User talk:Mawalters/sandbox

Adding to the article Attentional Blink.

Last week for my critique regarding this article, I mentioned how brief it was. My plan is to expand on some of the statements provided by the original author of the article, especially the portion regarding "lag 1 sparing." I will be focussing specifically on this section, but may also contribute to other sections as well. I also noticed how some statements, presented as facts, were not cited or were not objective. I will be attempting to fill in these gaps to give the article a more rounded and understandable presentation on what attentional blink is.

Here are some sources that I plan to use to contribute to the article:

Expectancy-based modulations of lag-1 sparing and extended sparing during the attentional blink.

On the costs of lag-1 sparing.

Short-term consolidation of individual identities leads to Lag-1 sparing.

Irrelevant auditory and visual events induce a visual attentional blink.

Mawalters (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters

Attentional Blink/ Lag-1 Sparing Outline
Of the research provided in the Attentional Blink article, lag 1 sparing has very little written about in in reference to this phenomenon. To improve this, I found four, peer-reviewed and APA approved articles concerning lag 1 sparing and how it relates to attentional blink. I will be using these four articles to expand the concept of lag 1 sparing, expand how it relates to attentional blink, and hopefully create a more concise and informed article on the whole.

Mawalters (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters

Mawalters (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters

Attentional Blink/ Lag-1 Sparing
"One curious aspect of attentional blink is that it usually includes "lag 1 sparing", meaning that targets presented very close together in time (at "lag 1" or consecutively in the RSVP stream) are not affected by the attentional blink, even though items presented at slightly greater lags are significantly impaired. There is as yet no conclusive explanation for the phenomenon of lag 1 sparing, although it is thought to be related to the first parallel stage of the two-stage system of stimulus selection and processing."

This is the portion that I am expanding. For right now, it is here for me to reference.

Mawalters (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters Attentional Blink (AB) is a psychological phenomena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawalters (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Lag-1 Sparing Initial Rewrite
In attentional blink, participants of experiments often cannot report multiple targets that are in succession to one another, and will only report one accurately when these targets are presented to them 200ms to 500ms apart. These targets are denoted as T1, T2, etc. The phenomena lag-1 sparing refers to the performance of T2 as opposed to what precedes it, T1. T2 performance was originally hypothesized to be reported much less often and less accurately than T1, because the attention of the participant would still be on T1 while T2 was presented immediately afterwards.Experiments thought that the participants would be to focussed on finding the first target that they would entirely miss the second. However, identifying T2 performance actually succeeded T1 performance when they were separated by one or two distractors, denoted also as lags. A possible explanation for lag-1 sparing is that this phenomena is heavily interconnected with attentional blink, but does not operate on the same cognitive mechanisms and requires different stimuli to occur. Specifically, for lag-1 sparing to occur, it needs visual input as practice targets. When the first target, T1, is presented, it creates an attentional window because of its novelty, meaning that is attracts and holds more attention by the participant. The novelty that wears off between T1 and T2 creates a “boost” in attention and creates a metaphorical window for faster cognition. Participants now know what and how to look for targets, so they find targets more quickly. This attentional widow remains open long enough for T2 to be presented and processed at a much higher rate because of shared characteristics to T1. Targets are normally presented in less than .5 of a second from each other. Lag-1 sparing also occurred regardless of how information was visually presented. Of two RSVP streams— where T1 location was known in the first stream and unknown in the second stream, lag-1 sparing occurred whether T2 was in the same stream as T1, or in a different stream than T1. Mawalters (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters Mawalters (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Mary Walters

Peer Edit
Your edits are helpful in expanding the part about lag 1 sparing, but your section is extremely dense and technical. If you feel this much information is necessary, break it down into two paragraphs and work on making the individual sentences more concise. I'm also confused by the placement of your citations within the paragraph. As it stands now, it looks like the possible explanation for lag-1 sparing you suggest in the middle is mere conjecture from you. That definitely needs a citation. I also think if you are going to put quotes around "boost," that you need to have a citation for that. If it is your term, it shouldn't be in quotation marks, but if it is someone else's term, it needs to be cited. I also cannot tell whether you are explaining a general attentional blink methodology or one from a particular experiment. Your citations themselves also need article titles in them. Just looking at what you have there currently, I cannot tell what any of the studies are about with the information given, and cannot thus figure out which study would relate to which information within your paragraph. The tone of the section seems appropriately neutral, but just make sure you aren't leaning too heavily on one study for so much writing.

You also need to clean up some punctuation and grammar. In the final sentence for instance, you have a dash on one end of a clause and a comma on the other. This sentence in particular - "Experiments thought that the participants would be to focussed on finding the first target that they would entirely miss the second" - also needs clarification. Do you mean experimenters? If so, that definitely needs a citation so I know who those experimenters are. Then you also have misspelled "to." Eliminating the passive voice can also be one step towards condensing some of the longer individual sentences towards the middle of your writing. Towards the end, your sentences get a lot more concise and Wiki-like. So try to stick with that approach throughout.

But overall, the section is a lot more thorough. Just be sure to work on your citations further and then go through and clean up your writing to get rid of errors. Klausfaust (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

After Peer Edits (but still working on it!!)
In attentional blink, participants in experiments have trouble reporting multiple targets that are in succession to one another, and will only report one accurately when these targets are presented to them 200ms to 500ms apart according to a study by Visser et. al (2015). These targets are denoted as T1, T2, etc. The phenomena lag-1 sparing refers to the performance of T2 as opposed to what precedes it, T1. T2 performance was originally hypothesized to be reported much less often and less accurately by participants than T1, because the attention of the participant would still be on T1 while T2 was presented immediately afterwards. Visser also thought that the participants would be too focussed on finding the first target that they would miss the second target completely. However, participants actually did better identifying T2 than they were at identifying T1 when the targets were separated by one or two distractors, denoted also as lags.

A possible explanation for lag-1 sparing is that this phenomena is heavily interconnected with attentional blink, but does not operate on the same cognitive mechanisms and requires different stimuli to occur. Specifically, for lag-1 sparing to occur, it needs visual input as practice targets. These targets can be numbers or letters presented in rapid succession. When the first target, T1, is presented, it creates an attentional window because of its novelty, meaning that is attracts and holds more attention by the participant. The novelty that wears off between T1 and T2 creates a “boost” in attention and opens a metaphorical window for faster cognition. Participants now know what and how to look for targets, so they find targets more quickly. This attentional widow remains open long enough for T2 to be presented and processed at a much higher rate because of shared characteristics to T1. Targets are normally presented in less than .5 of a second from each other. Lag-1 sparing also occurred regardless of how information was visually presented. Of two RSVP streams— where T1 location was known in the first stream and unknown in the second stream, lag-1 sparing occurred whether T2 was in the same stream as T1, or in a different stream than T1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawalters (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)