Talk:White matter

Untitled

Not talking about people here, of course, but from a culinary perspective... what would the difference in taste be? If there's extra myelin and stuff in the white matter, would it in general cook up better because it's fattier?

The pedophiles statement seems out of place

What does the size of the white matter of pedophiles has to do with the article? It seems disconnected, out of place. I suggest it should be moved in the appropriate article related to pedophiles.Visarga (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The source, http://www.cbc.ca/story/health/national/2007/11/28/pedophiles-study.html, is not a valid webpage anymore. This should be updated. Modularized (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its fine, and good infact. We always need a good strong kick to remind us that correlation does not imply causation. However, it would be more appropriate on that page, not on this one. Its a rather dubious claim after all. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird intro sentence

Yes, white matter is named for its color, but shouldn't the first sentence of the article be something more definitional? If I know that white matter is white, gray matter gray, and the substantia nigra is black, I still don't know anything about white matter. Laurosaur (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no other names for it. Not really. So no that'd be a bad idea. Scientists name things for a reason, because having laymen can easily confuse these subjects. Imagine if every time you opened a page, it awas a roulette to determine which word which means the same thing ultimately would be used. Rapid confusion would follow. As for not knowing anything about white matter? Theres nothing that can be done. Millenia of constant asking and poking and probing has only given us complex and hard to understand rules and the vaguest notion on how to examine and explore such htings without the obvious badness that could result. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

False information

Males do not have more white matter than females; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modularized (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the statement that males have more white matter than females to make it more precise, less over-generalizing. The paper referenced by that Science Daily article had a very different operationalization of (or way of labelling and measuring stuff for ones' purposes as) "white matter" from the Marner et al. paper, which may have had an operationalization more similar to the one for this paper, http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223%2807%2900198-9/abstract, according to which "when controlling for total volume, women have a higher percentage of gray matter and men a higher percentage of white matter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaLalina (talk • contribs)

I have no complaint about your edit to the article, but please don't change section titles on the talk page, unless they are meaningless. Responding to a message doesn't imply that you agree with it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Terminology

The statement "child molesters with pedophilia" seems redundant. Wouldn't any child molester be a pedophile? The Lightning Stalker (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pedophilia" refers to the sexual attraction to children. "Child molestation" refers to the actual sexual touching of a child. There exist pedophiles who abstain from touching children, and there are child molesters for reasons other other than sexual attraction to children.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence -- one cited source is a bad link, the other is a BBC news story. Even a citation of the journal publication would not properly meet WP:MEDRS. Basically that information doesn't belong in an article like this. Looie496 (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Revamp

Not to be overly critical, but I think this article is just horrible. I think there's a lot of irrelevant, unnecessary and disputable information. I don't think the article needs to be long, but it should include:

1) a small section on myelin (its made by astrocytes, it insulates axons to help with conduct nerve impulses, and the amount of myelin in a person's brain increases with age [a brain isn't fully myelinated until ~35]) and instructions for readers to consult that page

2) the principle white matter tracts in the brain and spinal cord (commissural, association and projection fibers), again with instructions for readers to consult their respective pages; the current Location section could also be cleaned up and included with these

3) I like the Clinical Relevance section, but it could also be cleaned up

I'd love to hear what others think of these suggestions, or if they think anything else should be included, etc... I might make this a project of mine, but not right away...Seasunsky (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. I'm also rather unsure about the section "large scale". The thing is: axons are myelinated to reduce conduction delays. the longer the axon, the longer the delay. There are two ways to ameliorate this: 1) increase the diameter (e.g. the giant squid axon from which HH eqns were derived, which is not myelinated at all) b) thicken the myelin. Both options require an increase in axon diameter, and we know that long fibres like sup long fasiculus have much bigger axon diameters than U fibres between gyri or shorter intra gyral fibres. My point is that the article implies that there is less long range than short connectivity. And that isn't necessarily true. It's just that long fibres have to be wide to keep time delays down.

What's more, long fibre systems are cortico-cortical (in fact, all long fibres running caudal<->rostral are I'd say) as well as thalamo-cortical or otherwise ascending. The author is not clear in his/her understanding of this.

I'd like to see someone clarify this. I suppose maybe me, since I research white matter and connectivity professionally at the moment. It'll have to wait till I'm more certain of things, but I'll do the whole the article if necessary. It would have a monkey emphasis, but that's where the action is on this topic research wise. The main systems are the same to a very good extent. glial numbers per mm3, axon diameters, myelination etc may vary but with human really you're stuck with diffusion imaging alone and that gets you only so far.

I'll do it. If not, call me out on it via talk page Duracell (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! Looie496 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustration

The illustration on this page which is labeled micrograph of white matter is the same illustration on the Grey Matter page and there is labeled micrograph of grey matter. So what gives? Anyone else catch this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narjis542003 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Types of astrocytes section is stranded

The section called Types of astrocytes seems to be stranded, I mean, almost unconnected with the surrounding text. I suggest it either be connected with the flow of the rest of the article or else be removed. Dratman (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. I went ahead and removed it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Dratman (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mapping the brain

Isnt the brain been mapped by a supercomputer? 78.19.141.82 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)