Talk:Visual cliff

Untitled

The edit summary creating this article asserts that it's by the same person as the owner of the blog. I think before speedying as a copyvio, we should allow sufficient time for the blog owner, if this is the case, to assert on the blog that permission is granted. By the way, the specific location this was copied from is http://psychologyreview.blogspot.com/2008/04/visual-cliff.html —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Holagrad, HungryDesi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hangon

Thanks David. This is not copyright infringement, this is my site. I have released it with GNU, see: http://psychologyreview.blogspot.com/2008/04/visual-cliff.html. Please allow. --1000Faces (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that using your own sources may not comply with WP:REF, and may well be a conflict of interest. Booglamay (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's using his own sources: the blog consists of short reviews of other people's research articles, and what we have here is the same thing: a short Wikipedia article that reviews some other person's research article. That sounds completely legitimate to me. Whether these articles are widely cited enough that their results should be considered notable withing their fields is a different question... —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New additions

Hey guys, I came across this page and that it could use a bit more info on the actual experiment and the resulting effect on the psychological community. I have already done a few minor touch ups and was wondering if anyone had anything against my proposal for changes? Jw07334 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Psyc322 changes

Add an actual section called "History." Discuss/elaborate findings and application of the findings. Make overview more inclusive and concise. Reason behind the experiment (hypothesis) Give reasons for performance between species. Add illustrations Criticisms of research, different viewpoints. Add more to the "See Also" section. Discuss Gibson's research along with any relevant research. Discuss how the visual cliff apparatus works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiddlecup (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) PsychLove13 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)PsychLove13 PsychLove13 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)kiddlecup PsychLove13 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)sweetxmasham

I noticed a couple grammatical errors in the introduction paragraph...In the 4th sentence should a comma be added after "on one side"? Also, I think a comma is needed after infant in the 6th sentence to make it flow better. Otherwise, great work! PsychBoss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Hello all, nice topic. I can recall this topic from a movie shown in my gen psych class! I think an added visual will be effective to insert since seeing the movie helped me to conceptualize what a visual cliff actually was. I also think think you can elaborate on some of the implications of your findings like with the animals and infants and such.Keykey123 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Keykey123

Hi guys, this is a really nice start. I think that there are a few places that could use some improvement still. Make sure that all of you links are working and that your references are formatted correctly. It would also be really cool if you could somehow add a picture of the visual cliff set-up to help illustrate the concept. Aslo instead of "Gibson and Walk's hypothesis was proven" I would say that the hypothesis was supported.Biopsyclvr (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Prof Comments for Revision

The original visual cliff study: Does the study support the Gibson/Walk hypothesis that depth perception is inherent? You should instead put some of that information in a new rat section I don’t think the bias elimination needs its own section, unless you’re going to go into much more detail about it. The JJ Campos link doesn’t work. At what age were the preterm infants tested? The prelocomotor section ends with a sentence fragment and may contain inaccurate information’ did the premotor infants really cry less on the deep end versus the shallow end? I don’t think James Sorce merits an external link. The rat section has rats as both plural and singular; keep it consistent. The first sentence in the turtle section makes it seem like there was a big cross species comparison in visual cliff; we don’t know what study you’re mentioning. Don’t speculate about what turtles might be thinking on the visual cliff. There’s a comma splice in the “they showed no such preference…” sentence. Did 76% stay on the deep or shallow side? It’s unclear. If you’re giving the Latin name for cow species, you should do the same for all species. You don’t need to list the authors’ names if you’re linking to their work. You’re missing a comma in the second and third sentences of the chicks section. The “Findings” section needs a more specific title, or perhaps should be omitted entirely. It’s an odd collection of information without sufficient context. Fix external links 1 & 2. ProfRox (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Holagrad and HungryDesi Planned Edits

Planned Edits: Editing the caption under the image Adding more information about the history of the study. Perhaps expand on the impact on psychology as well. Adding more references about the animal subjects in earlier versions of the study. HungryDesi (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Edited a few of the wording in the page

Completed Edits: Editing the caption under the image.

In the animal section, the sentence currently there will be replaced with: Before Gibson and Walk conducted their study with human infants, multiple experiments were conducted using rats, one-day-old chicks, newborn kids, kittens, pigs, adult chickens, dogs, lambs, and monkeys. Overall, most species would avoid the deep side of the visual cliff, some right after being born. The first visual cliff experiment was conducted with rats who were raised in the dark and in the light. The results were that both groups of rats would walk all over the shallow and deep parts of the cliff without an issue, which surprised Gibson, Walk, and Thomas Tighe (a research assistant). A later experiment with kittens raised in the dark and then placed on the visual cliff showed that depth perception was not innate in all species as the kittens would walk on either side of the visual cliff. After six days of being in the light, the kittens would avoid the deep side of the visual cliff (Rodkey, 2015). Later researchers conducted experiments using other species. (A new source will also be added as well.)HungryDesi (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed section: While the information from both of these sections was strong, there was only 1 citation in the entire part. The citation was from the original visual cliff study, which breaks Wikipedia's rules on using original work as sources. If a source could be found to support these two paragraphs then they can be added back onto the main Visual Cliff page.

Removed paragraphs:

Chicks Two-day-old chicks responded to the visual cliff when tested by PR Green et al. As the depth of the visual cliff below the chicks was increased, the latency for the chick to move towards the incentive, another chick on the far side of the apparatus, was increased while the speed at which they moved decreased. On the other hand, chicks that were given the same incentive to jump over a visible edge, onto the deep side of the apparatus, were less inclined to move at all depths. This illustrates that the absolute depth of a surface and the relative depth of an edge affect behavior differently in chicks.

Lambs Lambs are able to stand and learn to walk almost as soon as they are born. Just like chicks, they were able to be tested as soon as they could stand. They did not make one error when tested on the visual cliff. When placed on the deep side of the glass, they would become scared and they would tense up and be afraid to move. However, when they were moved to the shallow side they would relax and jump onto the visually shallow surface.[1] This showed that visual sense, instead of the ability of the animal to feel the stableness of the glass, was in control. HungryDesi (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)