|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Medicine / Neurology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Current Editing
- 2 The Cingulum and the cingulate
- 3 resource Science News News in Brief: Highlights from the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting
- 4 Peer Review by Intro to Neuro Classmates
User:Akreuzman and User:Kelseyphinney are currently working on editing and expanding this page for a neuroscience class until 12/7/13. Please feel free to comment or contact us directly! Akreuzman (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The Cingulum and the cingulate
"The Cingulum is a collection of nerve fibres following a long, arcuate course superior to and around to posterior to the Corpus callosum. Their exact connections and effect are unclear."
- This should be located in the article about the "Cingulum" - not about the posterior cingulate which is (at least usually) referring to a cortical area --fnielsen 09:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
resource Science News News in Brief: Highlights from the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting
Two brains slide into a scanner by Laura Sanders December 3rd, 2011; Vol.180 #12 (p. 8) ...
Scientists have uncovered what happens when two minds meet. Neuroscientist Ray Lee of Princeton University and colleagues scanned 18 pairs of eye-locked people in a single MRI machine — four romantic partners, 12 female-female pairs and two male-male pairs. Patterns of shared behavior depended on the people's relationship, the team reported November 14. Between friends, activity in the basal ganglia, a region involved in social interaction, was synchronized. For lovers, the connection happened in the posterior cingulate cortex, a region with a role in awareness.
Peer Review by Intro to Neuro Classmates
Hey guys! This page looks great! I found the information to be organized in a very clear manner and to article gave a great overview of the Posterior cingulate. I was impressed in how you not only talked about diseases that are caused by damage in the Posterior cingulate, but also discussed how treatment for the disease influences PCC activity, for example in ADHD patients. I can think of very few suggestions. One thing that stood out to me was how well organized and clear the Nonhuman Structure section was with its very specific and exact bullet points; I found the structure of that section to oppose the following Human Structure section. I understand that there is less documentation of the Human structure, but it just seemed to harshly contradict with the style of what is written above. The only other thing I can think of is maybe including a diagram of the brain in your anatomy section, that the reader could refer to. It could even be the "Medial surface of cerebral cortex" image that you have in your gallery. I just think that it could be valuable to have a visual reference for when the article refers to other areas of the brain. Overall, I found the page to be very impressive! Nphilip (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! We reviewed your suggestions but after attempting several different formats decided to not restructure the Nonhuman and Human Structure sections. Without bullets the Nonhuman section was too intimidating, and with bullets the Human structure looked a little silly because the list was so short. Ultimately we think it reads better in the current format. Likewise, we think the current structural pictures are well placed - they're right about the start of the Anatomy Section. Thank you for your suggestions! Akreuzman (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This page is awesome! I'm impressed with the amount of detail you included, and the images you used enhanced the page a lot, especially the MRI image when I was reading the anatomy section. I also thought your discussion of disorders related to the posterior cingulate cortex and the current research around these was great. I don't have that many suggestions other than adding some additional page links. I know you later link to Default mode network, but I think you should also link to this page at the very beginning of your article, because if someone is looking for a quick overview and doesn't read through the more detailed sections, they will have missed that additional page with more information. On that note, I think you can also link to Persistent vegetative state, Episodic memory, and Working memory at the start of your article. In addition, links to Spatial memory and Autobiographical memory in the emotion and memory section would be helpful-- we know these terms well but they may not be as obvious to others. One other thing I noticed-- in the bullet points under the "nonhuman structure" section, are all of these facts also from source 6? Although it's tedious you may decide to cite these facts just in case, as it's a bit unclear where they're coming from. Other than that, this article is great, and I very much enjoyed reading it-- very interesting! Vbraddick (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the comment! We added an earlier link to the DMN, and thank you for mentioning the other links as well, very helpful! Yes, I believe all of the bulleted points were from source 6. I will let Drew further respond, as the information is in his section. Thanks again for all the suggestions! Kelseyphinney (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Author Response II
Thanks for the comment! As far as the bullet points go, they are all from the same source (now titled source 4, coincidentally). I tried previewing them with every single line cited and it just looks rather messy. Seeing as source 4 is the only citation for that entire section, I'm hoping it's clear enough as is. Thanks again! Akreuzman (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This page is well researched and well organized. I think the section on meditation could be expanded on since it seems sparse compared to the rest of the page. Also, the nonhuman structure has a lot of great information but it is little hard to understand, so I think you should write a bit more explaining the significance of the all the bullet points. Great job overall! Luckykarmz (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the suggestion! We reviewed your ideas about expanding on the meditation section, but ultimately decided that it was out of the scope of our project and this page. Meditation has more complex relations to the default mode network, and while we wanted to overview the current information on its link the PCC, our main aim was to link any readers to the meditation page and DMN to learn more. We have now added in site links to both of those pages in the section. Thank you for the suggestion! Kelseyphinney (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, nice job! Especially for such a challenging topic. You guys worked hard on this and it shows. Some little things: there are typos in the first paragraph under cytoarchitectural organization. The first paragraph under emotional memory is hard to follow. At various places, stay away from discussing a singular primary study (unless you are citing a study cited within a secondary review)--if there is not a review on the topic, strive to condense several studies that arrive at the same conclusion. Nicely done on the Intrinsic Control section, but be sure all paragraphs have citations. It's better to over-cite rather than under-cite. In the diseases section, there are opportunities to link to other pages GABA, benzodiazepines, working memory, etc. There's some awkward wording under ADHD section, last sentence. Proof read and make sure it's clean! There's some odd capitalizations throughout etc. In general just try to make sure that there is nothing speculative and all conclusions are the product of professional publications. Midd Intro Neuro (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Overall its is very clear that you put a lot of time and energy into making a thorough and comprehensive article.
I think that you guys did a fabulous job with content; the article is very thorough. I particularly like the introduction; it is very informative but also to the point so that readers can glean the basics about this part of the brain without being overwhelmed with detailed information immediately. From my experience with writing our Wikipedia article I know that it was difficult to find may review articles, and I’m not sure if you both had the same trouble but you did a really great job of summarizing and citing primary sources, which I found to be difficult to incorporate fluidly into the article.
The break down and organization of the material in your article is very well done. The short summaries that you have included in the sections such as “Function” and “Disorders” before you break them down into specifics are very helpful to understand a the more general role that the posterior cingulate cortex has with respect to each of these topics. Additionally, I like the format you guys chose for the Nonhuman Structures (which I know someone previously mentioned). I think that information is most accessible in bullet point form although I am not sure if this is generally acceptable for an encyclopedia article I think that it conveys the information clearly and simply. Chiara Lawrence (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)