Talk:Grey matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.
 

Comment[edit]

"In addition, grey matter does not have a myelin sheath and does not regenerate after injury unlike white matter." Is this true? I thought that new(ish) research indicates that grey matter can regenerate, although it's not certain whether it can connect to the rest of the brain in any meaningful manner. http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926345803.html

In addition to this, it says earlier in the article that grey matter has "few myelinated axons", and later none. --aciel 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to this, new research published by Yale university has shown that meditation is associated with an increase in grey matter indicating that grey matter can be grown.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051110215950.htm

The entire paragraph under "function" is full of information that is NOT in the article that it cites as it's source. None of that is in there. The word oxygen appears in that entire study exactly zero times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.43.85 (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sentence removal[edit]

I have removed the following sentence/paragraph because it sounds silly. I think a better source is required if one is going to make claims about "intelligence-related" grey or white matter differences between sexes. To the lay reader, this sentence is, at the least, not very well written, and at worst, carries POV connotations—though I don't claim POV is intended. Especially as a paragraph unto itself, with no context, it comes across oddly. (Note: the most recent edit was the "(definitions crucially needed)" segment, which really doesn't belong in the sentence proper.)

In general, men have nearly 6.5 times more intelligence-related (definitions crucially needed) grey matter than women, whereas women have nearly 10 times the amount of intelligence-related white matter of men.[1]

Outriggr 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Grey matter/gray matter[edit]

Discussion moved from User talk:Arcadian

How did you come to the conclusion the latter was the more common spelling? - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Gray" and "Grey" are interchangeable when referring to the color. However, the anon was correct in stating that Gray matter is more commonly used than Grey matter. Both of the online medical dictionary links I can find use "gray": [1], [2]. And two of my three reference books (Netter and BRS/Chung) use "gray" (ironicallly, the one which uses "Grey" is the 2005 edition of "Gray's anatomy for students"). PubMed has 118 hits for "grey matter" and 352 for "gray matter". Currently google usage is roughly equivalent, but I think that much of that is due to mirrors of Wikipedia, which has used the "grey matter" spelling for years. --Arcadian 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Both titles are heavily linked to within Wikipedia itself. Instead of relying on pubmed or Google, I think we should look at what would cause the least redirects. Unless there's a VERY good reason to move it based on whatlinkshere, I think we should leave the article where it is as per WP:MOS (Use the spelling the article was originally created with). - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Either way, the article should be consistent in that whichever term is used as the redirect target (i.e. the article title itself) should be SOLELY employed in the article text. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As the guy who has been doing most of the maintenance of neuroscience articles recently, my policy about this is complete indifference. There is a constant low level of people changing between English and American spelling, or changing date formats, and I consider all this far too boring to pay attention to. So as far as I'm concerned you can change this in any way you want to, as long as the links still work. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


Presence of Myelin?[edit]

According to "Essential Neuroscience," (2007, Siegel et al, page 140) "The gray matter of the spinal cord contains primarily neuronal cell bodies, dendrites, and myelinated and unmyelinated axons..." The introduction to this article makes it sound like gray matter either contains cell bodies exclusively (which is nonsense to anyone knowledgeable about neuroscience) or does not contain any myelinated axons by contrasting it with white matter. (which is much more likely to trip up anyone moderately knowledgeable, as it did me) The wording should be changed to reflect that white matter has a higher concentration of myelin, but that both white and gray matter contain both myelinated and unmyelinated fibers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsagat (talkcontribs) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right -- the wording is not wrong, but is hard to understand. If you would like to take a shot at improving it, please go for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I took a stab at it... I tried to make the changes and keep the sentence structures the same, but I think it's rather awkward. Feel free to clean it up if you wish.Bobsagat 20:39, 8 February 2009 (CST)
The aesthetic quality may be marginal, but it looks clear enough, so I'm not going to fool with it. Looie496 (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems contrary[edit]

I mean, the title is grey matter but the article uses the spelling gray. 108.6.15.59 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One spelling is British, the other American. Every so often people come along and switch them. I long ago decided that it isn't worth worrying about. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Illustration[edit]

The illustration on this page which is labeled micrograph of gray matter is the same illustration on the White Matter page and there is labeled micrograph of white matter. So what gives? Anyone else catch this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narjis542003 (talkcontribs) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer is in the image caption: one side of the image shows white, and the other side shows gray. It's not obvious when you first look at the picture, but if you read the caption carefully and then look for what it describes, you'll be able to see what it's talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey Matter(physics)[edit]

I think there should be an article regarding grey matter in terms of physics, I would happy to expand on the topic, but I feel I am in a position to elaborate on my expressions in terms of theory initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidyevgenyroven (talkcontribs) 01:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything that goes into a Wikipedia article needs to be based on reputable published sources. If such sources exist, the idea is worth discussing. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding to what Looie said, you may find it useful to read WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Source for effects of child abuse&pornography[edit]

There are sources out there that should be able to replace the popular press source, but I currently don't have time to find them. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319445 discusses white-matter effects, but mentions gray matter effects in the intro. I wouldn't necessarily use it for the statement in question, but it might be a place to start looking.

As for the effects of pornography, see WP:MEDRS & WP:NOT for why this shouldn't be mentioned. These studies are very new and have not been summarized by the medical community sufficiently as of today (2014). CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be to simply remove that material. Stuff like that is WP:UNDUE in an article at this level of generality -- there are zillions of equally significant tidbits of information about gray matter. Much of it would more appropriately be placed in our article about the human brain, if it belongs anywhere at all. Looie496 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and I think it's a pretty unambiguous situation, so I removed it (the "R" of WP:BRD). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusing[edit]

As a non neuroscientist, the terminology is unfamiliar to me and prevents, in my opinion, a general understanding of the topic. Emvern (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Emvern, I have tried to expand and somewhat simplify this article. Please continue to tag other anatomical articles as you pass them by, this is one way of letting future editors know that an article can be simplified. If you feel confident making small changes or simplifications, then I also invite you too to contribute. This article is not perfect and if you could leave some more feedback here I'll see what I can do. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)