Talk:TRACE (psycholinguistics)

Untitled

Hello Wikipedia editors: My article got tagged as possibly spam. It is not spam, pure and simple. I will be continuing to work on this post, editting the content, and providing more links within wikipedia. I have provided 3 citations, and will be adding 2-3 more. I am somewhat of an expert on this topic, and have been published in a psychology journal relating to this topic: Ted J Strauss, Harlan D Harris, James S Magnuson. "jTRACE: A reimplementation and extension of the TRACE model of speech perception and spoken word recognition. " Behavior Research Methods 39.1 (2007): 19-30. (note that i did not cite myself in the article) I would be happy to refer you more prominent experts in the field, who could edit my work. Ted.strauss 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again wikipedia editors: This article continue to be tagged as being spam or advertising. please understand that this subject is not connected to any commercial enterprise. it is about a scientific topic. please explain the issues you have with the article, suggest changes, etc. i want to conform to wikipedia standards, but i don't understand the problem. -- Ted.strauss (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the advertising template, since the article clearly isn't promoting a product or service. I suspect that the editor who added the template thought that the article was intended to persuade the reader of the merits of the Trace model. Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy would forbid this. However, I can't see any obvious neutrality problem with the article; if other editors still have concerns, I'd invite them to indicate the specific sections or statements that need changing. EALacey (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelseaslee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article should be capitalized: TRACE, not Trace. Please have it correct.85.0.144.36 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

done 㓟 (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Would a translation help?

What if i help by translating it into spanish? Would that help? Im from sp.wiki, and my wiki user din't let me log in the en version....:S or maybe i did it in a wrong way.

Media.wea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.56.184 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepted or postulated?

Under the heading: "Time-course of word recognition", we read that:

It is widely accepted in psycholinguistics that (1) when the beginning of a word is heard, a set of words that share the same initial sound become activated in memory^[3], (2) the words that are activated compete with each other while more and more of the word is heard^[4], (3) at some point, due to both the auditory input and the lexical competition, one word is recognized^[1].

with these references:

^[1]McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86

^[3]Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71

^[4]Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36

none of which, unfortunately, I can check.

My concern is wth the word "accepted". Whilst the enumerated points may be very plausible, and may be the foundational assumptions of many models (though few others as influential as TRACE), perhaps "accepted" is too strong a word to use without experimental proof in a scientific discipline such as psycholinguistics? Do the references cited offer experimental proof to support these postulates of the TRACE model?

If not, since I lack both access to the references above and the specific knowledge necessary to cite other references to experimental proof, I can only surmise that it would be more factual - and thus, more encyclopaedic - to replace the word "accepted" by "supposed", "assumed" or perhaps "postulated". All I seek is an assurance that these three references each provide experimental support for the given postulate. With such an assurance - or if anyone can cite more appropriate references - I would of course withdraw my objection to the current wording.

Sorry for being so long-winded, but I instinctively mistrust statements beginning: "It is widely accepted ..." or with any similar appeal to the majority!

yoyo (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

responding

yoyo: I changed the phrase "widely accepted" to "generally accepted". I believe it is accurate. The references cited do provide experimental evidence, as do hundreds of other scientific papers on this subject. Ted.strauss (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)