The journal Psychological Science is a publication
created for and maintained by the Association for Psychological Science. This group of individuals, previously known
as the American Psychological Society represents a not-for-profit organization
that is dedicated to the advancement of scientific psychology and its
representation at both the national and international levels. The organization
was founded in 1988 and currently has approximately 26,000 members of varying
professions including scientists, academics, clinicians, researchers, teachers
and administrators. As an activity system, the journal strives to keep their
readership informed about changes and advancements in the field of psychology
and related matters. This online journal
alternates between being an open access platform and having articles hidden
behind a pay-wall. For example, the
article entitled Inhibition Drives Early
Feature-Based Attention, which is the subject of this critique, was
initially available in its entirety online and was located after performing a
simple Google search. Now, the article is hidden behind a pay-wall that
provides several different fee options in order to view the article. In
changing the access to the article the information included, the style in which
the article was written and the uses of the article are all cast into a new
light.
The article
discusses an experiment that was designed by Jeff Moher, Balaji M. Lakshmanan,
Howard E. Egeth, and Joshua B. Ewen and conducted by J. Moher and B.M.
Lakshmanan to test how visual processing is affected by outside stimuli and
distractions. J.
Moher wrote the initial manuscript and all contributed to the final
publication. All of the authors are professionals in the field of psychology
working either in the university setting or for a private institution designed
to assist individuals with developmental disorders. Because Psychological Science is a peer-reviewed
journal, articles published are intended first and foremost to be of assistance
to their membership. Accounting for this fact, one would expect the language
used to be extremely formal and the scores on any readability test to reflect
the advanced level of schooling that all involved have accomplished. However
after the completing a readability test on several sections of the article, the
abstract earned the highest score averaging a grade level of 14.7 amongst the
various measures and a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of 27.8 which means it
is best understood by university
graduates though the Flesch-Kincaid grade level only places the abstract at
13.9 grade level.
The inconsistency
in grade level assessment is in large part due to the syntax of the
article. The words employed are often
familiar if irregularly used. While
there is vocabulary that is specific to the field of sight and mental capacity
this is presented in context and without additional clarification owning to the
fact that this article was written for fellows in the field who would be
familiar with and expect such jargon. Words that are familiar are used to
describe larger concepts such as visual input, visual processing and sensory
processing used to describe sight or seeing. Using these terms to express a
fairly simple concept does two things: it lends credibility to the authors as
professionals in their field and also allows specific elements of visual
processing to be discussed, from initial exposure to the time the image is
processed by the test subject. However,
in using this language, the authors have also created an additional barrier to
any in the general public, as is shown by the Flesch-Kincaid readability score.
This article
details an experiment that could have important implications for the way people
respond to stimulus, and based on the researcher’s professional and academic
credentials their interest seems to be focused on individuals with special
needs. Information as to how to assist
children with special needs is often required by those outside of the academic world. Often parents or educators working with a
child may not have the resources to seek help from a professional institution
and would benefit from the results of this experiment being presented in an
easy to understand manner. The
information would also be beneficial to the general public to make people aware
of reaction time irregularities that may exist and to help avoid potentially hazardous
situations.
In addition
to the official style over-complicating the explanation of a simple process
like seeing, the pay-wall is also a further barrier to the information being
provided to a larger audience. Information about the way people process the
things that they see can be useful in a myriad of different situations, from
driving tests to both the production and the purchasing sides of manufacturing.
If presented in a manner that more people could comprehend without having to do
additional research or re-read sections of the article to obtain the meaning,
the information could have long-reaching effects, not because the experiment
told us something new and interesting but because it answers questions science
was already asking about the way we perceive our world.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/2/315.full
Vanessa Kocar
No comments:
Post a Comment