Talk:Neuronal noise

Neuroscience Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2012. Further details are available here.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The statement that "On the postsynaptic membrane, neural noise has been evident in the early stages of processing sight, smell, and hearing" does not provide a citation. It is uncorroborated, and cannot be corroborated unless there is indication of how, on the neuronal level, one defines noise versus signal. Until this is done, no associated "theory," which simply employs a hypothetical and unanalyzed "noise" term, is testable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitchygoomy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does something like "Some suggestions indicate that these pacemaker cells might" in the WP:LEAD? That's three qualifications in one sentence. We should state facts. That's what readers care about. Biosthmors (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So is "Mazzoni and colleagues indicate that these pacemaker cells are responsible for our biological clock" accurate, or does it now overstate the source? Biosthmors (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - this is the first line from the abstract of Mazzoni's paper: "Circadian pacemaker neurons contain a molecular clock that oscillates with a period of approximately 24 hr, controlling circadian rhythms of behavior." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaychandora (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, then it sounds like a fact that doesn't need to be attributed to Mazzoni then, as in it's an accepted fact? Attributing it to a person suggests it is a majority or minority opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something isn't well understood, then how can we describe a theory as great? Biosthmors (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a scientific definition for the word "behavior" that is not going to be understood by a layperson? Same thing with sub-threshold. The beginning of the article should be easier to understand than the rest of the article. Biosthmors (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder... is any neuronal noise an byproduct of the background noise of the equipment that measures it? Is that noise negligible? Was it always negligible? Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that s a good one, but i can find an data or research about the topic! let me know if u stumble by anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaychandora (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]