|Sensory system has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
What about page in the hierarchy of Wikipedia
unify the articles "Sense" & "Sensory system"?
I believe this is a very poor idea. These are two totally separate subjects. Sensory system should be annotated as to applying to that physiological portion of the neural system in animals, and sense needs to be disambiguated before it is discussed in one of possibly multiple contexts on its own. I have recently expanded the introduction to reflect this reasoning Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
What about the content of this page
what about the sensory pathways? spinothalamic, dorsal columns? 22.214.171.124 28 November 2006
I believe the sensory pathways should be discussed on an individual modality basis since the pathways differ markedly. Most of the primary sensory modalities do not employ the spinal chord prior to its reaching the "lower" or "primitive" brain. Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I propose moving the schematic of the visual sensory modality included in the the box at upper right on the page and mis-labeled Sensory System" to its proper place under the Visual system wiki. The caption is totally erroneous. This is not the "Classic Gray's Figure 722" from the "classic original of 1901." It comes from a later time period and is now obsolete. Area V1 is no longer considered the primary visual cortex, only one significant portion of the visual cortex devoted to vision. Does anyone object to this action? Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Since lots of animals including invertebrates link here we should maybe organize the article into human and nonhuman section. Someone who gets here from Antenna (biology) will be confused by the olfactory bulbs. I tried to link tactile sense from an arthropod and couldn't find any page that had clearly defined relevant information. (e.g. do invertebrates have a Somatosensory system? I somehow suspect they don't.) Please either reorganize and add relevant info or create an additional page and clean up the links. Thanks. (Lisa4edit) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Have you ever held a sea slug in your hand? They undeniably react if you touch it with your finger. Sounds like a somatosensory reaction to me! --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Merge from Sensation (psychology)
Although the title of Sensation (psychology) indicates a psychological point of view, its content is described mainly in biochemical and neurological terms, and therefore rather belongs to the scope of this article. The psychological aspect is rather a matter of Perception, on which there already is an article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support: there's an unnecessary profusion of articles on senses and perception, and the sensation article in particular has content that I'd expect to see in other articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per rationale of proposer. Morton Shumway—talk 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
- Support sounds like a sensible plan. --MTHarden (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support with comment -- Otr500 (talk)
- Comment: Does someone actually plan on expanding on the "psychology" aspect after the merge? If not then I actually support one of two options; 1)- Merge and delete of title. My lengthy comment is because this option includes, "Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable." Another option would be to; 2)- Merge and move to another title and redirect. I would assume the last option to be the best if possible.
- Reasoning; The title of the article is "Sensation (psychology)" and the lead includes;
- In psychology, sensation and perception are stages of processing of the senses in human and animal systems, such as vision, auditory, vestibular, and pain senses. These topics are considered part of psychology, and not anatomy or physiology, because processes in the brain so greatly affect the perception of a stimulus. Included in this topic is the study of illusions such as motion aftereffect, color constancy, auditory illusions, and depth perception.
- Gestalt theorists believe that with the two together a person experiences a personal reality that is greater than the parts.
- As far as I can see (psychological sensory perception?) these are the only indications concerning "psychology" in the article, with nothing in the body, so the article is certainly not correctly named. I read the article Gestalt psychology and did notice that, "The Gestalt effect is the form-generating capability of our senses,...". but other than that I could not even tie these two together. The only aspect concerning psychology that I could find did involve perception, covered in the article Evolutionary psychology, but perception is not in the title or the body of the article. Absent one of the above two options merging would require a redirect. The contents of the article apparently can be merged to "Sensory system" but, as per Mikael's observation, there is no actual correlation between the article contents and the title so a title redirect would be inappropriate without relevant expansion.
- Conclusion; The contents should be merged but the title redirected to Gestalt psychology, another psychology article (Evolutionary psychology etc...), or just deleted. Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Support The Sensation (psychology) article is about sensory physiology (functions), not about psychology (cognition) and is therefore incorrectly named. And because the present Sensory system article is also about sensory physiology, the Sensation (psychology) article should be deleted, after being merged into Sensory system. Greensburger (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The title of the page, Sensory Systems, is self-explanatory as it stands and should not be merged with the psychological elements associated with it. I would be happy to expand on the neurological aspects of the sensory system of the overall neural system, and show how it is subdivided into the auditory modality, the visual modality, the gustation modality, and the olfactory modality if that would help. Each of these modalities is treated quite differently in the psychological and behavioral laboratories. I think I will go ahead and do this in order to get something done. Steamboat Jim (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I did merge the two articles in a greek translation some months ago and, with a little bit of added text, the result is rather satisfying. Regards - Badseed (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I partially merged the articles. I'm not certain that the sensory loss section from Sensation (psychology) belongs here, or that the article should be deleted. I requested an expert from the Psychology WikiProject and added it to the WP:PSYCH task page, in case anyone can salvage the article. The first paragraph is good and makes sense. --Iamozy (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Recent deletions and lead
I deleted the recent additions because they are ill-referenced, and not consistent with the rest of the article, or with any approach in neuroscience that is at all obvious. In fact the citations are to a website that is of course not peer-reviewed, and is likely the website of the editor, Steamboat Jim
I do, however, think the lead for this article could be improved. Does anyone have any suggestions?
- I am going to re-undo the edits I recently made because the main citation, someone's website, is not peer-reviewed, and is not a reliable source. In general the material is completely unfounded, and no background or basis is given for it. Original research is suspected.