Talk:Brodmann area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.
 

Infobox[edit]

Since this is not a brain region, but rather a method of classifying brain regions, the infobox really doesn't make sense. I'm replacing it with two images. -- Selket Talk 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone known how to confirm that Brodmann's original drawings are in the public domain? (They must be, right?) And also know where to get good digital versions? It seems silly not to use his own drawings. PhineasG (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Area 51 intentionally left out to prevent people making stupid jokes? -- 86.2.250.156 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?[edit]

A user, 99.249.22.155 added NPOV tag to the article. I wonder what specific information is not neutral? — fnielsen (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only two bits of information open to subjective views is the notion that Brodmann areas are the most common used system, a notion which I and many neuroscientists support though, and the singled out reference to a critical article. However this seems to me solvable with addition of references and I don't think this article is righteously questioned on neutrality. I also would assume, as non-frequent user, that such a tag should be at least motivated, else it might as well be vandalism? 130.236.5.145 (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The person who inserted the tag was probably annoyed by the Criticism section, but since there was no explanation, I am going to remove the tag. ("Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this isn't, but it doesn't have much value without an explanation.) Please feel free to edit if you think you can improve the article. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-primate use of Brodmann areas?[edit]

Hi, I'd like to start documenting the cytoarchitectonics of non-primate mammals. I don't know whether this would be suitable in here, or in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoarchitectonics_of_the_cerebral_cortex but I thought it might be appropriate to mention here that the numbers of Brodmann areas are used in non-primate anatomy, even when they're not really homologous.Keepstherainoff (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Area 51?[edit]

Why are there no areas numbered 16, 50, or 51? --Carnildo (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We actually have an article about Brodmann area 16. I don't know why nothing is said about areas 50 and 51 -- a Google Scholar search does find information about them. Looie496 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)