Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion about concerns over student editing[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Student assignments#Questionable articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable[edit]

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I was aware of it but not paying much attention. Are there any neuroscience-related pages that you know of, where such journals are being cited as sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope. I just posted this to assuage an open-access activist who was concerned that the discussion at RSN was somehow being "hidden" from the community, so I provided notice to science-based WikiProjects. Not a bad idea anyway. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

self-disorders and neuroscience[edit]

We've started a new article self-disorder, a hallmark characteristic of schizophrenia, which I have added to this project because of the number of articles available that deal with neurobiological issues relating to them. Some of these articles are: [1] (full text: [2]) and [3]. There are other articles, as well as related terms like "anomalous self-experiences" and "basic symptoms."

Unfortunately, I don't really have a very good understanding of the topic and I'm not as familiar with the sources involved, so I am asking for some assistance in adding to the self-disorder. As I understand, the self-disorders in schizophrenia seem to arise from problems of perceptual organization, multisensory integration, and other neurobiological factors. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. --Beneficii (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is another review article on the topic, which is open access: Here self-disorders in schizophrenia develop from "perceptual incoherence." I am not confident in my knowledge on this topic enough to write it on Wikipedia, however. --Beneficii (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
@Beneficii: the kind of information that you are dealing with there really isn't neuroscience per se, so much as psychology and psychiatry (in other words, it doesn't really get down to the level of identifying specific brain regions or nerve cell groups). You will probably find more expert help at WT:MED than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Expert comment requested at redirects for discussion[edit]

Please comment here. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've commented there, and I see other comments from editors who appear not to really understand the subject matter, so it would be useful for other editors from this WikiProject to take a look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 17#Action potential threshold for more comments, so editors at this project may really want to see if there is anything you want to add. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 Minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Class project at Neuroscientist[edit]

A heads-up to experienced editors: please see Talk:Neuroscientist#BIOL 3501 outline for Neuroscientist under "Danielggpeters". Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge Pleasure center into Reward system?[edit]

Pleasure is a component of reward (pleasurable stimuli are defined as intrinsically rewarding stimuli); hence, the entire pleasure system a subsystem within the reward system. Hedonic hotspots are already covered in the reward system article at the moment. I'm inclined to merge these articles, but I was wondering what others thought about this. Should we retain pleasure center as an independent article or cover the topic of "pleasure centers"/"hedonic hotspots" in a section within the Reward system article? Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that merging (with a redirect of course) would probably be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily opposed to merging,since the concepts are closely related, but as the terms are most commonly used pleasure is not a component of reward. Jaak Panksepp, for example, takes pleasure and reward to correspond to what Kent Berridge called "liking" and "wanting". Pleasure is defined operationally by emotional expressions and by continuing to perform a consummatory behavior after the behavior has started. Reward is defined by a tendency to repeat an approach behavior in the future when an opportunity is offered. The two constructs can be distinguished by dissociable effects on them of brain damage and drugs. In particular, dopamine antagonists interfere with reward but don't eliminate pleasure; opiate antagonists interfere with pleasure but don't eliminate reward effects. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Those are very good points. However, given that the pages are to some extent defined anatomically ("center" and "system"), I feel like there is indeed a lot of anatomical overlap. But I do agree that a merged page needs to carefully explain the distinctions that you just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really familiar with any of Panksepp's research, but basically every body of literature on reward that I've read/cited (mostly by Nestler,[1] Schultz,[2] and Berridge[3]) has consistently described motivational salience for reward (i.e., desire/wanting/incentive salience), pleasure/liking, and associative learning (particularly positive reinforcement) as components or functions of reward. Based upon your description, it appears that researcher considers reward and incentive salience to be identical concepts. If that were the case, the reward system would really just be composed of the nucleus accumbens shell. Seppi333 (Insert ) 01:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 15: Reinforcement and Addictive Disorders". In Sydor A, Brown RY. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. pp. 365, 367, 375. ISBN 9780071481274. The neural substrates that underlie the perception of reward and the phenomenon of positive reinforcement are a set of interconnected forebrain structures called brain reward pathways ... The brain reward circuitry that is targeted by addictive drugs normally mediates the pleasure and strengthening of behaviors associated with natural reinforcers, such as food, water, and sexual contact. ... If motivational drive is described in terms of wanting, and hedonic evaluation in terms of liking, it appears that wanting can be dissociated from liking and that dopamine may influence these phenomena differently. 
  2. ^ Schultz W (2015). "Neuronal reward and decision signals: from theories to data" (PDF). Physiological Reviews. 95 (3): 853–951. doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 September 2015. Retrieved 24 September 2015. Pleasure is not only one of the three main reward functions but also provides a definition of reward. ... Intrinsic rewards are activities that are pleasurable on their own and are undertaken for their own sake ... Thus desire is the emotion that helps to actively direct behavior towards known rewards, whereas pleasure is the passive experience that derives from a received or anticipated reward. ... These emotions are also called liking (for pleasure) and wanting (for desire) in addiction research (471) and strongly support the learning and approach generating functions of reward. 
  3. ^ Berridge KC, Robinson TE, Aldridge JW (2009). "Dissecting components of reward: 'liking', 'wanting', and learning". Current Opinion in Pharmacology. 9 (1): 65–73. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014. PMC 2756052free to read. PMID 19162544. 
I'm familiar with all of this literature, and I agree with you that we are primarily dealing with the NAc, so merging makes sense from an anatomical perspective. So I continue to be in favor of the merge that you propose. I think the takeaway here is simply that, largely per Berridge, it is very desirable that the text of the merged page explain how sources do not simply treat pleasure and reward as the exact same thing behaviorally – behaviorally as opposed to anatomically. (And strictly speaking, Berridge and some others do indeed find circuit differences at the sub-nucleus level for different behavioral components. That does not make for different "centers", but it does support the concept that we are talking about brain functions that are composed of multiple distinct parts.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll make sure to reiterate the distinction in the section on pleasure centers if I go ahead with the merge then. I'll probably also cover hedonic coldspots there as well if I do merge them - there's both a hotspot and a coldspot (a disgust center a substructure that mediates the suppression of pleasure/liking responses as a result of opioid stimulation) in distinct subcompartments within the ventral pallidum and NAcc shell according to Berridge's most recent review. Seppi333 (Insert ) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I went ahead and merged the page. Didn't really end up merging any content since most of the sources were fairly old (1-5 decades), but I imported the cats/SA links. I made an attempt to cover the distinction between pleasurable stimuli (i.e., intrinsic rewards) vs non-pleasurable rewarding stimuli (extrinsic rewards) both in the lead and in the section where pleasure centers/hedonic hotspots are covered. It also occurred to me while writing about the distinction between intrinsic/extrinsic rewards that they correspond with primary reinforcers and secondary reinforcers respectively; might be something to mention in the article if I can find a source that covers this. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue with Category:Neurotrophins[edit]

See WT:MCB#Issue with Category:Neurotrophins. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See discussion importing content from database into WP[edit]

Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#Transporter_classification_database Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There continue to be issues that are directly related to neuroscience there, as well as at Talk:Voltage-gated ion channel. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

deep sleep -- a suggestion[edit]

Will someone knowledgeable please look at Talk:Neuroscience of sleep, new section "deep sleep". An IP has made a suggestion there and I have replied; neither of us is qualified to act on it. Thank you, --Hordaland (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking here. I made a reply there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues in the Cerebellum article[edit]

The Cerebellum article is a candidate for publication in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine (Wikiversity draft located here). When published, the snapshot in Wikiversity will be easier for external sources to cite, and it will give clear credit to those who have contributed the most to creating the article. However, first it needs some amendment in regard to the issues found in by the peer reviewer, copied to here:

The article is very informational and is written in an encyclopedic voice. It is written at a scholarly level while still maintaining enough readability for lay readers. Though, I suggest a few changes (highlighted in the attached pdf).

1. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the cerebellum in terms of its structure and functions, certain aspects of its anatomy are still lacking:
- Information on blood supply should be added (superior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, and posterior inferior cerebellar artery), perhaps with illustrations.
- Its connections to the brainstem (the three cerebellar peduncles) and tracks (e.g., cerebellothalamic tract) should be mentioned.

2. Information on cerebellar anomalies should also be added to section 'Clinical significance', e.g., Arnold-Chiari malformation, Dandy-Walker syndrome, etc.

Other comments:
1. I notice some missing citations at several locations:
- Page 1, 'Most of them derive from....., Purkinje cell receives two dramatically...., The basic concept of Marr-Albus.....
- Page 5, last paragraph of section 1.2.1 Purkinje cell, The most popular concept of their function....
- Page 7, section 2 Function, last paragraph, Kenji Doya has argued......
- Page 9, second paragraph of section 2.3 Theories and computational methods, Perhaps the earliest "performance" theory...

2. Page 3, Figure: Microcircuitry of the cerebellum, abbreviation of CFC is lacking.
3. Page 7, section 1.2.5 Deep nuclei, use the word 'supply' instead of 'innervate'.

Also, User:Tony1 asked what "its" refers to for the sentence "This complex neural organization gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost all of its output passes through a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum."

As this is among Wikipedia's featured articles, I think it is important to address these matters. Also, please give me a note if you think you think you've made substantial contributions to this article to have your name among the authors in the Wikiversity article. In that case, your real name should be used rather than your username.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

These issues have now been amended. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Human neuroepigenetic (class I histone deacetylase) PET imaging in vivo[edit]

A recently published study used a radiotracer called [11C] Martinostat to accomplish this.[1] I figured I'd post this here in the event anyone is interested in reading the paper or creating an article on the compound (someone created it today). Seems pretty notable considering that this can be used to validate some of the key epigenetic mechanisms from animal models of the molecular neurobiology of addiction in living humans. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Wey HY, Gilbert TM, Zürcher NR, She A, Bhanot A, Taillon BD, Schroeder FA, Wang C, Haggarty SJ, Hooker JM (10 August 2016). "Insights into neuroepigenetics through human histone deacetylase PET imaging". Science Translational Medicine. 8 (351): 351ra106. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf7551. PMID 27510902. Retrieved 12 August 2016. Lay summaryEpigenetic Activity Imaged in Human Brain for First Time (11 August 2016). In neurological disorders, HDACs change expression in regions throughout the brain, but their dynamic contribution to human disease development over time is unknown. Wey et al. therefore developed and applied an HDAC imaging probe, called Martinostat, to visualize HDAC expression in the living brain. Martinostat was previously tested in rodents and nonhuman primates, and here, it is used for the first time in humans. 

Discussion about notability of a BLP[edit]

More views would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Asking for some other opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)