Talk:Neuroscience/Archive 1

Slightly meta question

How is it that Neuroscience is not a topic area???

Two comments

First, the postulate ” Some researchers believe that cognitive neuroscience provides a bottom-up approach to understanding the mind and consciousness that is complementary to, or may replace, the top-down approach of psychology” is a mere speculation. The top-down/bottom-up debate in psychology was going on before the field of neuroscience emerged, and it is unlikely to be resolved by neuroscience in any near future. One could even claim that the fMRI-technique widely used within cognitive neuroscience actually is a top-down approach. It is in some sense in the name itself: "FUNCTIONAL magnetic resonance imaging".

Psyklic 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)I agree -- I have never heard of psychology as being the "top-down approach," although I can somewhat see where that comes from. If anything, I would consider AI to be the main "top-down approach" since researchers begin with high-level features then try to break them down into working pieces.

Second, do you have any concrete reference to people claiming that psychology is a sub-field of neuroscience? I've never read anybody claiming this. Are there actually people saying this? Biological psychology is obviously only one subfield of psychology. There are other fields such as social psychology, health psychology, personality and so on. Are all these a part of neuroscience?

Psyklic 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)I agree with this as well -- neuroscience is more an inclusive group of fields than a specific field, and the mentioned branches of psychology do not fall within its scope.

Having said these things, I like the approach taken in the article. I just think that the text is not optimally organized.

Neuroscience Template

How about a template for neuroscience like the template for psychology (right side of page):

--Nectarflowed 10:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but are the distinctions so clear? Sayeth 16:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neuroscience & Neurobiology

I've read in one glossary a definition of neuroscience as technically being within psychology rather than biology, while neurobiology is within biology. Wikipedia currently has neurobiology redirect to neuroscience. Can anyone explain the distinction between neuroscience and neurobiology? --Nectarflowed 11:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is very difficult because there is even some ambiguity within the neuroscience community. "Neuroscience" is a blanket term that refers to all the specific fields that study the nervous system. In some sense psychology is actually of sub field of neuroscience (though there are some mind/body theorists that would argue it goes the other way). Neurobiology is specifically the the study of the biology of the nervous system. Now that overlapps with neurophysiology which studies physiological propoerties of the nervous system which necessarily involve biological processes.Goferwiki 10:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My current understanding is that neurobiology is strictly related to the biological anatomy and functions of the nervous system and brain. Neuroscience appears to be a bit broader category than neurobiology although I think the distinction is slight and for all practical purposes, these two terms may be synonymous. However, I don't see neuroscience as a sub-category of psychology (as the earlier poster eluded to). I see the fields of psychology and neuroscience as quite different beasts although modern-day psychology is beginning to look more and more like neuroscience. Psychology delves into theories of the mind that would not likely hold much water in contemporary neuroscience (ie. Freudian psychology, Jungian psychology, etc.). Even Aristotle's 'psychology' is far afield from today's neuroscience. Yet, if we suggest that psychology is a field where the history of the study of mind is examined, then psychology would incorporate neuroscience as a modern theory of mind. Philoprof (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Philoprof

---

Comment on the above by Kip Leitner

I don't understand here how it can be seen that psychology and neuroscience are incompatible:

"Psychology delves into theories of the mind that would not likely hold much water in contemporary neuroscience (ie. Freudian psychology, Jungian psychology, etc.). Even Aristotle's 'psychology' is far afield from today's neuroscience. "

Certain aspects of psychologies (Freudian, Jungian, etc...) have been rightly seen as culturally bound (Freudian) or personality-bound (Jungian), but there really isn't any contesting the main point of modern psychology, which, in it's most broadly stated form, might be thought of as an investigation of 'awareness.' People are aware, to a greater or lesser extent, of their internal feelings, motivations, thoughts and behavioral tendencies. That is, humans are conscious of some things and unconsious (unaware) of others. This aspect of the way the human mind works regarding self-awareness is virtually uncontested in the whole of human history. I don't see how neuroscience is in an way contesting this.

-The relationship between psychology and neuroscience is this: they are mostly overlapping fields, but they each have certain contents that are non-overlapping with the other. To the extent that they are overlapping, they study the same thing at different levels of analysis. Whether we say that "psychology is a branch of neuroscience" or "neuroscience is a branch of psychology" is irrelevant; those are both true in some sense. On the one hand, biological psychology is the neuroscientific branch of psychology. On the other hand, behavioral and cognitive neuroscience are the psychological branches of neuroscience. (Of course, all of those terms mean the same thing. Biopsychology is exactly the same field as behavioral neuroscience.) The key is that they focus on different levels of analysis. Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience are concerned with higher levels of analysis than cellular and molecular neuroscience. Nonetheless, they all fall within the scope of neuroscience.

Someone mentioned that social and personality psychology are independent of neuroscience. This is not entirely true. There is now a field called "social neuroscience" which seeks to explain social cognition in terms of its underlying neurobiology. Personality can largely be explained by the nuances of the frontal lobes in the cortex. Social psychology does extend beyond neuroscience, I will grant you that. For example, studying how people behave in social situations is, on its face, not neuroscience. So again, these fields are mostly (but not entirely) overlapping.

Also, leave Freud and Jung out of this. Psychoanalysis is not contemporary psychology. It's a little unfair to compare uncontemporary psychology to contemporary neuroscience. When you compare them properly, they really are cousins in the academic world. -ArcadianGenesis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.241.55 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

population coding

The "population coding" hyperlink in the text is invalid, while there's an entry "population encoding" in Wikipedia. Do they refer to the same thing? If so, maybe we could link them?

• The most commonly used term is "population coding". I've moved the contents from "population encoding" to a new population coding page. That page needs a lot of work though... semiconscious (talk · home) 04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this article need?

The easiest way to expand this article is for us to suggest the section headers it needs and then create and develop them. One way to do this is to look at comparable articles (cardiology, for example - a list t the moment). Anyone have any suggestions? --Oldak Quill 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An awful lot of Cardiology is just a list of disorders.. is that the structure we want to copy? However, I think sections like Anatomy/Physiology and also a look at Methods in Neuroscience would be useful. Maybe also some history? I know some of this stuff is also over on the Brain page, and I'm not sure where it fits better.aelscha 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Neurosurgery

I believe that neurosuegery should be added to Fiels in neuroscience. Neurosurgeons are as important of neuroscientists as anyone else.

...

Neurosurgeons aren't neuroscientists. Surgery is not a science; it is a medical discipline. The distinction is similar to that between an electrical engineer and a physicist specialising in electromagnetism.

Rrritalin (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Online Neuroscience Textbooks

This section should probably be removed for the time-being. Currently, the links are dead. Philoprof (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Philoprof

In the absence of this section, I have added a link to an online neuroscience textbook located at http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/ to the External Links section. 16:41 UTC 29 June 2009 by unregistered user. (Sorry, I lost track of my userid... I'll need to make a new one later on.)

revisions as of august 2006

This is an important article and right now it's not that great. Several things, firstly the history of neuroscience is NOT the same as the history of brain. We need someone to write a comprehensive review of the history of neuroscience. There needs to be more material, if only parsed from Kandel's text book. I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Let's try to make the section more like other major entries on disciplines. I think I'll try to use tables.

Is anyone around? I'm still not done yet with the Computational neuroscience entry. we also need a portal for neuroscience!!sluox

New Portal up and running

I would appreciate, on behalf of us three at Portal:Neuroscience if we could have some help in maintaining. Thanks. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

AC Model Membranes

What is this? I have never heard of it? No Google hits either (except this very WP page). The content has only one line pertinent to the topic. Should it be deleted as 'non-notable'? I think so at least. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 18:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shushruth. I vaguely remember reading about this one but it doesn't strike me as particularly important. I'll doublecheck though. Newtonspeed 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Link Spam

The external links section is getting out of control. We don't need links to every graduate program or journal on the subject.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

--Selket 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to sites with related content is a natural extension of the Wikipedia project. While I in general agree with the idea of filtering sites with commercial functions, if you only allow sites represented by your own circle of contacts, you are going to quickly lose contributers. In the end this will just be a commercial for your own, selected, viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.224 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, this is more than just an issue of commercial links. Just imagine if every university with a neuroscience program or department put a link to their webpage here. It would become unmanageably cluttered. That said, are you referring to the recent edits about a link to a page about brain damage? I looked at that link, and am not convinced that it should have been deleted. If you'd like to indicate here why that particular link is appropriate, I'd be happy to consider adding it back, either to this article or to another. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason I removed it is that the web page is awful -- it's one of those things that only looks decent if you view it in a fully darkened room with the browser set to fullscreen. But the more important reason is that it would open the floodgates -- there are a hundred sites that are at least equally useful. DMOZ is the place for all these things. People should not be using Wikipedia to advertise their web sites. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I only looked at the page briefly, and I see your point about the aesthetics of the page. I tend to think that we can deal with the floodgate issue on a case-by-case basis, and it's often a matter of how much useful and verifiable information a particular link provides. But I don't feel strongly about this particular case either way. I suppose an argument could be made that, if the link were anywhere here, it should be at a more specialized page, like traumatic brain injury or brain damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctoral Degrees in Neuroscience

I know that colleges award both BAs and BSes for neuroscience, simply nobody takes a bachelor's degree in the field seriously regardless.

Universities also award both MDs and PhDs in neuroscience though, which I'd expect have very different requirements, and implications. On the other hand, I met an MD in neuroscience who does nothing but administer neuropsychiatric tests, which certainly isn't brain surgery or neuroimaging (in fact, I know more about neuroimaging than he did).

So it'd be interesting to know what the difference in neuroscientific certification across various subfields, and what privileges they bring (like diagnostic and prescriptive powers).--71.192.116.13 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused. In the US, there are universities that award BS, BPhils in Neuroscience and these are taken as seriously as any other BS or BPhil degree in Biology. Many of these individuals work as technicians in academia or industry that perform the bench work in biological research. Many of these students will eventually go onto obtain a graduate degree (PhD) or enter medical school. Post-baccalaureate Masters degrees (MS) are also awarded, and usually only advance the pay or status of a technical position in an academic or industrial lab. PhD's in Neuroscience are the highest level of academic attainment, as they are in any academic field, and require the successful completion and public defense of a research-based thesis and average about 5 years to complete. None of these degrees brings any specific privileges in diagnosis or prescriptions. Only those awarded professional degrees (MD, DO, OD, DVM, DDS, or DMD, etc) and then certified by their respective boards) can prescribe drugs. Medical schools in the US do not award MDs in special concentrations like Neuroscience. Instead, there are physician-scientist (MD/PhD) programs where a student will complete two years of their medical training, conduct thesis research for 3-4 years to obtain a PhD in Neuroscience or other related field, and then finish the last two years of their MD training after that. The length of those programs generally runs 7-8 years and that individual will then possess both an MD and a PhD degree, each awarded separately. For a straight MDs, specializing in a neuroscience-related clinical field like neurology or psychiatry occurs during the internship and residency phase of training after the MD. Academic or industrial positions for those that direct research projects usually require individuals to have PhDs or MDs with substantial evidence of post-graduate research training (e.g. post-doctoral fellowships with a publication record). However, a neuroscientist could be defined simply anyone who studies the nervous system, and can include any of these individuals. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with improving the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The SfN sentence removed by an IP editor

Let's discuss, please. I let this removal pass when I saw it, because it seemed to me that the sentence was at best out of place at that location -- "Neuroscience" should be defined without invoking the SfN. A mention somewhere later in the article would seem completely appropriate to me; but I don't have strong feelings about any of this. In any case there is too much reverting going on here. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize! Woops, I hadn't seen this very reasonable comment when I made my most recent edit, and that was my fault. Anyway, I think that, on the one hand, Crusio is quite correct that the original version was too U.S.-centric. But I also think that it's wrong to solve that problem the way the IP editor did, by just deleting the whole thing. I'm afraid I don't know what EBBS is, and didn't find the info in a hurried Google search, but I think the solution is to add that information before the SfN information, rather than delete. My edit summary says that more briefly, and anyone who finds my edit too ugly please feel free to revert me. I won't mind that, but I don't agree with just deleting it and leaving it deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about "EBBS", that's the "European Brain and Behaviour Society, as far as I know - but I am not an WP:RS -:) the oldest neuroscience society around. I agree with Looie496 that this doesn't really belong in the lead, but somewhere more below. Sorry, should have explained that here before reverting again... I guess we're agreed it's not a major point :-) I'll add this to the existing text and leave it up to others to move it down. --Crusio (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and you are absolutely right about making the page less U.S.-centric. I think the new information is a real improvement. Although it isn't really a move down lower on the page, I've made an edit that I think may make the lead flow better, with the first paragraph centering on defining neuroscience, and the second describing how the field is evolving. In my opinion, it works pretty well this way, but see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be okay to add a mention of Hippocrates to make "much earlier" more concrete? He (or they, as some people believe) wrote a treatise on epilepsy that's the earliest example of neuroscience I know of. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Seems excellent to me. --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it! The "much earlier" has been bothering me, too, as being weasly. I suppose that, as this progresses, we might eventually want to have a "history of neuroscience" section lower down. (Woops again, there actually is a history section already. I think this isn't my day.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Neuroimaging as a major branch- theme of research

I would like to add links within the Major Branches - Themes of Research to the Neuroimaging material here at the Wiki. Currently there is no mention of clinically based work with imaging brain structure and metabolism which has added so much to the field. For example, the Brain mapping project at UCLA or the development of the PET scan by Micheal Phelps.

There is already a section on neuroimaging here at the Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_imaging

I believe this work also justifies a section with the main body of the article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdschmanke (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I always have great difficulty seeing how to handle things like this, there are so many options. I wonder if we should try to duplicate the way the Society for Neuroscience does this? (Which I don't remember completely off the top of my head.) Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First, welcome to Tdschmanke! I think the neuroimaging link you added to this page is a very good improvement. As for Looie's question, I think there are two parts to it (and I may be misunderstanding what you asked). As for doing per SfN, I assume you mean to use the theme organization they use at the annual meeting. I'm not sure where at WP we would use that, but I think it would be too restrictive for use in the major areas section of this page. SfN needs to organize a meeting into a relatively few theme areas, whereas we, as an encyclopedia, should allow for more complexity. There could also be an issue of being too U.S.-centric. The other part is about having links in the external links section, to sites like the UCLA one. My personal opinion is that we cannot simply allow links to every institution that has a program, but we should include links that can be justified as providing useful information that expands on what our article provides. That ends up being a subjective call that has to be made case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Added link to neuroimaging in Major Themes section, table entry to Major Branches. Tdschmanke (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note discussion

Please note the discussion here about redirecting Neurobiology to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And where are we at with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I found the article Neuroscience studies and believe that it does not need to exist as an article in its own right. Either the contents of that page be merged into some section of this article or the Neuroscience studies article should be improved so that there is enough reason to keep the articles separate.--Kpstewart (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It strikes me as a little odd to have a page on "x" studies, separate from the page on "x." Anything worth keeping from that other page could be incorporated into the section you tagged on this page, if it isn't already there, and then the studies page should be deleted. Please note that I have also put a comment here, inviting interested editors to be aware of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that it should be merged. It didn't show up on User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult when it was created, or I'd have been on it much earlier. I've just tweaked the bot rules, hopefully to make things like this more likely to show up. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)|

Thirded, or fourthed. I think it should be merged into the main neuroscience article. I'll go throw a snowball at the merger discussion now. Edhubbard (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think I may have been hasty above. I think standard procedure is to put a tag on the article in question, and on the article that we want to merge the content into, and let the discussions continue on the relevant talk pages. See WP:Merging. Edhubbard (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Or not... Looks like we only need to do this if we think it might be controversial. Edhubbard (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For me there's no controversy, this was probably started by someone who did not know about the basic Neuroscience pages. I vote for the merge! Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Urge Merge! -kslays (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have a consensus. :-) Kpstewart, do you want to take the lead on merging and integrating the material from Neuroscience studies into the main neuroscience article?

The article Neuroscience studies is still out there. Neurofish (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

Looking at Neuroscience studies, I don't actually see anything to merge. The text is all essayish, and the one reference is from a pretty weak source. Unless there is an objection in the next day or so, I will simply turn that article into a redirect to this one. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It does contain a little material about curricula. I wonder if that could be merged into a short new section on this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to take responsibility for merging material unless I can validate it, and I have no way of validating those statements, innocuous as they are. Looie496 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No big deal for me, either way. I do think they are innocuous, and an inline cite to the ref there would be adequate. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just redirect it. If someone comes up with a verifiable source, we can always add it here later. --Crusio (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a new editor has just started editing and sourcing it (not that I've checked the sources). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have redirected it here. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one starting on updating and verifying the neuroscience studies article to address the issues here as it was redirected. But I think the redirect is a good move as well. The essential information that this is about (undergraduate) neuroscience education/curricula is available in its short table entry on the main page.Neuroed (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not merge. I think the problem is in the term neuroscience studies. It should simply be renamed, neuroscience education or perhaps the broader term neuroscience literacy. This is a huge area of interest of many SfN and Dana members and thus should remain. This area is best dealt with as a separate section and thus should remain but likely renamed as noted above.

Ibpeducation (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the merger has already been done and your comments above describe a potential article quite different from the one merged, so why doin't you give it a try and write such an article on neuroscience literacy or neuroscience education yourself? --Crusio (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose broadening of categories

Although I appreciate the breath and diversity of neuroscience, I find the increasing number of branches and categories in this article to be a little unwieldy. It is not clear for example, if the distinction between the branches is one of levels of analysis (Systems vs Molecular and Cellular) or one of methods used (Neuroimaging vs ?). I think broader, more inclusive categorizations should be used in this article. This is especially the case with respect to the paragraph of the article. For example, we may group biochemsitry and genetics into "molecular biology" and group informatics and computational neuroscience into "quantitative" or some other similar and more commonly used term. What do you guys think? mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current presentation is likely to make readers's eyes glaze over. Looie496 (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could start with the first paragraph and slowly make edits from there. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove redundant sections

I propose that we remove two sections: Major themes of research and Allied and overlapping fields. These two sections are unnecessary duplications of the Major Branches Table and are not very informative. They should be replaced with either a short text or if necessary, be integrated with the Major Branches table. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. I'd be inclined to merge them into the Major Branches table, and basically have all that stuff in one place. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

=Very well then, I will see what I can do. Anyone else who has a good idea or so and would like to give it a shot (merge the sections) should go ahead and do it. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of modern neuroscience

This section has been updated to address the problem of linking neuroscience to complex human behaviours, and in particular to those complex behaviours manifest as individual differences in personality, temperament and cognition and to record new empirical and theoretical developments in this field of research.

Ultimâ (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. You wrote "has been updated" -- did you mean "needs to be updated"? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel badly about doing this, but I've reverted some of the editor's edits, per WP:OR and WP:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that I pretty much agree with everything that was written there (with the possible exception of the importance of thalamocortical oscillations) -- but this article is not the place where it belongs. This article is supposed to give an overview of the field of neuroscience based on well-known books and papers -- it shouldn't express views that can't be attributed directly to specific publications. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Computational Modelling: Importance

"Recent theoretical advances in neuroscience have also been aided by the use of computational modeling of neural networks."

...such as ?

Computational modelling is a promising approach, but perhaps the computational/simulations approach is given undue weight by its presence in the introduction. Computational approaches are currently mentioned twice in the introduction. Far more important, I believe, has been the evolution of new technologies. Although not too recent, significant developments were made in the 80s and 90s.

Ostracon (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right about asking "such as?". As a short-term fix, I added a link to neural network. However, I don't really think that the sentence in question is WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neural networks are important in creating models of brain function, however, the models that have aided neuroscience so far are not necessarily computational (e.g. using weighted coefficients in a connectionist model). Rather, current neuroscientific models don't model the firing of brain cells, but the mere connections between brain areas and possibly the direction of the neuronal impulse. In the near future this might change, however, supporters of the claim 'computational models have aided neuroscientific theories' would have to provide examples of such theories.Ostracon (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the suggestion that we replace "computational models" with "improvements in technologies," since the latter terms are more broader and does not exclude the use of computational tools. My two cents. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence to omit the part about computation. Does that work better? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. As a temporary measure, I marked the material in the diff you provided as "citation needed". Are there two other places on the page that should also be checked? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Neuroscience|b00fbd26}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Neuro-realism, etc

Looie has removed sourced information, apparently because what the two sources said isn't within his/her personal experience.

I do not claim to be an expert, and I am open to all sorts of approaches here, but I think that these concepts need to be represented somewhere in the encyclopedia.

Actually, some of the concepts are already present in this article—the bit about wanting to "study and refine educational techniques to optimize learning among students" is a classic example of neuro-policy—but I think that we need to include simple definitions and the current terms for the concepts, rather than examples without the broader context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that both WhatamI and Looie made these edits in good faith, and the issue comes down to whether or not the source cited was WP:UNDUE. As I mentioned briefly at What's talk page, my suggestion would be that we should, indeed, include some material on these points, but make sure that we source it to multiple sources, not just relying on a single source. (For what it's worth, there were some very interesting presentations about these issues at the recent Society for Neuroscience convention; I'll try to find some sources.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with terms or concepts such as Neuro-essentialism or Neuro-realism. In fact, I've never heard of these ideas until these recent edits. From what I understand, WhatamIdoing is making the point that these ideas are nonscientific and that the purpose of public outreach in neuroscience is essentially to dispel these ideas? Is that a fair a summary? If so and if there is a wide consensus in the neuroscience community on this, then perhaps one or two sentences should be sufficient so as not to give undue weight as suggested by Tryptofish? mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The terms are apparently fairly new, but the concepts aren't all that new.

Trypto, as a point of fact, what I added contained two independent sources, not merely one. And there are many more available; a brief trip to your favorite web search engine should produce a list like this, as well as PMID 20609506, PMID 15685221, ISBN 9780262014199, ISBN 9780393068382, ISBN 9780262014199, ISBN 9781402041068. ISBN 9781405133234 (p 104-106) is also relevant, although it doesn't happen to use the exact term my sources did. (Papers like PMID 17350234 and PMID 18423669 are relevant, but probably beyond the scope of this article.)

Like everyone else here, I would prefer that this article correctly reflect the overall views of the experts on these points—but I see no reason so far to think that what I wrote doesn't do that. Could I get you all to please actually take five minutes to read the bloody sources before assuming that I've misrepresented them or that major university presses are dedicated to producing unimportant, fringey garbage? I didn't name the sources for their decorative value; I named them so that even editors who were personally unfamiliar with this bit of neuroscience could double-check what I've written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

About two versus one, my mistake, sorry. As I said, I'm receptive to covering this, but I also share the cognitive dissonance about the edit, that three of us have now noted. By the way, there is also a page on Educational neuroscience. I'll try to help with this when I have enough time. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I hope you don't feel like you are being "ganged up" upon. I was just expressing puzzlement at these terms and concepts precisely because I have never heard of them. I briefly scanned through the two journal references that you provided. I acknowledge that there they are there. I guess my question is "whether there is a concerted public outreach effort by neuroscientists and educational experts to try and dispel these ideas?" Or are these ideas just floating out there in the media and that some neuroscientists just happened to discuss them in an academic setting. Again, I confess I am naive to all this and so would like to know a little more. :D mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (which is pretty extensive), neuroscience outreach focuses on three things: (1) explaining basic facts about the brain and nervous system, (2) explaining what neuroscientists do when they carry out research, (3) relating neuroscience to drugs and medical problems. Most neuroscientists, even the ones who do outreach, are uncomfortable with philosophy and don't get into it unless it comes up. I don't object to some sort of nuanced statement that dealing with these issues is part of neuroscience outreach, I just don't think it should be portrayed as a central focus. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of this is also a matter of determining what is "neuroscience education" (or outreach), what is "educational neuroscience", and what is "neuroethics". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "educational neuroscience" is an area of neuro-policy, but it's certainly not the only area, since neuro-policy runs from "we should structure school lessons like this" through "the brain scan says he's an irremediable criminal who should be locked up for life". "Neuroscience education"—leaving aside basic classroom lessons for school children—seems to involve a lot of neuroscientists shouting, "Don't be such a pack of fools! A difference of two pixels doesn't prove anything!" into the apparently deaf ears of politicians and consumers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Looie, you know I'm one of your fans, but is your personal experience really a proper reliable source for this point? And if not, would you please actually read the sources I've provided? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This still needs to be resolved. Have any of you read the sources yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The proper source, if material about this is included, is this paper from Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a much more authoritative source than a book chapter. (Book chapters are typically not reviewed in any sort of rigorous way.) I can't see, though, that any of the sources I have looked at justifies the top statement you inserted, "One goal of some public education is to combat the three most common misconceptions". A statement that would more accurately reflect the literature would be something like, "Some writers have argued that one goal of public education should be to combat misconceptions such as the following three..." Even then I am not sure that spelling out the three misconceptions constitutes appropriate weight in our article. If you search Google Scholar for "neuroscience outreach" you get thousands of hits; there are perhaps a dozen dealing with those misconceptions. A far more prevalent view of what outreach means is reflected in, for example, (LINKhttp://neuro.cjb.net/cgi/content/full/28/46/11743 this Journal of Neuroscience editorial). (For some reason which I shall now investigate, that link to the Journal of Neuroscience website shows up as blacklisted, hence the weird way I wrote it.) Looie496 (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As the point being made does not concern scientific facts, the fact that most books do not undergo peer review is irrelevant. This sort of information can be properly sourced to the mainstream media, if we want. Reporting that, e.g., "politicians want to scan the brains of criminals so 'the computer' will tell them which ones are safe to release on parole" is not a "medical" assertion. It's a social issue.

(I have no objection to your source; I just don't consider it superior to any other source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Affective neuroscience

Why is affective neuroscience a footnote to the list of disciplines, rather than included in the list. Is no one working in that area? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I no longer remember (insert joke about clinical neuroscience here), and I guess one would have to go back through the edit history. But I get the impression that although people work do in the area, it's a term that was coined to denote a combination of branches, rather than being a branch itself. Perhaps it's not even notable enough to be included? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the term is notable enough to mention: there is a textbook called Affective Neuroscience by Jaak Panksepp. But I don't think it is widely recognized as a distinct subdivision -- more like a sub-subdivision of Behavioral Neuroscience. Looie496 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also two journals that use this term: One published by Oxford University press called Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience [1] and the other by the Psychonomic Society/Springer called Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience [2]. Both of these journals seem to treat affective neuroscience as being on par with these other recognized subfields of neuroscience. In addition, there is a society called the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society [3], and a couple of labs that I could turn up in a quick google search that have named themselves "Affective Neuroscience" lab in some way [4] [5]. We also have a wiki article on Affective neuroscience, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to make it a wikilink and have it be clearly listed, rather than just a footnote. On the other hand, it often seems that affective neuroscience is used as a synonym for social neuroscience, so we might make that clearer. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nursing

Figured it out yet? :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh-huh. If you had taught in the university where I used to teach, you'd get a headache at the mere mention of the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommend Archiving Talk

The number of sections on this page is getting a little too long. Perhaps we should get Miszabot to archive some of it? danielkueh (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the rate of input justifies bot-archiving, but I went ahead and hand-archived the material through Dec 2010. It is always possible to give the bot control of the system at any time if future developments justify it. Looie496 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Looks a lot better now. danielkueh (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this article to "Good Article" status? If so, what would be the best way to go about achieving that? danielkueh (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I think the main thing that is missing is sources for a lot of the statements. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Where should we start? Should we get this article reviewed first? danielkueh (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like the best place to start is WP:GACR. I guess I will start by inserting references in places that need it. danielkueh (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done a number of GA reviews and taken a couple of articles through the process myself, so I have a pretty good idea what it takes to get an article to pass. The main killer issues that typically arise are completeness, quality of writing, and quality of sourcing. This article appears to be pretty complete and the quality of writing is pretty good, so sourcing will be the largest issue. There may also be issues of layout, formatting, and image usage, but those are typically easy to fix. Looie496 (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the sentences with the "citation needed" tags, perhaps we could start identifying additional statements that need sourcing. danielkueh (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Any paragraph that does not have at least one reference will be a red flag to a reviewer (except in the lead, where the usual practice is to minimize references). Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I will start with the History section then. danielkueh (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the "Subject Matter" section. However, I think it could be merged with the Foundations of Neuroscience section. What do you guys think? danielkueh (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the first thing a reader wants to know is, what does a neuroscientist do? -- and the article should answer that as directly and quickly as possible. However I recognize that there are other possible ways to think about things. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the rationale. It is just that there is a bit of a duplicacy. I will be putting some thoughts into it. Given my other commitments, you will have to forgive me for being a little slow. danielkueh (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about how best to handle that, too. How about keeping "Subject matter" as a level 2 heading, but making the "Foundations", "Medicine", and "Branches" sections into sub-sections within it, since they all are aspects of the subject matter? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the subheading "subject matter" to be a little redundant. Nevertheless, I do agree that the newly written content is important and will serve as a good introduction to the field. My suggestions below. danielkueh (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New foundations section

Here is what I was thinking for a newly revised foundations section:

==Modern Neuroscience==

===Overview===

Neuroscience can be defined as the study of the nervous system in all its aspects: how it is structured, how it works, how it develops, how it malfunctions, and how it can be changed. The scientific study of the nervous system has increased significantly during the second half of the twentieth century, principally due to advances in molecular biology, electrophysiology, and computational neuroscience. It has become possible to understand, in much detail, the complex processes occurring within a single neuron. Neurons are cells specialized for communication. They are able to contact with neurons and other cell types through specialized junctions called synapses, at which electrical or electrochemical signals can be transmitted from one cell to another. Many neurons extrude long thin filaments of protoplasm called axons, which may extend to distant parts of the body and are capable of rapidly carrying electrical signals, influencing the activity of other neurons, muscles, or glands at their termination points. A nervous system emerges from the assemblage of neurons that are connected to each other.

In vertebrates, the nervous system can be split into two parts, the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), and the peripheral nervous system. In many species — including all vertebrates — the nervous system is the most complex organ system in the body, with most of the complexity residing in the brain. The human brain alone contains around a hundred billion neurons and a hundred trillion synapses; it consists of thousands of distinguishable substructures, connected to each other in synaptic networks whose intricacies have only begun to be unraveled. The majority of genes belonging to the human genome are expressed specifically in the brain. Thus the challenge of making sense of all this complexity is formidable.

===Molecular and cellular neuroscience===

The study of the nervous system can be done at multiple levels, ranging from the molecular and cellular levels to the systems and cognitive levels. At the molecular level, the basic questions addressed in molecular neuroscience include the mechanisms by which neurons express and respond to molecular signals and how axons form complex connectivity patterns. At this level, tools from molecular biology and genetics are used to understand how neurons develop and how genetic changes affect biological functions. The morphology, molecular identity, and physiological characteristics of neurons and how they relate to different types of behavior are also of considerable interest.

At the cellular level, the fundamental questions addressed in cellular neuroscience include the mechanisms of how neurons process signals physiologically and electrochemically. They address how signals are processed by dendrites, somas and axons, and how neurotransmitters and electrical signals are used to process signals in a neuron. Another major area of neuroscience is directed at investigations of the development of the nervous system. These questions include the patterning and regionalization of the nervous system, neural stem cells, differentiation of neurons and glia, neuronal migration, axonal and dendritic development, trophic interactions, and synapse formation.

===Neural circuits and systems===

At the systems level, the questions addressed in systems neuroscience include how neural circuits are formed and used anatomically and physiologically to produce functions such as reflexes, sensory integration, motor coordination, circadian rhythms, emotional responses, learning, and memory. In other words, they address how these neural circuits function and the mechanisms through which behaviors are generated. For example, systems level analysis addresses questions concerning specific sensory and motor modalities: how does vision work? How do songbirds learn new songs and bats localize with ultrasound? How does the somatosensory system process tactile information? The related fields of neuroethology and neuropsychology address the question of how neural substrates underlie specific animal and human behaviors. Neuroendocrinology and psychoneuroimmunology examine interactions between the nervous system and the endocrine and immune systems, respectively. Despite many advancements, the way networks of neurons produce complex cognitions and behaviors is still poorly understood.

===Cognitive and behavioral neuroscience===

At the cognitive level, cognitive neuroscience addresses the questions of how psychological functions are produced by neural circuitry. The emergence of powerful new measurement techniques such as neuroimaging (e.g., fMRI, PET, SPECT), electrophysiology, and human genetic analysis combined with sophisticated experimental techniques from cognitive psychology allows neuroscientists and psychologists to address abstract questions such as how human cognition and emotion are mapped to specific neural substrates.

Neuroscience is also allied with the social and behavioral sciences as well as nascent interdisciplinary fields such as neuroeconomics, decision theory, and social neuroscience to address complex questions about interactions of the brain with its environment.

Ultimately neuroscientists would like to understand every aspect of the nervous system, including how it works, how it develops, how it malfunctions, and how it can be altered or repaired. The specific topics that form the main foci of research change over time, driven by an ever-expanding base of knowledge and the availability of increasingly sophisticated technical methods. Over the long term, improvements in technology have been the primary drivers of progress. Developments in electron microscopy, computers, electronics, functional brain imaging, and most recently genetics and genomics, have all been major drivers of progress.

===Neuroscience and medicine===

Neurology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, psychosurgery, neuropathology, neuroradiology, clinical neurophysiology and addiction medicine are medical specialties that specifically address the diseases of the nervous system. These terms also refer to clinical disciplines involving diagnosis and treatment of these diseases. Neurology works with diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and stroke, and their medical treatment. Psychiatry focuses on affective, behavioral, cognitive, and perceptual disorders. Neuropathology focuses upon the classification and underlying pathogenic mechanisms of central and peripheral nervous system and muscle diseases, with an emphasis on morphologic, microscopic, and chemically observable alterations. Neurosurgery and psychosurgery work primarily with surgical treatment of diseases of the central and peripheral nervous systems. The boundaries between these specialties have been blurring recently as they are all influenced by basic research in neuroscience. Brain imaging also enables objective, biological insights into mental illness, which can lead to faster diagnosis, more accurate prognosis, and help assess patient progress over time.

danielkueh (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why the title of the section would be "foundations". To me, foundations is synonymous with history. What do you (or Tryptofish) understand the word to signify? Looie496 (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

To me, the term signifies "principles," "basics," or "fundamentals." Here are a couple of few examples:

Foundations of Systems Biology by Kitano

Foundations of Behavioral Neuroscience by Carlson.

Foundations of Cellular Neurophysiology by Johnston and Wu

The subheading was inspired in part by the wiki article on biology, which has a subsection entitled "Foundations of modern biology." danielkueh (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I would regard "foundations" as part of "history", too, as Looie does. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since knowledge is cumulative, I imagine it would require some knowledge of history. Would "fundamentals" be better? danielkueh (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just omit "foundations" and simply call it "Modern Neuroscience." After all, it is situated right below the history section. danielkueh (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there are a couple of ways to go, but I like "Modern neuroscience" the best of those discussed here. We could also use a title that refers to subject matter or something like it. And I still think it makes sense to include the branches under it, and, having included the branches, it makes sense to include the medicine section as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That approach works for me. We can always revisit the issue if it turns into a problem. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to use a tree, then here is a suggestion:

• Modern neuroscience

• Overview
• Molecular and Cellular
• Circuits and Systems
• Cognitive and behavioral neuroscience
• Applied and medicine

Thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Looie496 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Does that mean the Major branches section would be replaced by text? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Although I don't mind doing away with Major Branches altogether. danielkueh (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to getting rid of the table format, in favor of regular text, but I don't think we should leave details about sub-disciplines out if we do convert it all to text. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean if we don't convert it in the text? danielkueh (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I also inserted the proposed subheadings into the integrated text above. Let me know what you guys think. danielkueh (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Now that you inserted the headers, I see that I misunderstood before. OK, here are my revised questions. :-)

1. The page now has a Subject matter section: I presume the above would replace it, right?
2. The page now has a Foundations of neuroscience section: what becomes of that?
3. The page now has a Neuroscience and medicine section: am I correct that it becomes the corresponding paragraph above?
4. And finally, the page now has a Major branches section: there are details in that section now, not all of which are retained above. I want all the details that are now in the table to be kept on the page, not deleted, so unless we simply keep the table, those details need to be incorporated into the text above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The above proposed text is meant to replace three sections: 1) Subject matter, 2) Foundations of neuroscience, and 3) Neuroscience and medicine. If you look closely at the above suggested text, it is an integrated version of all three sections. I am leaving the Major branches table as is for now. One thing at a time. :) danielkueh (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

I just fixed an entry in the Further reading section, but on looking it over, I'm inclined to dump the whole section. It's basically a random collection of books, most of which are good, but not necessarily better than a lot of other books. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the section but I would move it to the talk page instead. Just a bit more available for those who want it (instead of checking history). Lova Falk talk 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue for leaving it as it is (although I'd have no objection to a thoughtful removal of individual entries, if they aren't useful enough). I see from the page edit history that the issue came up because someone put a tag at the top of the page. I agree with Looie's reversion of the tag, but I don't think that we need to question the existence of the section in reaction to it. If some of our readers find the list helpful to find something they want to read, splendid! And if not, there's no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of term by psychologists

They are now calling themselves "neurobiologists" and "neuroscientists". However, the studies they publish have zero discussion of nervous functioning from the biological point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.171.79 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Relevance to Education

Neuroscience is very much a part of Education. Please review the writings of James Zull as well as others . . . Zull, J. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, L.L.C. Stmullin (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of that. That's why I added the sentence about neuroeducation. Did you see that before you put it back into the sentence immediately before? But there's an important distinction: neuroscience interacts with, for example, chemistry, in terms of the scientific methods employed. Neurochemistry, in this case, is a science that combines the two. But your putting education in there is more like putting law in there. Those are applications of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This concerns preschool education . . ."According to Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron, and Shonkoff (2006), research by neuroscientists, economic theorists, and behavioral psychologists has touched on, “a set of common principles that help to explain the potent effects of early environment on the capacity for human skill development” (p. 10155). Reports from the government-sponsored organization Smart Start (2006) and Zull (2002) also support these principles. Peter Huttenlocher’s 1994 synapse count, as shown in James Zull’s The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning (2002, p. 120), illustrates how synapses decline during childhood, reinforcing the concept that intelligence is influenced by the early learning environment. Synapses increase during learning and are lost when not frequently used. If not adequately developed in early childhood, an individual’s synaptic pathways could significantly deplete, impairing the individual’s potential as an adult." Please do not delete properly referenced text before reading the citations.Stmullin (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I really do understand what you are saying; please take a breath and slow down. I didn't delete it. I moved it to the next sentence, right after it. There's a difference between interdisciplinary science, what the first sentence is about, and interdisciplinary applications, which is what the sentence I added is about. Yes, you are quite correct that neuroscience is playing a major and important role in our understanding of education. I'm not trying to keep that off of this page, just making sure that we discuss it in the right way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern now is that your link is set to a weak page in education . . . our thread begins at philosophy of education which isn't tangential to neuroscience . . . maybe learning would be a better link to education? Also, since I am a STEM educator, I do not understand why you would compare us with law, we are science as well as liberal arts.. Stmullin (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

About the links, I think there's a limit to how much we can fit into the lead paragraph, but I actually think that the neuroscience-education relationship is important enough to justify a table section in the major branches section. That way, we can devote a few sentences to it, and incorporate all of those links, and maybe more if you would like. About the sentence that includes neurolaw, I didn't intend it to be a comparison, in the sense of equating them, so I'd be open to alternative wording, but the idea was that this sentence would be about areas in which neuroscience is influencing other professional disciplines. Neuroscience has started to play an important role in education, and it has started to play an important role in law, but that doesn't mean that education and law are otherwise related to each other. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Molecular and cellular cognition

Molecular and cellular cognition is a branch of neuroscience because: 1- It has its own society (molecular and cellular cognition society; www.molcellcog.org) with bylawas, a distinguished Council with two Nobel Laureates, a president, etc.. The Society has held yearly meetings since 2002 in the US, Japan, Korea and China. The Society has more than 5000 members. 2- It has its own modus operandi that distinguishes it from other areas/fields in neuroscience. Studies in this area bridge molecular, cellular and behavioral/cognitive neuroscience 3- There is a core of more than 100 laboratories that publish most of their papers in this field, and a large number of other laboratories (>400) that contribute to the field 4- This society and its meetings that have attracted a great of funding and support from NIH and other sister organizations world wide. Meetings in the US routinelly atract more than 500 people. Meetings in other countris have attracted an average of 200 people 5- The society has run a number of schools that introduce other neuroscientists to work in this area

Please let me know why molecular and cellular cognition was deleted from the list of fields/areas in neuroscience, and the Molecular and cellular cognition society was deleted from the list of organizations in neuroscience. I am sure that there was a reason and I would like to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.230.179 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be listed as an area of neuroscience unless at least a short article about it exists -- feel free to create one. Also, it was never deleted from the list of organizations as far as I can see -- you yourself deleted the link to its web site. I have restored the link. Please try to examine the actual results of your edits before saving them. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As Looie pointed out, it's fine to include the organization. But if it's going to be kept as a "major branch", it's going to need a source other than the organization's website. Is there a secondary source? Otherwise, there needs to be a page on Wikipedia about it, because everything else in the table links to a standalone page. See also WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've given this question more thought. As I said, there's no problem at all with listing the organization in the organizations section of the page. We clearly have a WP:V source that this organization exists, and is large enough that it's encyclopedic to include it there. The issue is whether to include the subject in the major branches section of the page, and I'm concerned that there may be a WP:NOTPROMOTION issue about including it.

I looked, by way of analogy, at Category:Neuroscience journals. Here are a couple of them that have interdisciplinary titles: Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, Journal of Neurotherapy, Neuropsychobiology, Neuropsychopharmacology (journal), Neuroquantology, Psychoneuroendocrinology (journal), Psychopharmacology (journal), Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (journal), and Social Neuroscience (journal). My point is that there obviously is scholarly work in each of those areas, but that does not mean that each one represents the precise wording for a different major branch of neuroscience. Some of them are plainly alternative ways of naming similar fields. Others are specific combinations that overlap other, larger branches of the field.

I fully accept as true what the opening post of this talk thread says. But I have to wonder whether the 2 Nobel Laureates and the 5000 members would describe themselves primarily as working in the field of "molecular and cellular cognition", and not in any of the other "major branches" that we list on this page. Do any of those people do work in molecular neuroscience, cellular neuroscience, or cognitive or behavioral neuroscience? Do any of them belong to other neuroscience organizations, or go to other kinds of neuroscience meetings? I imagine that most do. Thus, "molecular and cellular cognition" describes an interest area that makes for a useful meeting, but that doesn't mean that there is a major (as Wikipedia would conceive of it) branch that is distinct from other major branches.

If there is really independent sourcing, alright. But if that isn't provided, we eventually ought to delete it from the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Five primary sources have just been added: [6]. I find them unpersuasive, because they require WP:SYNTH to draw any conclusions about it being a "major branch". The question isn't whether there is research in this area. Of course there is. The question is whether it should be described as a "major branch". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@Alcinojsilva:@99.101.230.179:

It appears that an article DOES exist, Molecular cellular cognition, created by User:Alcinojsilva, who is now editing as 99.101.230.179. Maybe Dr. Silva, a major player(?!) in this field, to say the least, isn't aware of our WP:COI policy, but he needs to use his account (sockpuppetry isn't allowed here) and edit more carefully. Self-promotion isn't cool, but carefully and openly suggesting good sources, including one's own research, is still allowed on the talk page. Directly editing articles with which one is very closely connected, such as Molecular cellular cognition, or directly adding links to one's own research is definitely not good. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

why should philosophy and psychology be included as "neuroscience"?

there is nothing scientific about either of the two areas. the links should be removed from this science article. in fact, there is no science in linguistics either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Psychology is a science, whether you like that or not. It's true though that philosophy is not a science.178.117.252.112 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

tryptofish's edits

hi guys, tryptofish is trying to put american scholars' work before the great sir alan and andrew's 1952 experiment. he is persistent and won't back off. looking at edits for rioch's wiki, he was there as well.

i demand an impartial edit occur, as tryptofish will not stop. he somehow thinks this katz' guys 1962 study takes priority over sir alan & andrew's 1952 paper. i told him earlier to edit it properly and put it in chronological order, but he refused.

further, he wants to make the claim that because rioch started in 1951 @ the walter reed institute, that it somehow deserves to go before sir alan & andrew's 1952 study. i find this to be inexcusable, as it's highly unlikely rioch did anything of note before sir alan & andrew's 1952 study.

can someone request a mod or admin to lock this page until a proper edit has been agreed upon? there are too many american sockpuppets that will overemphasize their fellow citizens' role in science, and i feel this is the case here.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm being pinged. I only reverted you once. The second revert was by User:Randykitty, not by me, so you need to realize that consensus seems to be going against you. No one is disputing the greatness of Hodgkin and Huxley, nor is anyone except you seeing this as a battle between the US and the UK. The discussion of the history of the emergence of the discipline is sourced to a review of the subject by Eric Kandel and others. It's not about the greatest experiments of all time, but about the emergence of departments of neuroscience in universities, recognized as a discipline in its own right. Rioch began in the early 1950s and Kuffler continued through the 1960s, in terms of the contributions to the field that are identified in the source material. It's false to say that the order of the paragraphs has anything to do with the prominence of the research. I don't particularly mind putting the paragraph about the breakthrough experiments by Hodgkin, Huxley, and, oh look!, Kandel, before the paragraph about the discipline, except that I think it wouldn't particularly flow as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm away from my desk (and the sources), but going from memory, I believe the RS show that indeed, Rioch's early work in the 1940s and possibly earlier was of some note and is written about as such, particularly in terms of his work on animal brains. So I believe the OP is mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

i'm okay with tryptofish's response. at least he was okay with putting hodgkin and huxley first. that's all i care about. if it's for flow purposes, fine. i'm cool. thanks for being sport(s), guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Things have changed since his response, hence the discussion. Are you able to follow it? Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Neuroscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150721012022/http://www.ibro.info/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID=2343 to http://www.ibro.info/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID=2343
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121123095255/http://www.neurochemistry.org/Information/History/TheBeginning.aspx to http://www.neurochemistry.org/Information/History/TheBeginning.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104220445/http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/imagerie-cerebrale?locale=en to http://www.douglas.qc.ca/page/imagerie-cerebrale?locale=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518031600/http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=core_concepts to http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=core_concepts

These two worked:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120915005024/http://www.sfn.org/skins/main/pdf/annual_report/fy2010/highlights.pdf to http://www.sfn.org/skins/main/pdf/annual_report/fy2010/highlights.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140530074023/http://www.science.mcmaster.ca:80/brainbee/ to http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/brainbee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Neuroscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123095255/http://www.neurochemistry.org/Information/History/TheBeginning.aspx to http://www.neurochemistry.org/Information/History/TheBeginning.aspx
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.ncrrsepa.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neuroscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920174421/http://www.ncrrsepa.org/ to http://www.ncrrsepa.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Leading issue

The lead (lede) paragraph of the aricle ends with the unreferenced statement:

The term neurobiology is often used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system.

It rests on the prior statement that neuroscience collaborates, in a way that is inferred as somehow unique, with other fields within science and elsewhere. The statement:

it is currently an interdisciplinary science 

which does not fit well with the wiki entry for the adjective interdisciplinary it is linked to

Interdisciplinarity involves the combining of two or more academic disciplines into one activity (e.g., a research project). et seq

While the silos of individual disciplines is often noted, it is hard to imagine a modern field of inquiry that holds itself apart from "collaboration". Easier to accept would be a statement that neuroscience is pursued in certain establishments from the outset as a joint inquiry staffed by various disciplines that work co-operatively on projects. If the claim is that it is an

interdiscipline or an interdisciplinary field, which is an organizational unit that crosses traditional boundaries between academic disciplines or schools of thought, as new needs and professions emerge.

then should be stated and references for the claim provided. However the biggest issue for me in the last sentence of the lead paragraph is its inference of the omitted word "only". Biology is a vast area of enquiry. In its most elementary sense being simply the study of life. Innate to it is the study of biological functioning, and within this its centrality to medical science. Mollecular biology embraces chemistry and the origin of life concerns the physics of our inert planet. Functioning in respect of neurological inquiry concerns itself with messaging processes, transmission and receipt mechanisms and their agents of operation - chemical and physical. IMO the sentence should simply be deleted and the lead paragraph altered to set neuroscience out as a monicker for collaborative interdisciplinary projects, with neurobiology as its natural (as opposed to artificial) academic home. At the very least a suitably august reference is required. LookingGlass (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence has bothered me for a long time, as it borders on being WP:OR. I just made an edit that removed the sentence entirely, and relocated "neurobiology" to the lead sentence. Better, I think, to keep it simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term is "multidisciplinary" rather than "interdisciplinary," as described by the following sources: [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, thanks. I'm going to make that edit now. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to refer to the last sentence of the first lead paragraph, "It also influences such other disciplines as neuroeducation,[9] neuroethics, and neurolaw." I do not doubt that these fields exist. But are they so prominent and widely studied that they deserve to be mentioned in the lead, let alone the first paragraph of the lead? danielkueh (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe that they should remain there. They get a large amount of attention from neuroscientists in other neuroscience fields. I could cite programs from recent Society for Neuroscience meetings, where there are almost always prominent lectures about how basic neuroscience influences these fields. Would it help if I were to add some of those program entries as citations for the sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that these fields exist and they generate quite a bit of interest. My concern is a question of undue weight. I am not convinced that they should be featured so prominently in the first lead paragraph. Plus, the lead should summarize the body of the article and these three fields are not listed or described there. I think the lead should first describe the more fundamental aspects of neuroscience and then gradually transition to the more applied, medical, and interdisciplinary aspects of the field. danielkueh (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. The lead tries so hard to define "neuroscience" that it does not really provide a summary. I could imagine a complete rewrite of the lead, and moving the many disciplines, and the professional societies, to new sections of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think there needs to be a reorganization of the lead. What changes do you have in mind? danielkueh (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have any specific ideas, and am thinking out loud as I write this comment. I suppose there can be a simple definition of the word, followed by a brief statement that it is multidisciplinary, but without the long lists of disciplines. Then move those disciplines to the start of the modern neurosci section. Also move the professional societies to the section about them. Then, make the rest of the lead a summary of the page, but that's where I don't have specific ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Something like this?

First paragraph: Definition and scope

Second paragraph: History

Third paragraph: Modern neuroscience

Fourth paragraph: Major branches

Fifth paragraph: Organizations

Just an idea. danielkueh (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that's a reasonable start. The important thing, however, is to keep everything brief, and that might result in combining some of those paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. danielkueh (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's be objective: neuroscience is a branch of biology, which is based on mathematics and deals with the physical and chemical properties of living organisms. Saying that neuroscience "also draws upon fields including mathematics and physics" is redundant and obvious just like it would be for physiology or molecular biology. Medicine is an application of biology. Writing that neuroscience draws upon medicine would like writing that electromagnetism draws upon engineering. I think that if we want, we could write that neuroscience collaborates with fields like psychology and cognitive science, but if you write that neuroscience investigates the basis of processes like cognition or behaviour it also becomes redundant. Darwinsbulldog (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article may find it useful to state something even if it is logically redundant, if the redundancy is not obvious to readers. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

We are being objective. We rely on established Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:V, etc) to guide our decisions. I admit the current lead is far from perfect, but much of it is supported by reliable sources. Hence, I reverted your bold edit until we establish consensus (WP:consensus)). As to your statements and concerns:

• "neuroscience is a branch of biology, which is based on mathematics and deals with the physical and chemical properties of living organisms." This is a rather idiosyncratic definition of biooogy. In any event, it has been well-established by reliable sources that neuroscience is a multidisciplinary science. Please take a gander at the sources in the lead and talk page. In fact, take a look at the table of various multidisciplinary fields.
• The lead doesn't say physics and mathematics anymore.
• Medicine is not just an "application of biology." It's a separate discipline in its own right. That analogy of electromagnetism doesn't hold.
• Serious question. Is cognitive science not a subfield of psychology? Or has it truly splintered off? On a separate issue, neuroscience doesn't just collaborate with these fields. It actually incorporates or "draws" upon them.

I agree that the lead could be improved. But I would insist that all significant changes to the lead be consistent with reliable sources. Best. danielkueh (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Neuroscience is not the only discipline that collaborates with computer science so Darwinsbulldog's edit was wrong, also if the redundancy is not obvious it could be useful. Anyway, engineering too is a discipline in it's own right but it is based on physics and you don't write on the physics page that it "draws upon" engineering. Modern medicine is an applied science based on biology (unless you consider pseudosciences like "homeopathy" or "naturopathy" as medicine...) so I don't think that we should write on the first paragraph of the article that neuroscience draws upon medicine. Of course one of neuroscience's application is in neurology but I think that on the first part of the article we should explain what neuroscience is and not focus on listing all the other disciplines neuroscience collaborates with. I think that the former edit: It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology, that deals with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of neurons and neural circuits as well as their relationship with emergent functions such as behavior, cognition and learning gave a better idea of what neuroscience is in the first place (as written in the Society For Neuroscience's definition) sincosx (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The SfN page does not provide a simple definition of neuroscience. It briefly describes the function of the brain, its importance, and the motivation of neuroscientists. For example, it states that "Brain researchers are motivated to understand behavior." That's very different from saying "....neural circuits as well as their relationship with emergent functions such as behavior, cognition and learning." Such a statement would require a source (WP:RS) that explicitly states that. In any event, it doesn't have to come at the expense of describing the multidisciplinary nature of the field. This IS important. Neuroscientists with a psychology background will study the brain very differently from neuroscientists with a biological or computational background. Hence, there are big differences between behavioral neuroscience and neuroethology, for example. As for the statement that medicine is nothing more than an applied science based on biology, that is just simplistic and does not consider how the various fields are actually organized. For instance, it may seem on the surface that people who study the behavioral and biological aspects of human beings are biologists, but they are actually biological anthropologists. This type of arbitrary convention also applies to the organization of biology and medicine as separate disciplines. I don't doubt there is overlap, but to say one just "applies" the knowledge that was developed from the other is simply not true. WP's medicine page does an excellent job of explaining the field. Anyway, other editors should weigh in. Hopefully there will be consensus on a stable version for the lead. danielkueh (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Neuroscience vs. Neurobiology Debate

Hey guys, as all of you have probably seen while scrolling through this talk page, there is currently a debate about whether neuroscience is the same as neurobiology. To me, a guy who majored in neuroscience, neuroscience is NOT AT ALL the same thing as neurobiology. But on wikipedia, it's not the truth that matters, but rather the existence of adequate sources that prove that neurobiology is or is not the same thing as neuroscience.

It would be nice if we could have a summary of the numerous discussions above that could help all of us understand what this debate is about. So if anyone is willing to do that, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!BazouJr (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take the lead. You can start by finding reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:V). Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a bit arrogant for you to say that "on wikipedia, it's no the truth that matters" and please avoid screaming on the talk page.

Let us start from facts and reliable sources: the scientific study of any organ system is a subfield of biology, e.g.:

-Immunology is the scientific study of the immune system.

-Reproductive biology is the scientific study of the reproductive system.

-Neurobiology is the scientific study of the nervous system.

The definition of neuroscience given in this Wikipedia article is also: "the scientific study of the nervous system" and therefore "Neurobiology" and "Neuroscience" are logically synonyms (if A=B and C=B, then A=C).

I am also going to provide several reliable sources where the terms "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" are used interchangeably:

1)Harvard University (#1 Best University for Neuroscience and Behaviour, states that in Harvard: "Students who study in Neuroscience receive a PhD in neurobiology".

2)Columbia University (#6 Best University for Neuroscience and Behaviour) uses the terms "Neuroscience" and "Neurobiology" interchangeably (for the doctoral program in "Neurobiology and Behaviour" they use the term "Neuroscience" in the description.

3)UCL (#3 Best University for Neuroscience and Behaviour) offers a BSc in Neuroscience (but not in Neurobiology because again they are the same thing) in which the modules "will show you how different areas of biology contribute to our understanding of this subject area."

4)At Stanford University (#2 Best University for Neuroscience and Behaviour) "Graduate students in the Department of Neurobiology obtain the Ph.D. degree through the interdepartmental Neurosciences Ph.D. program".

I think we all agree that the words of the Universities that are considered the "best in the world for neuroscience" are reliable sources.

5) Also, consider the book "Principles of Neural Science":

This book has been hailed as the "Bible of Neuroscience", having been co-written by the "Father of Neuroscience" Eric Kandel, and it almost exclusively deals with the molecular, cellular and anatomical study of the nervous system. Do you consider it a neurobiology or a neuroscience book? Clearly, both, because they are, in fact, the same thing.

I also propose to adjust the somewhat vague and ambiguous current definition of neuroscience in the main article "It also draws upon other fields, with the most obvious being pharmacology, psychology, and medicine" adapting the definition used in "Principles of Neural Science" considering the impact, relevance, reliability and importance that the book has in the field. 

Here I report a citation which I propose to re-adapt in order to obtain a more direct definition of neuroscience in the very first lines of the article: "Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system. It is a multidisciplinary branch of biology, that deals with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of neurons and neural circuits. "Modern neuroscience represents a merger of molecular biology, neurophysiology, anatomy, cell biology, embryology and psychology and it has reinforced the idea first proposed by Hippocrates over two millennia ago that the proper study of mind begins with the study of the brain. The final task of neuroscience is to understand the mental processes by which we perceive, learn, act and remember; a challenge that has been defined as "The last frontier of the biological sciences". I think these words are more reliable considering that they were written by the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in a book that has been cited more than 16000 times, and that has been praised as "the Bible of neuroscience" and as: “1500 pages of facts, information, data, theory, and on a level of scholarship unparalleled. Ever since its first edition came out in the early 1980s, this book has set the standard for erudition in the sciences and is probably on the bookshelf of almost every neuroscientist in the world”.

However, thank you for your suggestion and yes Wikipedia is (luckily) all about reliable and verifiable sources. ATPhosphate (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Origins and definition of Neuroscience

Is really neuroscience a synonym of neurobiology and a branch of biology? What are the main arguments in favor? Arguments against: - Most of the first neuroscientists of the modern period were physicians, physicists or scientists with multidisciplinary training. - Many of the first scientific conferences of this century had a multidisciplinary focus.[12] - The first nobel prizes related to neuroscience were awarded to scientists with diverse background.[13], [14], [15] - The first graduate programs in neuroscience were also interdisciplinary[16] - Finally, many neuroscientists haven't had any formal training in neurobiology.Gcastellanos (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who you ask/cite. The talk section just above reflects a big to-do about the lead, that included the use of some dictionaries as sources. In my experience, the use of the terms has a lot to do with which university department one is in. I'm certainly receptive to a significant rewrite of the lead, just so long as the lists of related disciplines don't get even longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for a small and (I think) more accurate rewrite of the lead (I just added three references to the list).

Neuroscience (or neural science) is the scientific study of the nervous system, including its structure, function, and disorders. It is a multidisciplinary branch of science, dealing with the anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and physiology of nervous tissue (neurons, glia, and neural circuits). It also draws upon fields including mathematics, medicine, physics, engineering, and psychology.

Neurobiology is a branch of biology, concerned with the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system. Neurobiology is a highly related but more restrictive term often used as a synonym for neuroscience.

References

-- Gcastellanos (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Not for or against the change. We used to have two separate articles (Neuroscience vs Neurobiology) and I remember participating in that long and somewhat acrimonious discussion to merge those two articles (see Talk:Neuroscience/Archive_1#Neuroscience_.26_Neurobiology). Interesting to see that it is still an issue from time to time. danielkueh (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I just made a few copyedits, but tried not to change the overall approach. I'm not comfortable with that way of distinguishing neuroscience from neurobioloy. They are both branches of science and of biology. It's not accurate to say that neuroscience is about nervous tissue whereas neurobiology is about the nervous system. And neurobiology is not restricted to just anatomy and physiology: it certainly includes comparative and developmental neurobiology, and it draws on biochemical methods as neuroscience does. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My concern is the dearth of quality references. Plus, the distinction appears to be inferred from rather than explicitly stated in the sources (potentially WP:SYNTH). danielkueh (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's certainly possible to over-interpret a simple dictionary definition in an article about science. I tend to think that we are better off closer to what the lead is now, treating neuroscience and neurobiology as at least somewhat interchangeable terms. After all WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there are very few good references. But I still see differences. - The term "neuroscience" was consistently used from 1960s, but the term "neurobiology" is much older than the term neuroscience.[17] - Now you can see different trends emerging for the two words.[18]. - Dictionary.com and the Oxford English Dictionary have entries for both terms. - And finally, it is difficult to see neural engineering, neuroinformatics, neurophysics, cognitive neuroscience, or neuroimaging as branchs of biology and also many of those neuroscientists as neurobiologists. I think it is possible to give a better reference for the term neurobiology. Maybe the Oxford Dictionary?:

Neurobiology is a highly related term often used as a synonym for neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system. --Gcastellanos (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Aside from frequency and time of usage, is there anything else that the Google graph convey? I am asking only because I don't quite understand why we would make a distinction in meaning between neuroscience and neurobiology based on these metrics. Again, both dictionaries do not explicitly distinguish between neuroscience and neurobiology. So any perceived difference is still inferred, potentially original research WP:OR. Your best bet would be to find a preponderance of reputable secondary sources that make that distinction WP:RS. danielkueh (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Besides the dictionaries, the links, and the books cited above, I found the next secondary sources: (I quote the text here, so other editors will see it too)

“The term neurobiology is usually used interchangeably with the term neuroscience, although the former refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system, whereas the latter refers to the entire science of the nervous system”.

"It should be noted that there is a difference between neuroscience and neurobiology. Neurobiology specifically refers to the biology of the nervous system whereas neuroscience refers to the entire science (chemistry, physics, etc.) of the nervous system".

“Neurobiology is at the very interface of biology and neuroscience but is significantly different from each of the fields.…. The disciplines of neuroscience and biology overlap to generate the field of neurobiology".

I couldn't find a good secondary source to state that neurobioloy and neuroscience are the same. --Gcastellanos (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

We can't use the Cooper (2011) and Wikibooks references. The Cooper (2011) reference essentially plagiarizes an earlier version of this article (see [[19]]) and Wikipedia has a policy against using WP articles as reliable sources for other WP articles (WP:WPNOTRS). The wikibooks reference is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and like other WP articles, it cannot be considered a reliable source for any purpose (see WP:WPNOTRS). The Ikezu and Gendelman (2008) reference is ok. But that is only one. So it's not clear if that is the prevailing perspective. danielkueh (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ikezu source is a book titled Neuroimmune Pharmacology, which is an extremely specialized topic, not really about neuroscience broadly, so I'd be reluctant to base what we say here upon it. It also sounds like an idiosyncratic take on it by the authors, not really consistent with what other sources we have. As for whether a source would say explicitly that neurobiology and neuroscience are the same, I'm not sure that one could expect that, because they probably are not exactly the same, and there might not be much point in saying it if they were. The page now presents neurobiology as an alternative term, and that may be as far as we can take it without doing original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for reviewing my suggestions. I was hoping that the lead better reflects the small differences between the words. - Gcastellanos (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Biology is the natural science that studies the physical, chemical and systemic structure and function of living organisms. Neuroscience, the study of the physical, chemical and systemic proprieties of the nervous system (the system of cells, tissues, and organs that regulates the animal's responses to internal and external stimuli) is without a doubt a branch of biology. Thus, saying that the term neurobiology refers specifically to the biology of the nervous system means that neurobiology deals with the physical, chemical and systemic structure and function of the nervous system, which is what neuroscience studies. Just because also people with a background in psychology, physics or philosophy can be interested in the study of the nervous system doesn't change the fact that it is a biological structure. - Physicalmathematics (talk) 13:09, 20 june 2017 (UTC)

Neuroscience, not only studies how the systems regulates the animal responses. It also studies how individuals (like humans) store or generate new information, interact with other individuals, construct new tools, think, dream, make social and economic systems, etc. It's much more complex. That's a reason why neuroscience no only includes the study of neurobiology but also the study of other fields, like sociology, anthropology, economy, etc. Gcastellanos (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Biology is not only about homeostasis and molecular interactions, think about ecology which deals with the interactions between individuals and their relationship with the environment.

Human individuals think, dream and store information because of emergent functions of the nervous systems and neurobiology/neuroscience deals with the scientific investigation of the basis of these phenomena. A reliable source to prove this: Neurobiology research in Stanford University also includes perception, learning, attention and decision making (not only how the system regulates the animal responses).

The study of economic systems, however, is studied by economics and the study of patterns of social relationships by sociology.

When you talk about "neuroscience" you are talking about the "scientific study of the nervous system" and the scientific study of any organ system is, by definition, a subfield of biology.

The nervous system of Homo sapiens, however, has many emergent properties and because of this neuroscience is a multidisciplinary discipline which also draws upon different disciplines such as psychology and sociology. Nevertheless, we should always keep in mind the final aim of neuroscience: investigating how the nervous system works. ATPhosphate (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroscience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235558/http://www.ebbs-science.org/cms/general/about-ebbs.html to http://www.ebbs-science.org/cms/general/about-ebbs.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.neuinfo.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Insufficient study sizes" section

I'm inclined to remove the section with that title, and would like to explain why. Although some of the information there may be valid, its relevance to neuroscience as a whole is very unclear, and the way it is presented is not very conducive to understanding by readers. In short, this material may deserve presentation somewhere in Wikipedia, perhaps even in this article, but presented as it is, it is WP:UNDUE. If the article had a section on techniques and their limitations, it might be appropriate there. (Note: the material was added in June 2015 by an IP editor. It was removed in 2017 by another IP editor, but the removal was reverted by an article-watcher because it was unexplained.) Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling that I might have been that article watcher. Now that you point this out, I'm inclined to agree with you, mainly because it's something that applies equally to all biomedical sciences. No objection from me if it's removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't you. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yay! Anyway, deleting is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Neuroscience for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Neuroscience is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuroscience until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Neuroscience for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Neuroscience is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuroscience until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Edited “Engineering applications of neuroscience” Section

I edited the section on neuromorphic computer chips to conform with the basic mechanics of the English language. Please let me know if you have any questions. If you can provide sources for this section, please do so. RandomFrequentFlyerDent (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

brain simulation section.

Brain Simualtion with the rise of modern supercomputers, as well as the ever-increasing detailed data available on the mouse brain, some of the large-scale neuroscience projects are attempting Brain simulation or the computer simulation of biological neural systems. the eventual goal of these projects is to simulate the whole mouse brain (and eventually the human).[46][47][48]

neuromorphic computers another approach to simulating the brain is neuromorphic computing or hardware chips that work analogously to biological neural circuits. the primary advantage of this in neural simulation is that the computer is engineered from a hardware level to be brainlike physically thus allowing the computation itself (what the computer actually needs to process) to be somewhat simplified.[49] some examples of neuromorphic computing projects are: SpiNNaker and BrainScales (human brain project) and Pohoiki Springs (intel labs) RJJ4y7 (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)