Talk:Tachistoscope

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spelling[edit]

I'm undoing the edits renaming the tachistoscope as "tachistoscop." As far as I can tell, the device is never currently referred to as a "tachistoscop" in English, and it's understood that the information about its first naming describes the coining of the general word (Greek takhistos + scope) rather than its exact English orthography. Triacontahedron (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a paragraph on the uncertainty about whether projected images are the same as CRTs. I did this for two reasons: 1. In psychology research, the viewing distances in tachistoscopic and computerized experiments are eqivalent (generally in the range of 14–24 inches) 2. Those studies that have made direct comparisons have found no substantive differences in experimental contexts. See, for example:

Hutner N, Duboff JM, Oscar-Berman M, Mueller S. Comparing visual perception on conventional cabinet tachistoscopes and computer monitor tachistoscopes. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Aug;31(3):400–9.

While the point made by the paragraph was not a bad one, it does not seem to be germane to the subject of tachistiscopes as they were generally employed.

--mcain 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see the availability of free to the world computer programs that would help me improve my reading speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.173 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the fifth grade (1950)we were taught to improve our reading speed using a tachistoscope. Sentences and random numbers (up to 10 characters long)were flashed up as quickly as 1/50th of a second. Reading speed was markedly increased by many pupils. Aeb1barfo (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I can verify that I used both types of tachistoscopes in the Ravenswood / Stanford study. I did best with the word instead of a page display system. The maximum speed was 750 words/minute on the mechanical film strip projector ( no " bombsite " type display used ). If you add my latent IQ( Both Stanford/Binet and Wechsler tested at 153 ), I could read the fastest speed that the projector could work at with over 70% comprehension of the subject manner. That ability was both positive and negative. School books were read in 2 weeks. SciFi novels lasted a week. I became a " nerd " before the word existed. I was able to work and read in the library soon after I learned the Dewey Decimal System, rather than break bones on the playground or in PE. This acquired skill has remained and the speed of the computer allows me to use my fullest potential. Aeb1barfo (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference's link is broken.