Talk:Visual extinction
Medicine Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Good start, work on expanding the page over the next month before our deadline NeuroJoe (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Potential Revisions
In the second sentence of your introductory paragraph, you write that patients with visual extinction can identify single objects presented to them briefly. How briefly, and is the brevity of object presentation important in characterizing visual extinction? If possible, specify a time scale both for presentation of multiple stimuli and single stimuli. You should also give specific examples of the “simple exercises” useful in treating symptoms of visual extinction in the “Prognosis” section. The phrase “simple exercises” is quite vague and does not enhance understanding of the disorder. Bergaa7 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Information in your history section and causes section seems to be contradictory. I would clarify whether visual extinction occurs mainly in the right hemisphere or in both equally. I found this paper that not only addresses this issue but also explores the possibility that visual extinction is due to restricted attention capacity. Given your claim in the society and culture section I suggest you read this article and strongly consider adding its findings in your article. “What exactly is extinguished in unilateral visual extinction? Neurophysiological evidence” C. A. Marzi et all. Pat Bolan (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
In the 'causes' section, you mention unilateral brain damage in the right or left hemisphere as the source of visual extinction. I would mention some of the specific brain structures that have been found to be associated with disease such as the subcortical basal ganglia and the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). Under the 'treatments' section, the sentence stating that forty hours of 'retraining' was necessary for successful treatment needs clarification. When you say 'retraining', to what training are you referring to? Also, what would be classified as a 'successful' treatment? After all, the 'prognosis' section states that the damaged area of the brain attributed to the visual extinction can never be completely healed.
Additionally, a good portion of your 'society & culture' section would be more appropriately categorized under a 'symptoms' heading.
CafeDelMar (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
In an expansion of the above comment, I would also suggest referencing specific injuries or disorders that cause visual extinction. One example I started reading about was the inactivation of the superior colliculus. You can read about it at the following link: [[1]]. Can you also try to explain why you state, under the prognosis category, that "the damaged area can never be completely healed." Are the mechanisms behind the hinderance of the healing known?
Philades (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC) While researching information for your topic I found many results concerning "spatial attention" http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/83/5/3062. Is there a relation between this condition and your topic? If so, what is it? Also, what is its relation to spatial neglect. KrystalMarquis (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC) In order for your article to be informative, you should link your information to other wikipedia articles like you started to do in the introduction. This will give the reader a better understanding of the information that you're presenting. I'm a little confused about something you mention in the causes section. You say that "symptoms often seen in conjuction with visual extinction are reduced hand strength, neglect...". What do you mean by neglect? You might want to clarify this in your article. Also, you mention that a delay in reaction time is observed in many patients but this information isn't cited. Where did you find this information? Farnhach (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)