Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 2

Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery - Tourette's Syndrome

>>Tourette syndrome Deep brain stimulation has been used experimentally in treating a a few patients with severe Tourette's. In the treatment of Tourette syndrome, it is regarded as an experimental and dangerous procedure, and is unlikely to become widespread. (TSA Statement) There may be serious short- and long-term risks associated with DBS in persons with head and neck tics; the procedure is expensive and requires long-term expert care; benefits for severe Tourette's are not conclusive considering less robust effects of this surgery seen in the Netherlands; Tourette's is more common in pediatric populations and tends to remit in adulthood, so this would not be a recommended procedure to use on children; and how to use this procedure in Tourette's syndrome patients, is less clear than its usage in Parkinson's disease.<<

What proof is there of serious short or long term risks associated with persons who have the head and neck tics? Any surgery carries with it the possibility of risk, both short and long term. My husband is Jeff Matovic, the first successfull Tourette's Syndrome patient to undergo DBS and I can assure everyone out there that he has no major problems with his tics since the surgery and the turning on of his batteries on March 4th, 2004. As for the "long term expert care". He only has to go in to see his doctors on a as needed basis. The surgeries that took place in the Netherlands were not as successfull due to the different part of the brain that was attempted with those patients. There is currently a FDA trial taking place at University Hospitals of Cleveland for DBS when used on TS patients. Whoever wrote this article needs to get ALL their facts straight!

Anyone with any questions on how Jeff is doing now may contact us at [email protected].

Hi, I would suggest you alter the article as you see fit and see what happens to it! We were just talking in clinic the other day about DBS for a TS patient so it's obviously not considered that outlandish...--PaulWicks 08:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although one successful outcome is hardly proof of anything. Especially since this was only 2 years ago and it is hard to say what the long-term benefits will be. I think it is OK to leave the statement, particularily the bits that have a source (TSA, etc.). Nrets 13:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi

Sorry everyone... I'm rather prone to spending too much time on the internet. Having spent time away to study for my quals I've realized how much more I can get done when I'm not checking WP 20 times a day. I was kind of hoping to sneak away silently since I've not been on much for the last several weeks. Now that I've passed my quals I've got a lot of research to do; between that and a lot of things going on in my personal life I felt that it was time to move on. Good luck. I may lurk around and make a few edits here or there. :) --Semi 03:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Basal Ganglia and Thalamus

An editor has recently been editing extensively the articles Basal Ganglia and Thalamus. While it is clear this editor is spending a lot of time editing the articles, some of these edits are perhaps too detailed and poorly written, making the articles impenetrable. While some of these edits have been reverted, I think it would be better to incorporate these into the article but to clean them up significantly. I just wanted to bring this to light here, in case anybody felt up to the task of cleaning these articles up, as I am too busy at the moment to take a serious stab at it. cheers, Nrets 18:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update on the situation -- many of the edits are coming from User:Gerard.percheron/ 134.157.202.66/ 134.157.202.109/ 134.157.202.82/ 134.157.202.14, who is apparently is Doctor Gérard Percheron, editor of The Basal Ganglia IV: New Ideas and Data on Structure and Function, and president of the International Basal Ganglia Society. He is very persistent at editing Basal ganglia and Thalamus, and he is struggling with the culture here. I've offered on his talk page to help mentor him, but it looks like this will not be a short term project, and if anyone else could help out, I would appreciate it. --Arcadian 12:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Human brain" article could do with defining a few terms...

Just read the article ... as a non-specialist I found it informative, but I think a few terms could do with defining by someone able to do so.

Chief among them is "modulation", used several times without definition. Elsewhere in Wikipedia it's defined as "the process of varying a carrier signal in order to use that signal to convey information". Is this what it means when describing brain function, e.g. in "emotional pathways can modulate spontaneous emotive expression"? If so it doesn't make any sense to me.

Other words I had to look up are "anteriormost", "sagittal" and "cortex".

Your definition of modulation refers more to something like a radio signal (eg. as in amplitude modulated (AM) radio signals). In the case of neural signals, modulation refers to one pathway altering the activity of another, so for example, certain neurotransmitters can modulate the way the brain processes sensory information, or expresses a certain behavior. "Cortex", refers to the cerebral cortex, and the other terms you ask about are both anatomical terms of location. Nrets 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroanatomy

The anatomy project needs help from anyone willing to assist with anatomy articles, especially CNS articles. If anyone is familiar with Terminologia Anatomica, your help indexing existing and should-be-existing articles (on the 'Articles' subpage of the anatomy project) would be greatly appreciated. --Mauvila 09:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hippocampus things

Hey all. I'm an on again, off again contributor and I've recently started doing a little work on hippocampus (esp. the Cornu ammonis page, see Talk:Hippocampus) and on Place cell (see Talk:Place cell). I don't want to step on anyone's toes so I just wanted to point out my posts on those two talk pages to make sure everyone is ok with the rather minor things I'm proposing. Note: the hippocampus is one of the main areas I work with, so that's why I'm starting there: I already know the literature moderately well. Thanks! Digfarenough 23:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gustatory system

Hi, guys. I was politely asked by Benji64 to take a look at his work on Gustatory system and the article in general, but i had to redirect his request as i'm currently working on a search tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs. -- Boris 18:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of Category:Neuroscience

Hi all. What do people think about the appropriateness of categorizing neuroscience as neurology while still having Category:Neurology listed as a subcategory of Category:Neuroscience? It seems a bit circular to me. I also disagree with the statement (paraphrasing somewhat) that neurology is neuroscience with a disease bent. Granted, there's overlap between them, but I would consider the two to be quite distinct entities (clinical vs. research). Personally, I would suggest keeping Category:Neurology as a subcategory (it's convenient to lead readers to related articles). I would further remove the categorization of neuroscience as neurology since it's circular and, thus, wikipedia won't display Category:Neuroscience as a subcategory of Category:Neurology anyway. Finally, I propose either removing the line "Category:Neurology literally means neuroscience, but specializes in disease" or changing it to read something like, "Readers interested in the diagnosis and treatment of nervous system diseases are referred to Category:Neurology" as that seems more correct.

Anyway, I wanted to raise this issue here to see what input others might have. Thanks --Dpryan 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a few exceptions, I think most neurology articles are about pathology. Perhaps before any merjer occurs, that should be made clear. [email protected] 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe neuroscience is a broad term under which Neurology (which is the study of diseases of nervous system) should be. Neuroscience the scientific study of nervous system - which should include both physiological states and pathological ones. Shushruth 06:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurowiki

I'd like to let you all know about NeuroWiki. Unlike Wikipedia or Psychology Wiki, NeuroWiki is not an encyclopaedia or textbook containing settled knowledge, but is rather a wiki discussion forum about neuroscience research, especially systems, theoretical, and cognitive neuroscience. NeuroWiki will provide short, collaboratively written summaries of current research trends and ideas, with links to related papers and researchers – this will aid neuroscientists in keeping up with areas outside their specialty, and will allow researchers to learn about things related to their work that they would not have heard of otherwise. However, the best part of NeuroWiki will be the discussions spawned by these topics. Bayle Shanks 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neuroscience portal page

I am setting up the Neuroscience portal page. Please have a look at it and improve it as you deem fit. Shushruth 07:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors' names

Does anyone have an objection to me moving the 'list of contributors' section to the bottom? It keeps getting longer and one needs to scroll a lot to see what is below it. Also, it is preferable that a new contributor signs up after reading the whole list, isn't it? Shushruth 06:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Nrets 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second, or third, or *whatever* I am doing here... Edhubbard 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Lebedev

This page seems to have been largely made by Lebedev himself. I don't know whether his work is considered notable in neuroscience or not. Can someone check it out – see if it's notable, perhaps make it a little less Mikhail-centric? Thanks. --Eliyak T·C 08:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I could find, he's a senior researcher in a well-known neurobiology laboratory (Miguel Nicolelis, see [here] and click on "people"), however, he does not appear to head an independent research laboratory on his own. Many people work in Nicolelis' laboratory or are alumni from there and are far more notable than this person. Thus, if you nominate this article for deletion based on non-notability I would support the nomination to delete. Nrets 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your information about Nicolelis is outdated. He heads a networks of institutes around the world (USA, Brazil, Switzerland). The people who work with him are not as small players as you appear to believe. —GoOdCoNtEnT 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it is difficult to establish his contributions as an independent researcher. For example, a search of CRISP the NIH database of grants shows that he holds no independent grants of his own (his own CV also reflects this). Nrets 14:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I will nominate it, in that case. Thanks for the input. --Eliyak T·C 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Lebedev --Eliyak T·C 21:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine among the featured articles

The article on Caffeine is listed among the featured articles of the neuroscience project, yet it's not in the neuroscience category, and most of it is not about neuroscience. Is it pertinent to keep it linked? Rto 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does not really belong here, is there a Wikiproject:Pharmacology? Or Wikiproject:Drugs? Nrets 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reason caffine is interesting is because of its neuropharmacological actions. The effects section is nearly all neurophysiological. So I feel that it should be kept. Shushruth ^{\talk\contribs} 15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this inactivity!?!

Of all the cutting edge sciences on Wikipedia, i think Neuroscience has the most below par organization. We only have 12 featured articles - and many of them solely due to significatant contribution by wikipedians without neuroscience as their primary interest. And WE purport to study the most complex object in the universe! Anyway, I feel that we need some new ideas to galvanize us all. Can we at least start a Collaboration of the Week so that we can channel our energies in one direction and improve our dicipline's content? Any takers? Also, does anyone else think that we need to archive the upper half of this page as it contains no currently relevent content? Shushruth ^{\talk\contribs} 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the collaboration of the week idea. But I would suggest maybe something like collaboration of the month, which is more like the time required to get an article to featured status (after peer reviews, etc.). How about we start with Neuron? Nrets 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the time length Nrets. We can definately start with Neuron. Decent content which can be built upon. Also, how about combining both suggestions? We can work on one article to bring it to featured status and also have a collaboration of the week to work on a stub length/unreferenced/unorganized article and improve it over the week too? We can cycle through various neuroscience categories in picking up this weekly collaboration. Shushruth ^{\talk\contribs} 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would another good idea be to set up a formal request for feedback process for neuroscience articles? I've recently visited the military history wikiproject (don't ask why) and was impressed by their review process.--Saganaki- 03:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be enough active neuroscience editors around. So no organized process seems possible. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 06:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could stymie things. BTW I've put Brain-computer interface up for good article status if anyone has time to take a look. Cheers --Saganaki- 03:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Project Neuroscience Contributors

I've noted that some of the other wikiprojects (eg, wikiproject Japan) have user categories. If there isn't one already, would Neuroscience Project editors support creating a Wikiproject Neuroscience participants category? One benefit would be automatic generation of editor lists so that user feedback could be canvassed and support mobilised for major work such as the excellent Neuroscience portal. --Saganaki- 04:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations

I have set up Collaborations for the WikiProject. I have unilaterally chosen the topics for the first week just to get the ball rolling. If anyone can improve this please do so. I have set up a centralized place for both simulataneous collaborations HERE with instructions as to how to effect changes in the whole process. Please take the initiative to radically improve it if needed. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amusia

A while ago I came across the improperly formatted disambig page Amusia (which looked much as it does now) and cleaned it up, judging that the definition the editor placed at top was adequately described by the Tone deafness article (in the third paragraph.) However, an anon recently reverted it. Do they know better then I do? Should Amusia be refactored as its own (stub) page with a brief note on the spider genus? An expert opinion would be appreciated. -Seventh Holy Scripture 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neural pruning

Hi everyone! There is absolutely no article on neural pruning that I could find, not even a broken disambig line from pruning. I might give it a shot (I have to look into pruning in autism as a tangent for my master's thesis in cognitive psychology, which is about structural language impairments in autism), but since I've had nothing to do with pruning before, it'd be helpful if someone else with more expertise could jump in. Cheers, prezzey 16:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, Synaptic pruning. I'm already doing it now; just referencing it with some oxford material. See Synaptic Pruning. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Experts required

Hi there folks. I'm going to start populating your experts required category. If you could take a look at the subpages within and see what you could do, that would be great. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Notable Absence of Findings in Neuroscience

I have noticed a notable absence of scientific findings (and their impact) in many Wikipedia entries traditionally “owned” by philosophers. And there are many findings that have significant impact on currently held believes and speculations.

For example, in Consciousness entry there are no references to findings of Dr. Benjamin Libet. He is only mentioned as a co-author in listed references without a single word on his findings and their nature. (Libet measured readiness potential required for a deliberate move of a hand, for example, and found that we become conscious of an “urge” to “deliberately” move a hand half a second after the required readiness potential for moving hand has been initiated. If this does not need a serious thinking, I do not know what does.)

There is also a sharp difference in meanings given to word “consciousness”, for example. Philosophers’ meaning could be expressed as consciousness = what-we-are-conscious-of + what-we-are-not-conscious-of, while psychologists and neuroscientists consider consciousness as a kind of container for what-we-are-conscious-of (and nothing else). Psychologists have also measured capacity of this folder, i.e. how many “items” we can be conscious at the time.

Apart from radically different scientific terminology (in contrast to philosophical) causing misunderstandings, there seems to be very little effort to link fragmented scientific findings into a coherent whole. (I’m trying to address these issues at my website: Imagination is Greater than Knowledge. Maybe it could offer you some leads.)

I do hope that this will inspire you, for confronting speculations with facts is the job of the science. Please, let me know if I can be of a help.

Damir Ibrisimovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibrisim (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I’m again calling for interdisciplinary approach. No encyclopaedia can afford entries limited within one discipline only if it aims to be a credible reference. And the silence my previous calls were met with does not seem encouraging. Memory, for example, is one concept only and here we have a call for memory (neurological) that might fragment the concept along dividing lines between various disciplines.

I’m also a bit confused by the term “neuroscience”. If it is intended to mean something different than “neurology”, then the difference should be specified.

Sincerely, Damir Ibrisimovic 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See neuroscience and neurology if you are unsure of the difference. If the memory article is getting too large, splitting a neuroscience section off is a perfectly good solution. You should understand that 'splitting' is a bit of a misnomer; see Summary style. Richard001 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard,

I might be a bit “thick”, but I’m still failing to see the difference. Whatever the case might be, if you feel unsure about this (and you should) you are welcome at my talk pages. My question was rather rhetorical and the answer offered does not stand to any scrutiny. Another question regarding “splitting” also remains unanswered. Wouldn’t be more honest to admit our own inability to express ideas in simple, unambiguous terms? Lengthy (compartmentalised) entries seem to certify this.

Sincerely, Damir Ibrisimovic 14:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stimulation and TMS

I noticed some linkspam (http://www.biotele.com/) on the following pages: Neuroprosthetics, Cranial electrotherapy stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, Vagus nerve stimulation, Neurostimulator, Brain mapping, Functional neuroimaging, Statistical parametric mapping, and Neuroscience. The first five should be merged or linked together and organized in a better way. With the exception of maybe TMS, the first six use some cleanup too. -kslays 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memory (neurological)

Are there any decent articles which go into the concept of memory from a neurological standpoint? I'm quite willing to make an article as i've got quite a few books on the subject, and could easily make a large article on the topic with reference to inconsistencies in psychological models.

In terms of research from a pure-neuroscience related perspective on memory, i've got quite a few books which outline current neuro-based theories. Anyone willing to help? J O R D A N ^[talk ] 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd for Luciano Fadiga

Hi, the Afd for Luciano Fadiga is undecided as to whether he was "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys", and whether that is reason enough for being kept. An experts opinion would be appreciated. John Vandenberg 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing topics

I am not an expert in neurology but I've collected a short list of missing topics related to neurosience. I've tried to find any similar articles but I'd appreciate if some of you could have a look at it. Thank you. - Skysmith 11:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Award

I have created a WikiProject Award which has been voted as the award for this wikiproject. User:Alex43223 has formatted the text box.

		The WikiProject Neuroscience Award
		This WikiProject Neuroscience Award has been awarded to Alex43223 for the improvement or creation of neuroscience articles. thuglas^talk\|edits 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is editable.thuglas^talk|edits 16:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could add this to the project page it would be great. I dont want to mess around with it if i dont know what i am doing thuglas^talk|edits 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some adjustments to the text. --evrik ^(talk) 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of neuroscience articles

Would an assessment scheme similar to that undertaken by WikiProject Atheism (Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism/Assessment) be useful to this WikiProject? Would the effort needed to get it started result in a revival of this WikiProject? Would knowing which articles need what result in more constructive editing by this project? --Oldak Quill 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroanatomy stubs

The stub type Category:Neuroscience stubs has become very large; I've made a proposal to create a Category:Neuroanatomy stubs sub-type. If you have any thoughts on that, or ideas for further sub-types, please share them at WP:WSS/P. Alai 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term potentiation, soliciting comments

Howdy folks. I've been doing quite a bit of work over at Long-term potentiation and would love to hear feedback from this group. Comments welcome at Talk:Long-term potentiation. Also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Long-term potentiation for some specific comments others have made previously. Thanks! David Iberri (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all you've got time for is a quick proofread/copyedit, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks! --David Iberri (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the minimum duration for a potentiation to be considered "long-term"? According to the long-term memory article, a long-term memory lasts as little as 30 seconds. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro, I noticed the following:

It has been observed both in cultured cells (in vitro) and in living animals (in vivo). In cultured cells, applying a series of short, high-frequency electric stimuli to a synapse can strengthen, or potentiate, the synapse for minutes to hours. In living cells, LTP occurs naturally and can last from hours to days, months, and years.

Is the third sentence supposed to be "In living cells", or "In living animals"? --Uthbrian (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Banner

I have recently created a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I notice that your existing banner does not. Given the amount of overlap in the biology sector, and the concerns expressed elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners, I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in perhaps utilizing the Biology banner, with a "drop down tab" for this project, perhaps similar to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner. Doing so would permit for individual assessment for each project, as that is something the Military History banner does, while at the same time reducing the amount of banner "clutter" on talk pages. If you would be interested in such an arrangement, please let me know and I will work to revise the Biology banner to include the "drop-down" tab and make the other arrangements required for your project, as well as theirs, to have assessment data available. Thank you. John Carter 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploring possibility of creating Child WikiProject

Hi, I'm in an information-gathering stage to determine whether it would make sense to create some kind of Wikiproject on a set of topics. The article began as a single article, but is clearly going to branch out pretty quickly. I think that a Child Project, or even a Task Force, would be more appropriate than a full WikiProject.

The question I have is, the topics in question could easily fall into 2, or even 3, larger topics. Some of the topics that branch out from this probably would be better placed in a different category entirely. The specific topic I'm referring to is "dyslexia." Depending on how you look at it, it could be categorized under neurological or psychological conditions; education; special education (a child project of Education). The articles that will branch out from this topic will range from eduation law, special education, learning disabilities, educational methods, instructional interventions, cognitive interventions, etc, to several branches of psychology, neuropsychology, psyciatric diagnoses, brain research, neuroimaging, etc. If I were going to choose, I would probably go with neuroscience. But, the Education project is much more extensive and organized, which could be an advantage for a project just starting out. It could also be a disadvantage.

Would love feedback on how best to categorize topics that could easily fall into more than one, and whether you think this type of topic fits into your purview. Thanks in advance! Rosmoran 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment scheme

Does anyone want to set one up? Not being able to rate articles is rather frustrating. I can help out with the template if needed - I'm trying to request a bot that can set it all up but having little success at the moment. Richard001 06:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurocardiology

I added neurocardiology as a category to this article, though I suspect it is more a protoscience than anything else. I just wanted to inform your working group in case you have any objections to it being included. I'm not an expert, just trying to get things cleaned up. DLPanther 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

25 August Team NEURO (PROD by User:IceCreamAntisocial; "...a reference to the alumni of the Summer School for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology at Michigan State University 2007.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 01:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have improved a lot this article in the last month and I´m thinking of nominating it for good article. I have asked for a scientific peer review; but I would appreciate any comments on how to improve it both in contents and style. The discussion page for the peer review is: Editing Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis --Garrondo 08:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therapies for multiple sclerosis good article candidate

I have nominated the article as a good article candidate. I would be thankful to anybody who who helped in the good article review (See: Wikipedia:Good article candidates If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. --Garrondo 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fingerprinting article needs expert attention, rewrite for NPOV

In its current state, the Brain fingerprinting article reads like an advertisement for the technique. It appears to be written from the POV that the "Brain Fingerprinting" technique is infallible, and based on undisputed scientific fact.

In particular, the following publications appear to suggest that scientific opinion may be less than unanimous about this view.

J. Peter Rosenfeld. "Brain Fingerprinting:" A Critical Analysis
United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Charles E. Grassley, U.S. Senate. INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES: Federal Agency Views on the Potential Application of "Brain Fingerprinting" October 2001

The MERMER article seems to cover the same material, from the same point of view; from my limited reading, it appears to be a term that is specific to the research that produced the brain fingerprinting technique. I've now replaced it by a redirect to this article.

I think this article needs a major rewrite for NPOV. I've made a start on it: however, I'd like to see this article reviewed further by members of this WikiProject. -- The Anome 11:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment set up

An assessment system for WikiProject Neuroscience has been set up (credit goes to WikiProject Medicine for the text, layout, implementation). If you can, please help by assessing neuroscience articles. Once this process has begun, it will be easier to target neuroscience articles most in need of work.

Over the next week I will try to implement a few more tools and more generally revamp the project. Once structure is in place (and assuming there is enough interest), this project will be able to become active. Participants will be provided with clear goals and tasks (by tools such as assessment and monthly collaboration), which should prevent stagnation. Fingers crossed. --Oldak Quill 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good work. I'll be sure to assess any articles I come across in my travels (I think I assessed one or two expecting the assessment to arrive one day as well, so they should now be done). Thanks. Richard001 06:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should biographical articles be within the scope of this project?

I created the article on John Newsom-Davis, and without looking at this project page, I put a {{neuroscience}} --> now {{WPNEURO}} tag on its talk page (having seen this tag on most of the pages wikilinked from John Newsom-Davis). It's clear from the description on this project page that biographical articles are not within the present scope of this project. I mention it here so that you can decide whether or not they should be brought within the scope of the project.
--NSH001 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think history is well within the scope of this project. It's important to detail science and the progression of ideas with the histories of theories and discoveries included. This extends to biographical articles, institutions, journals, &c. Unless anyone objects, I'll reword the scope of the project to catch history. --Oldak Quill 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Psychiatric abuse

Following an AfD on Psychiatric abuse, which was closed with the article being deleted, a deletion review is being held at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention requested

The quantum consciousness and ion channels article was recently deleted. Would someone (better yet, multiple someones) look into it and comment on this DRV which has been brought up? — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have nominated the article for featured article after working on it. If anybody thinks the article is good enough please vote for it. Any comments for improvement will also be welcomed.Garrondo 14:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure: call for participation

The pleasure article is little more than a stub. It seems silly that we have an extensive article on pain but practically nothing about pleasure. Would members of this project be interested in improving the article? -- Karada 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks needs editors

If any of you are interested, there are several neuroscience textbooks at Wikibooks which are in need of some editors. If you'd like to contribute, you know what to do. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonin and depression help request

There is (to my reading) a fairly ugly article based on the serotonin/monoamine hypothesis of depression, called chemical imbalance. It was originally a coatrack for an anti-psychiatry perspective, but is now at risk of being unbalanced in different ways, so any expert eyes would be appreciated. To my reading "chemical imbalance" is used in lay texts, but that there have been specific hypotheses (e.g., serotonin and depression, dopamine and schizophrenia) that do exist in the scientific literature (but also, that the simple "imbalance" forms of these are not supported by current evidence).--Limegreen 03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my direct experience, imbalance hypotheses seem to have ample validity. They are of course greatly simplified for the general public. 66.218.55.142 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotransmitters

In "Talk:Neurotransmitter#Neurotransmitter effects" I describe a recent psychopharmacology mishap I'm recovering from, and my attempt to map the effects of changing neurotransmitter levels. Does my interpretation appear correct? Which receptors appear to have been preferentially overstimulated or understimulated? 66.218.55.142 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cal vs kcal

Hello! Please see Talk:Brain#Energy_consumption. Thanks, SyP (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha motor neuron

I just nominated alpha motor neuron for WP:GOOD status when I realized that having some extra neuroscience-y eyes on it wouldn't hurt either. Additions, subtractions, and other edits and comments would be much appreciated. --David Iberri (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knol and insomnia

Look at [1]. It would be better to improve article about insomnia in wikipedia, because it will be often compared with the one from Google Knol, and now its quality is rather poor. 83.5.242.20 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles by Llinas

Someone check Calcium concentration microdomains‎ and Subthreshold membrane potential oscillations‎. These article was created by Rodolfo Llinas (talk · contribs) and need clean up and expert attention. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]