. They partially type out the citation rather than linking to the article. All sources for the other points have reliable sources coming from journals. (WHAT MADE THEM RELIABLE IN YOUR ESTIMATION?)

·         '''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Everything seems relevant. I think there are areas like research that could use more work to fill out the topic, but what is currently there seems relevant.

·         '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article is neutral. Which should be easy since it's not a controversial topic. All writing is about the research which is presented neutrally.

·         '''Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

The journals are all neutral reputable sources. Such as the journal of experimental psychology. (WERE THEY PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCES?)

·         Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think overall there just needs to be more research stated. The visual correlates section is only a few sentences long so I feel it should either be expanded substantially or moved to another section to be more concise.

·         '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?'''

I checked 3 sources at random and didn't find any close paraphrasing or plagiarism. I used the Find function to type in the cited sentences to be sure.

·         '''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

Since it's an overview, I don't think any info could be out of date. I think more just needs to be added. So it's a good article, just needs some more meat to it to fill out the depth of the subject. (AFTER EVALUATING IT, IS THIS THE ARTICLE YOU PLAN TO EDIT FOR YOUR ASSIGNMENT?)