|WikiProject Physiology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 Zona limitans intrathalamica and Prethalamus
- 2 In English, Please?
- 3 Posterior nucleus
- 4 Moved list of nuclei
- 5 Diencephalon
- 6 Help
- 7 Plates
- 8 "about 5.7 in length"
- 9 Splitting article
- 10 An opinion
- 11 What the hell does all this mean?
- 12 Answer
- 13 brain strain
- 14 The wording is ridiculous
- 15 Answer
- 16 What is "parathalamic"? Is there a "parathalamus"?
- 17 Answer
- 18 Move to Thalamus
- 19 re: dumbing down for the masses
- 20 "highly increasing with evolution"
- 21 Development section restructured
- 22 SERT-ss and suicide etc
- 23 Use of term "ventral thalamus"
- 24 One thalamus with two parts, or two thalami?
- 25 Nuclei figure
- 26 Thalamic stroke
- 27 "The thalamus is the same size, shape and weight as the marine iguana's brain."
- 28 See also
Zona limitans intrathalamica and Prethalamus
With regard to the new nomencature I renamed the ventral thalamus - prethalamus and the dorsal thalamus - thalamus. This fits with human anatomy and developmental biology.
Due to recent research work (Kiecker and Lumsden, 2004 and Scholpp et al., 2006), I added the zona limitans intrathalamica as signaling boundary between the prethalamus and the thalamus. Furthermore, I linked it to its detailed description.
I am not sure if the subthalamus is equivalent to the prethalamus. For us as developmental biologists it is pretty obvious that the diencephalon consists of hypothalamus, prethalamus, ZLI, thalamus, epithalamus and pretectum. All availabe developmental description of the forebrain name the boundary between pretectum and tectum the alar forebrain-midbrain boundary (Macdonald et al., 1995; Araki and Nakamura, 1999; Scholpp et al., 2003; Puelles and Rubenstein, 2003). Therefore I added the pretectum in the diencephalon description.
Any thoughts on that ?
Pretty much loose ends. And, fur sure, POV.
In English, Please?
While we all appreciate the incredible amount of detail here, Wikipedia is a general use site, and would probably be better served by a layperson-level article. Perhaps this article could appear as "Human thalamus".
I do not oppose. G.P
Concerning English, as many other searchers in the world, I am obliged, for years to use the English language; as has been the case for the middle age latin or the French for Cajal for instance. The middle age latin was not a perfect latin. What is (or could be) a perfect scientific English? when English, American, Australian, NeoZ, are allowed to use their idioms! The only point on which you can complain and make correction is grammar, the skeleton of one language. For scientific worlds or expressions there are special, technical ways that are no directly linked to the English language and that can convey new ideas or concepts.--Gerard.percheron 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Gerard.Percheron
- I've moved that page to AfD. Everything about that page is just wrong. :) Semiconscious 07:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved list of nuclei
I moved the list of nuclei to List of thalamic nuclei due to the fact that it simply took up most of the article and contained very little useful info directly related to the main topic. Nrets 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I made some modifications to this list explained in the discussion accompanying the list. -user:gerard.percheron June 8
According to the last works of ontologists the hypothalamus is in no way a part of the diencephalon. In the same manner the zona incerta cannot be placed in a subthalamus. It is a part of the ventral thalamus or perithalamus. The nucleus subthalamicus belogs to the basal ganglia and arises from a telencephalic prosomere. GP 5/8/2006
- According to the ontologies used by MeSH (ref) and NeuroNames (ref), the hypothalamus is part of the diencephalon, and h_23/12440409 at Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines the hypothalamus as "the ventral part of the diencephalon, forming the floor and part of the lateral wall of the third ventricle." --Arcadian 14:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ontogenticians such as Puelles and Rubinstein (see fro instance TINS 16,1993) and other reject what was called the Kuhlenbeck's model based on transverse secttios not taking into consideration the rotation of prosencephalon. They proposed and this is generally admitted an analysis with three prosomeres anteriorily to the diencephalon. The hypothalamus is thus no below but in front of the diencephalon.- User: Gerard percheron
I am sure you are (very) knowledgeable in the field. However, I doubt that it is useful to introduce the term "perithalamus" in this encyclopedic article. It is not (at least not yet) a widespread term in the academic litterature, as any search in the scientific databases will show. An encyclopedic article should (ideally) reflect the current status of the field (with some conservativism!), not introduce (or even include?) new concepts, that has as yet to make their mark and be widely accepted in their respective fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have almost finished the base of "thalamus". I have tried to Wikify it. I did not succeeded in giving PubMed numbers. I can furnish several figures. User: gerard.percheron
Gerard, I've been slowly trying to copyedit your contributions, but I cannot make sense of the following sentence:
The set of all afferent axons from one source constitute a territory which is the main differentiator of thalamic "functions". A series of main territories do not overlap spatially and allow the description of functionally differentiated subparts.
Do you mean that the different functional modalities represented in the thalamus are segregated to specific anatomical regions which can be differentiated by where they receive their afferent projections from? YES! Also, this phrase:
Along with main afferences coafferences from other sources may exist.
What do you mean "may exist"? They do and not everywhere
thanks Nrets 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Answers 1-This refers to anatomical categories that are no more simply boxes (nuclei) having a function as in the past. In the thalamus the cytoarchitectonics has partly failed. What differentiates anatomofunctional parts are the major afferent systems. These are made up of terminal parts of axons and axonal arborisations. All the ones arriving from the same source (for instance the pallidum) occupy together an own space in the thalamus, which is called a territory. Such a main territory do no mix or overlap in primates with vicinous territories. This is the point that made possible to have now a solid partition of the thalamus. These territories may cover one or several nuclei 2-some of these territories but not all have "secondary" afferences (coafferences) Thanks very much to help me to promote what is in fact a simplified, even if more accurate, description of the human thalamus. User: gerard.percheron 22 may
- Since this organizational scheme which you describe is not quite the same as the older cannonical view, maybe you can compare and contrast some of these differences in your edits. Nrets 14:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The two first plates have been exagerately enlarged, making problems for a clear presentation of the table of content. I will bring new plates either historical or redrawn. User:gerard.percheron June 8
"about 5.7 in length"
In the introduction it says about 5.7 in length, I think there's a unit missing there. Inch seems rather large, so I'm assuming it's cm, could someone in the know please fix this? Thanks. Jarvik 04:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to split this article into a few pieces, with the main article describing the whole thalamus and the subarticles describing the nuclei. Any objections or suggestions? --Arcadian 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not against a first description of the generalities (history, isothalamus...) and a partial description of elements. I am asking you however 1-to keep the whole text somewhere. I will remove it later 2-the separate descriptions of parts must corrresponds to a logic for instance all the lateral region and geniculate bodies must be together, the medial n. and the pulvunar... 3-Someone (see 1) proposed to rename the article Human thalamus. Sincerly--220.127.116.11 13:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Gerard.Percheron
- I have split out Allothalamus and Isothalamus into their own articles. The whole text you reference is available in the article history. --Arcadian 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gerard -- assuming it is you who has been complaining here and here, please log in when editing pages. Also, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and read the rest of the comments on this talk page. Because your IP address keeps changing, it makes communication much more difficult. Your content is not gone; it is at Allothalamus and Isothalamus, per the above. (And if these edits were not made by you, I apologize.) --Arcadian 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this page is one of the little not-so-good pages that I have read in Wikipedia... (unsigned!!!!!!)G.P
What the hell does all this mean?
I came into this article with a fairly simple question: "What is the function of the thalamus section of the brain?". Reading the "summary" I am greeted by text of the following kind:
- "It constitutes the main part of the diencephalon. In the caudal (tail) to oral (mouth) sequence of neuromeres, the diencephalon is located between the mesencephalon (cerebral peduncule, belonging to the brain stem) and the telencephalon. The diencephalon includes also the dorsally located epithalamus (essentially the habenula and annexes) and the perithalamus (prethalamus formerly described as ventral thalamus) containing the zona incerta and the "reticulate nucleus" (not the reticular term of confusion)."
I'm pretty sure that makes perfect sense to someone who knows a lot about brains. Thing is, most of the people looking at an article like this, don't.
I propose most of the present summary is moved into a section titled "the location of the human thalamus", and is replaced by an actual summary of its function. I mostly wanted confirmation that it was the center that controlled the levels of various chemicals in the brain, like serotonin or endorphin or such. I am of the impression that if it takes more than 30 seconds to verify this sort of notion, it's a poorly structured article. Apocryphite 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Grinnnnn--- Well Apocryphite, I can see what you mean. On the other hand: being a physiologist nor neurologist, I often am grateful items like these are this extensive. When I am studying I often need bitssss more background information than a simple sentence like: Thalamus, yes- it exists, and it's a thing somewhere in our brains.... ;)
- I often wonder with these subjects: could there be a 'simple' explanation of the item that fits people that just want to know. And could there a specialized part for those that want or need know more and want to go into depths?
- I am Dutch. The information one gets on the Dutch Wiki is often incredibly poor, way to less and unspecified to even convince you a thing called Thalamus really exists.
- So from me to everyone involved these kind of subjects: a thank you! to all that write these fantastic detailed articles here and elsewhere. And a thank you! too to the people that bother to write 'simple everyday explanations'! Cheerio! --Allardo (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The thalamus is not a bottle containing an homogeneous product having a unique given fonction.You cannot describe the function of a part of the thalamus without precisely describing its position not only in space, also in topological chains. The thalamus (the allothalamus) contains only a few serotonin and endorphin (see Jones).In less than 30 sec. Look elsewhere for finding your answer. Gerard.percheron--18.104.22.168 13:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to shoot it for severe overindulgence in latinisms and a hellbent opacity to obfuscate. Then I'd like to rewrite it in English for the masses to save them from a pain in the neurons. Any objections? PS there's a saying that if you can't put a topic into your own words, you don't (and others in general won't) understand it. Julia Rossi 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it, anything you can do to clarify would be much appreciated. delldot talk 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The wording is ridiculous
I agree with the above posts that the wording is ridiculous in the article. I have a PHD in neuroscience and I have difficulty reading this. It seems like the author chose the most far-out words they could find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Or didn't speak good English. Please feel free to make improvements. Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Successive international congresses have always proposed to name anatomical parts in Latin (see Nomenclatura anatomica). They can be translated for courses , not for publications. How do you translate thalamus, cortex, striatum,,,,,,,?
Are you July Reds? --126.96.36.199 13:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Gerard.Percheron
What is "parathalamic"? Is there a "parathalamus"?
Like the heading says, what is "parathalamic"? Is there a "parathalamus"? I came across the term on a web site that also mentioned a "parathalamus gland" as some vestigial presence in newborns? Is this as hypothetical, imagined, or real? There are some references in medical literature found online: Google "parathalamic. Is this something that could/should be covered in this article? Curious... --Tsavage 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
re: dumbing down for the masses
The "Function" section of this article seems to adequately describe both what are believed and known to be various functions of the thalamus in the plainest terms possible given the complexity of the subject. We're talking about brain physiology here, not the components of an ice cream sandwich. A certain level of complexity is unavoidable. Phaseinduction 19:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"highly increasing with evolution"
"Their percentage in comparison to thalamocortical neurons varies across species, highly increasing with evolution."
Unless you are comparing old, dead species with currently living ones, this statement doesn't make sense, since each living species is separated from the first living cell by the the same length of time (and evolution was occurring within this time period). Perhaps you mean something like 'species phylogenetically closer to humans have higher percentages'?
Bayle Shanks 01:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Development section restructured
Based on the recent review (Building a bridal chamber - the development of the thalamus in Trends of Neuroscience) , I restructured the development section of the thalamus. I think it is much clearer. One could even add an evolutionary chapter. Comments are welcome.
Steffen Scholpp (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
SERT-ss and suicide etc
The sentence "Enlargement of the thalamus provides an anatomical basis for why people who inherit two SERT-ss alleles are more vulnerable to major depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicide." is not a very accurate description of the result in . Can someone please change this to something more accurate? Nopedia (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Use of term "ventral thalamus"
I do not have subject-matter expertise, but noted in the Thalamic Nuclei section that in the first paragraph the term "ventral thalamus" is used, and in the second the expression "perithalamus (prethalamus formerly described as ventral thalamus)" is used.
So we have three terms being comingled prethalamus and ventral thalamus, which appear to be synonyms, and perithalamus, which appears to perhaps differ slightly though that is not clear.
The term prethalamus is hyperlinked, so perhaps that should be the preferred term? Perhaps the preferred term should be consistently used in the main text, and synonyms should be introduced once in parenthesis. An expert would need to review to ensure the terms are interchangeable. Rich0 (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a neuroscientist but definitely not an expert on the anatomy of the thalamus, which is a tangled subject -- on that basis I'll tell you my understanding. The perithalamus, I believe, is a term for the region that surrounds the thalamus, and often is more or less synonymous with the reticular nucleus of the thalamus. Prethalamus is synonymous with ventral thalamus, but a Google Scholar search shows that "ventral thalamus" is used about ten times as often in the literature, so it is not clear that "prethalamus" should be preferred in our article. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
One thalamus with two parts, or two thalami?
The article seems to be somewhat inconsistent about whether the human brain has one thalamus or two thalami. E.g. there is a mention of "two halves of the thalamus" but also of "both thalami". A figure shows an "intrathalamic adhesion", which seems to me to imply that there is one thalamus with two parts; otherwise, interthalamic adhesion would seem more reasonable for something between two separate thalami. However, I am far from certain about that. Ged.R (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the literature is entirely consistent on this -- but that doesn't just apply to the thalamus. Even for the hippocampus, which consists of two separated parts, people often speak of "the hippocampus". I have only rarely seen people speak of two "thalami" -- perhaps because it is a midline structure. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
While the current figure used to show the nuclei (Thalmus.png) is colorful and pretty, it doesn't convey the 3D nature of the structure appropriately. I propose a change to Constudthal.gif, which gives a much better visualization of it, although not as pretty. --dmbasso (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
doi:10.1136/practneurol-2014-000852 reviews (as an illustrative case series) the difficulty in localising neurological pathology to the thalamus. Loss of attention is a major feature. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"The thalamus is the same size, shape and weight as the marine iguana's brain."
Knowing practically nothing about the thalamus, yet I have boldly deleted this sentence, which appears to be ridiculous, though possibly true. It was added by an unregistered editor in May 2014. Wwheaton (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever its validity, I agree that it doesn't belong here. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added a link to Nonmotor region of the ventral nuclear group of the thalamus, orphan until now. It is a stub and has multiple issues that should be corrected and I am not qualified to do so, but it is the only place where I have found any information on nonmotor functions of the thalamus. I was looking for missing Motor thalamus referenced in the Function section of Pars reticulata. If my addition should be corrected, please do so. JML 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)