Talk:Synesthesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Disease of the skin?[edit]

I disagree with the disease infobox on this article. Nowhere in the article is the condition or phenomenon called a disease, and AFAICT at least some of those ‘afflicted’ (and those who know them) seem to regard it as a gift or talent. Moreover the ICD-10 link is to “Other and unspecified disturbances of skin sensation” under skin diseases conditions, which seems scarcely appropriate. If there’s no better diagnostic category for it, better to remove the parameter than to confuse readers.—Odysseus1479 07:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree. But very intriguing. How did that ever happen - what is the history behind that categorisation? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If it is to be called a disease there should be support with citations in the article body, and surely something like R44.8 would be a better choice of code! (One word changed above.) —Odysseus1479 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to "infobox medical condition" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Note that the Diagnostic criteria section of this article states in the first sentence: "Although often termed a 'neurological condition, synesthesia is not listed in either the DSM-IV or the ICD since it most often does not interfere with normal daily functioning.", with reference to PMID 17521514. Unless that's inaccurate or out of date, these codes should not be present at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The ICD is not just for diseases but also for medical conditions. Simply because it is listed does not mean it is a disease. And I do not think anyone here is saying it is a disease. Synesthesia is definately listed here [1] and they also recommend seeing "disturbance, sensation"
Pregnancy is also in the ICD9 and ICD10 and it is not a "disease" either [2]
Per the ref you link, it is not directly listed as its own number in the ICD9/10 but it is rather included in another classification. So that is technically correctDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that on the continuum of synesthesia, most who experience it would not consider it to be a "medical condition" at all. So I think the ICD10 is borderline. The ICD9 does not seem justified, especially as skin is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Unless a diagnostic taxonomy contains the word "synesthesia" I'm not convinced any such classification is fully justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay removed ICD9. This is a condition studied by the medical field of neurology. There are 347 articles on pubmed on the topic including in the journal neuron Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
But all, I guess, primary sources, that can't be used here? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The ICD is a position of a internationally recognized organization and therefore can be used here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
ICD names it? And the articles, can they be used or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean? This is the US gov and can be used aswell [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean this: 1). When I follow the link to ICD-10, I don't see the word "Synesthesia". 2). Can any of the 347 articles you mention be used as sources in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not really understand the reason for the ICD-code... it seems to be original research, since a google scholar search with this ICD-code and "synesthesia" yields exactly zero results. This categorization is also quite discriminating. I mean, synesthesia is not a disease and it is surely not more related to diseases than other variables, like hair colour, intellectual giftedness or specific human races. The ICD-code (and also the MeSH-code) in this synesthesia article is about as appropriate as a similar code in the wikipedia articles about intellectual giftedness or specific skin colours. Rosanick (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My wikipedia project![edit]

Hello! I am Ampo00182. I am enrolled in a summer course at my university. Our assignment is to find a citation needed and add a short passage of new information with appropriate citation. I am currently in my third year majoring in Psychology, we just learned about Synesthesia! I will be finding the citation for the follow passage:

Depending on the study, researchers have suggested 1 in 2,000 people have some form of synesthesia, while others have reported 1 in 300 or even as many as 1 in 23. One problem with statistics is that some individuals will not self-classify as they do not realize that their perceptions are different from those of everyone else.[30]

Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synesthesia. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory.[citation needed]

As part of the wikipedia project we were asked to add new content. This is new content I will be adding to the epidemiology sections:

Old paragraph: Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synesthesia. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory

New paragraph with added information: Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synaesthesia, they have a prevalence rate of 64.4% in the synaesthesia population. Some studies have found that colour related grapheme can account for 86%. Time related words-colour synaesthesia is the second most common with a prevalence rate of 22%-62%. Music-colour is also prevalent at 18%, some studies found that music-colour was shown in 41% of patients. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory

The eyeborg section at the very bottom should be explained more if it is used.

You can also differentiate between child and adult synesthesia. There are special cases of children synesthesia that differ from adult.

You can also add more about how it effects memory and how it has affected memory contests or mental athletes.

The intro paragraph can also be worded more clearly. This concept is really interesting and can attract a lot of attention with the first paragraph.

make sure to elaborate different cases of different types of synesthesia from diverse senses.

Our course page: [I moved this template to the page-header.—Odysseus1479 02:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampo00182 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ampo00182 (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ampo00182: what is your source for the added information? If you’re not sure how to format a reference, just post the information here and someone else can code it up. Citations aren‘t needed for every general statement, but IMO statistics are the kind of information that particularly calls for sourcing. And a minor point: this article is in American English, so the spelling of synesthesia should be kept consistent (and match the title) per our style guidelines. Similarly, although I write colour myself, in AmE articles I take care to spell it color; it’s quite jarring to see both in the same paragraph.—Odysseus1479 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: One source is already cited, I coded it earlier and added it. I do have a second source, I could not get the cite formats to work. The source I used was: Niccolai, V., Jennes, J., Stoerig, P., & Leeuwen, T. M. V. (2012). Modality and variability of synesthetic experience. The American Journal of Psychology, 125(1), 81-94. PMID: 22428428. I fixed all spelling to match the rest of the article. Thanks Ampo00182 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Synesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Synesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Rearrangement of headers?[edit]

I feel there should be a better continuity of information. I would like to move the History section towards the beginning, perhaps right before Characteristics. And then I would put Causes and Mechanisms after Characteristics. Forms would come after that. However, the average reader probably only cares about the forms of synesthesia the most, so maybe having this section further down may not be a good idea? RosaYang (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that you should rearrange the headings. Start with history (like more other wiki pages do) and then move to characteristics. Forms could even be arguably combined with characteristics since they are very similar. Then cause and mechanisms could be combined. I think forms should stay close to the top of the middle rather than the bottom as well, since they seem to be the main "meat" of the article.

I agree making the history closer to the top would better align the article with other wiki entries. I would also suggest moving the research section up higher, because currently it seems as though it is the least important as it comes last. I feel that the Society and Culture section is better fitted for that space in the article. Courtney Crump (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there should be better continuity, but I think moving Forms so low down wouldn't be the best idea. It is, like you said, probably one of the main questions that people have about synesthesia and thus they would like to easily access it. Otherwise I think that the rearranging of the sections makes sense and would make the page clearer. Ehardiman (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add a bit more info about Solomon Shereshevsky under the "Notable Cases" subheading. He is mentioned once at the beginning of the Forms section but I feel there should be some more explanation about his synesthesia since he is the most famous synesthesia subject in the psychology field. Sources will also be added. RosaYang (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent addition to the article, especially if you detail the negative aspects of synesthesia with which S. had to live. The article briefly mentions the concept of sensory overload in the very beginning (under the characteristics section). You can expand on this by detailing S.'s difficulty with reading, for example, or his initial inability to empty his memory palaces. Sowallabear (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comments made about rearranging the article. I would also recommend that you include some information about the distinction between a synesthete and a mnemonist. I think these terms are frequently confused and since both are used to achieve feats of great memory, I think it is feasible to assume people might believe a synesthete is just a mnemonist. Zoeberk (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

I'm going to remove the section in the introductory section about "Grapheme-color synesthesia." It's repeated below and plus it has own page. Any objections?

Something I'm curious about -- do the many groups of people who use shapes as words (eg, Egyptian, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans) have this type of synesthesia? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)