Talk:Cognition

References

• It would be better to remove the chapters from the References section for these two:
  • Katiyar, Sarthak; Katiyar, Kalpana (2021). "Recent Trends Towards Cognitive Science: From Robots to Humanoids". Cognitive Computing for Human-Robot Interaction: 19–49. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-85769-7.00012-4. ISBN 978-0-323-85769-7.
  • Sweller, John (2011). "Cognitive Load Theory". Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 55: 37–76. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8. ISBN 978-0-12-387691-1.

  Hello Magnesium Cube and thanks for reviewing this article! I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "remove the chapters". I saw that both sources are listed as journal articles but include an ISBN parameter, which is odd. I removed the ISBN parameters. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Your citations and referencing are GA status from here on out. MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, sorry for responding so late. When I wrote "remove the chapters", I think I meant to "remove the ISBN" or something similar to that- which you already have done (thank you)! MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality

• In 'Classical computationalism', This perspective helps researchers analyze... (referring to computationalism) is slightly promotional; it may imply that this specific model is objectively more helpful than others. Possible replacement could be Researchers using this perspective analyze... or something like that.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Other than the previous, the article is virtually unbiased.

Prose

• I think that a better first line would be Cognition refers to the mental activities involved in the acquisition and processing of knowledge instead of Cognitions are mental activities that deal with knowledge due to the fact that the former is a more widely recognized definition.

  The next sentence already talks about the acquisition and uses the term processess, so this would make the first paragraph sound more repetitive. See also MOS:REFERS.

• ...acquire, store, retrieve, transform, or otherwise use information could be ...acquire, store, retrieve, transform, and apply information. "Otherwise use" is a catch-all phrase that can be tightened to "apply".

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Cognitions are a pervasive part of mental life... could be Cognitive processes are pervasive in mental life. "Cognitions" (plural) is technically correct but "Cognitive processes" is more common.

  The term processes is used in the sentence before and afterwards, so using the term cognitions here helps avoid repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Perception organizes sensory information about the world, interpreting physical stimuli, such as light and sound... could be Perception organizes sensory information, interpreting physical stimuli such as light and sound... Removes unnecessary "about the world", since that is already implied.

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Thinking encompasses psychological activities in which concepts, ideas, and mental representations are considered and manipulated could be Thinking encompasses the psychological manipulation of concepts, ideas, and mental representations, which better improves the flow.

  I think it's good to keep the part about considering them instead of focusing exclusively on manipulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Visual perception, based on the detection of light, is a primary source of knowledge about the external environment could be Visual perception—the detection and interpretation of light—is a primary source of information regarding the external environment. Em-dashes provide a cleaner parenthetical definition than commas here.

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• ...the cocktail party effect, in which the brain concentrates on a single conversation while relegating the surrounding party noise to the background could be ...the cocktail party effect, where the brain isolates a single conversation while relegating surrounding noise to the background. "Isolates" is more precise than "concentrates on" for this specific phenomenon.

  I implemented a slight variation. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Others play an active role in monitoring and regulating ongoing processes, like changing a problem-solving strategy... could be Other metacognitive functions monitor and regulate ongoing processes, such as adjusting a problem-solving strategy... "Functions" is more descriptive than "others"; "adjusting" is more professional than "changing."

  The previous sentence refers to "Some forms of metacognition", so the term "others" should be fine in this context without the need to describe again. The term "adjusting" seems to imply that it is the same strategy in an adjusted form, which does not work with the second part of the sentences, which distinguishes the new from the old strategy. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Classical computationalism argues that cognitive processes manipulate symbols according to mechanical rules, similar to how computers execute algorithms could be Classical computationalism posits that cognitive processes manipulate symbols according to formal rules, analogous to algorithmic execution in digital computers. "Posits" and "analogous" elevate the academic tone; "formal rules" is the standard term in logic/CS rather than "mechanical rules."

  I implemented a slight variation to keep the text accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• The nodes are typically arranged in layers where information flows in one direction from earlier to later layers. could be Nodes are typically organized into layers, with information flowing from input to output layers. More concise; "earlier to later" is slightly vague compared to "input to output."

  Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at recent changes and overall quality, Cognition definitively PASSES a GA test. Congrats!

Great, thanks for the review! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Cognition

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. I would be interested to learn what changes are required to fulfill the featured article criteria, but I'm also open to more casual improvement ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to look through the article in detail. But I think we all know that first impressions are important. The first impression I had was that the image was not what one would call "professional" or high quality. Changing that would be a good 1st step. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Yesterday, all my dreams... and thanks for your feedback. Cognition is a very abstract and general term so it is difficult to visualize it in a representative manner. The presentation of different cognitive activities, as the current image attempts, is one approach. Do you have an idea about how the image could be modified to improve it? As an alternative, we could also simply remove the image: lead images are not required and no image may better than a bad image. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, it is a very abstract issue, as you said. And I wish I knew what it is! In the late 1970's a young yours truly attended a meeting with several professors discussing the issue. They reached no agreement. I have since thought about it in the consciousness context, but still in the woods. Any way, regarding the image please take a look at . I like this one but please choose any high quality one you like. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are good alternatives, so I went ahead and removed the image. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)