Talk:Excitatory postsynaptic potential
|WikiProject Physiology||(Rated Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Should the figures be EPSP rather than PPSP?
PPSP is probably French; changed it to EPSP.
No references listed. Please update. --1000Faces 17:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a very basic concept in neuroscience, so the lead ought to start by explaining it in simple functional terms, e.g., an EPSP is a rise in membrane potential produced by a synapse, which increases the probability that the postsynaptic cell will fire an action potential in the near future. That is, something that a reader with only a rudimentary understanding of synapses and neuro-electricity can make sense of. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- except that an EPSP is actually a decrease of the membrane potential...--Millencolin (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's true that it's a decrease in potential, that is: the difference in charges over the membrane but it is also an increase in the voltage since, viewing it from the inside of the cell, the potential goes from a negative value (eg -70mV) to a less negative value (eg -10) to a positive value (if threshold is reached). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamte (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It could be mentioned that the definition presented here "A PSP is excitatory if it makes the neuron more likely to fire an action potential" doesn't just mean the synapse has a depolarizing effect. The reversal potential of the ion channels involved must be above the action potential threshold also. This requires also mentioning reversal potentials, which are not mentioned in this article. It's probably important to point out that a neurotransmitter by itself isn't excitatory -- it's the interaction between the neurotrasmitter and its binding ion channel that is excitatory. Everybody knows this is nowhere (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"The extracellular signal from a single neuron is extremely small and thus next to impossible to record." This is a completely misleading statement, Barnes & McNaughton, Buzsaki group (too name just a few), routinely do this with hundreds of neurons. Including dozens from individual tetrodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brngk (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)