Talk:Eye movement in music reading

Re: Article

This is a very interesting article. However, it sounds and reads like a thesis paper. Can the author verify his or her contribution as such and publically release it to the public domain?

Furthering that, this article needs to be rewritten to conform to encyclopaedic standards. That is, this article is a little too dense and a tad scientific for the layman to understand. A lot of this can be linked to an outside site and tagged from here as "further reading". Kareeser|^Talk! 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've continued on your talk page :) Kareeser|^Talk! 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Caravaggio Picture: It should be: flight TO egypt!

Yeah.. this article was really hard to read. :( I was like, woo, interesting stuff but had no idea what was going on. :/ --65.30.35.19 07:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting indeed. When reading this article, all I want to know is how sight reading music works, not how/why their research behind it failed. Stupid 85.229.104.52 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be a reasonable criticism—that the article dwells excessively on the failings of some research. But the fact is that the field is characterised by poor methodology; so poor, in fact, as to render the results highly questionable in many cases. This is a great pity, and needs to be said. The advantage of dealing with those issues is that they're a good entry point to discuss what little we do know of eye movement in music reading.

I'm interested to know exactly what technical aspects/words/constructions etc you found most difficult: this might help in deciding how to address the issue. (I myself don't find it hard technically, so such advice would be valuable.) Tony (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"all I want to know is how sight reading music works, not how/why their research behind it failed." As Tony says above, the fact is that it's not really known how sight reading music works. Discussing the past research is all wikipedia can do, per WP:NOR. The article is dense, but also very informative. 64.132.221.211 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article remains largely inaccessible to most readers. While the nature of the topic itself does not lend to oversimplification, the use of nomenclature such as "crotchet" does not aid the problem. I hope the author can work on revamping this interesting article. Bro2baseball (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, the equivalent for North Americans needs to be added (quarter note). Thanks. I will do this when I get a chance, which will probably be mid-December. I'll probably ask your further advice then. Tony (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what investigating high-speed rhythm games would reveal about sight reading. It sounds frivolous, but that's their very premise. The frequency and duration of saccades and fixations probably change during those long, flashy streams of 16th notes (semiquavers?) at 180bpm. Maybe the processing guesses more from peripheral input using the distinct shapes and colors, as well as recurring patterns. And, of course, the player's familiarity with the track. --96.25.108.8 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only the player's familiarity with the actual stimulus, but her/his familiarity with the music style more broadly (style is, after all, a set of probabilities). Yes, peripheral vision is likely to play a role in processing; there are no data to prove this, but my suspicion is that at high tempi and high skill level this role is greater. The tempo, and whether the music is on one or two (or more) staves, affects the temporal and spatial patterns of eye movement much more than whether the notes are quarter- or sixteenth-notes. Tony (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures are pretty, though not entirely relevant... Ben Finn 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the pics could go, I guess. But how to dumb it down ...? Tony 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

The edit to Eye movement in music reading has not undergone any major changes except for the addition of the disambiguation link, a statement to improve the prose of the article, and the a slight modernization of its syntax. Therefore User:Tony1's edit will be reverted with the exception to the statement to improve the prose.

I am proposing to rename the article from Eye movement in music reading to Eye movement in reading music as reordering the "music reading" would help conform with the disambugation page and the article Eye movement in reading. Futhur more reordering the words will help clarify that the article is about "reading the music" rather than how the "music is reading". ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Do not make that change. I'm taking steps to move all of these articles back to the way they were.

I'd like to know who you are: you're clearly a sock. What was your previous username? Tony (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia.--Dbolton (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the behaviour of this person does not appear to be in good faith. My questions as to their previous username, to ascertain whether this user has been banned, are quite in order. They have not been answered, so I cannot be blamed for continuing to be suspicious. The threat to revert my edits is hard to understand, since it is written so poorly. Tony (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your presumption that I am a "sock puppet" is offensive and poorly supported; however if you continue to pursue a WP:RFCU, please take the effort to make it formal. To improve clarity, I am asking to revert your edit which ¹ removed the disambiguation link and ² removed the slight change in syntax which allowed for columns in the footnotes. Both of which I do not considered as a "major change", but I will ask for consensus before the edit will be made.

This article issue relating article naming is directly affected by Eye movement (disambiguation), Eye movement (sensory), and Eye movement in language reading. The discussion should be centralized to allow for a coordinated effort in resolving this issue. Please view Talk: Eye movement in language reading. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)^{(please view note of absence)}

• Well, you're the one who suddenly and unilaterally decided to change all of the names; I don't have much sympathy for what you've done, and find it galling that you didn't give notice or bother to consult contributors, not only here but in other pages you've tampered with. I don't like "Eye movement (sensory)"—it's a category problem. I think your notion that "music reading" might imply that the music is doing the reading is, frankly, ridiculous. And if the title were to undergo this entirely unnecessary swapping of word order, you'd then have to formally nominalise it thus: "Eye movement in the reading of music", which, like your suggestion for the title of the language article, is a gobbledygook mouthful. "Music reading" is a common compound item in the literature. Now, instead of getting my back up and contravening WP's usual procedures for interacting with people, can we work collaboratively? As a sign of goodwill, I've brought back your spaces either side of titles. Even though you haven't explicitly denied my accusation (I do find it odd that you know a lot of technical stuff about Wiki but have been around for only a few months), I'll accept your rebuttal here as equivalent, and withdraw my stated assumption about socks, etc. Tony (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been centralise under Talk:Eye movement (sensory)#Changes of page names --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been happier to be working collaboratively, it's usually difficult to achieve this when you are under the pressure of two indictments and your comments are stated as "written so poorly". All information about how the article should be named is redirected as stated above (thanks Philip Baird Shearer). The spaces in between the titles are to help separate the title from the syntax; nevertheless, the largest problem I see in this article is how it is divided. "Relationship with eye movement in language reading" could be renamed to "Relationships". A "Main article..." shortcut should be added to help elaborate and link the "with eye movement in language reading". This also provides a means for subsections to be easily added, removed, and processed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and information is usually for specific purposes (such as helping a reader start a paper on information they have virtually no prior knowledge about), and a well outlined article provides a means (for the voracious reader) to easily digest it. This article is organized similarly to a thesis paper, and if you are interested in such, Wikiversity[1] may be right for you. The remaining sections should be restructured (some more than others) to an outline which provides easy access to all the elements of the article, and who better to make a precedent than a user who practically authored it. The remainder of the changes I see are largely preference and thus have less relevance. I did not explicitly deny your accusations because ¹ it would further transgress the neutrality of the discussion and stray away from what is important (the content), ² it could be easily be prescribed as a WP:ATTACK and against WP:AGF (thus you become irrelevant), and ³ the indictments were never formally made. *Try not to use bullets when separating your comments from everybody elses, use a ":" at the beginning of each paragraph, if you are commenting after this comment use two, after that use three. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)^{(user has returned - thanks)}