Talk:Neural oscillation

message: I'm a scientist in an electrophysiology lab that uses scalp EEG, human intracranial recordings, and monkey intracranial multiunit recordings. In particular, we study oscillatory mechanisms of cognitive processes such as selective attention. For us, the term "neural oscillations" means oscillatory neural activity, independent of how its recorded. The data that are collected by the various methods are just numbers in a computer file, which we take to reflect the underlying brain activity to a certain extent. However, this opening paragraph says that the terms refer to the recordings of the activity, not the activity itself, which is inaccurate. This is important, because while any article on neural oscillations should mention the various methods used to observe them, as well as their benefits and drawbacks, the focus should be on neural oscillations themselves, which are brain activity.
Furthermore, the distinction between "neural oscillations" and "brain waves" makes me uneasy. "Brain waves" is the term we use to explain our work to non-specialists (i.e.: over the dinner table with family friends), and we use it to refer to measurable electrical potentials of the brain in a general sense. By "brain waves" we are usually referring to the raw EEG signal, whereas by "neural oscillations" we are usually refering to band-delimited components of the frequency spectrum of that raw signal. I have seen the term "brain waves" published in journals, but its usually in the titles for snazzy reviews, and the authors quickly switch over to using more specific terminology. In brief, I find the term "brain waves" to be highly colloquial, unspecific and inaccurate.
:Lots of the neuroscience articles on Wikipedia were written by people who didn't really know what they were talking about, and badly need improvement.  If you're a scientist who works on this, please edit the article in any way that seems appropriate to you.  The only thing to be careful about is not to express personal views that aren't reflected in the mainstream literature.  Also bear in mind that an article on this topic should be understandable by an undergraduate, or even by an intelligent high school student.  If you need any advice, please ask. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, my first reaction was to this as a laymen perspective issue, accentuating "oscillations" as some class of thing without particular context or understanding of relevance etc.  Certainly you can emphasize the recorded signal, which presumably has some fourier spectrum regardless of its physical origin, or the underlying system that generates the signal and just about any closed loop with time delay, like a ring oscillator, will "oscillate." Neural suggests some interest in attributing signal to physical origin and significance to organism containing the neurons. 
I have recently read a wiki article on electromagnetic theories of consciousness, and there is credible but speculative literature on the primacy of
EM to mind, notably,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=penrose+hameroff
adding oscillations turns up only one result, 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=oscillations+penrose+hameroff
The title of this page may make an interesting entry and indeed the "oscillation" may be thought to contain signifiant information. But of course that depends upon the details of the content which I have not taken the time to assess. 
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: I completely agree with the above assessment and have updated the opening paragraph to incorporate the suggested changes. TjeerdB (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks like a substantial improvement. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 24/6/09 

message: The article was tagged to have multiple issues in September 2008. Since then a lot of changes have been made to this page, so it seems time to reassess this qualification. I'm not sure how that works. Can anyone remove the tag as he/she seems fit or is there some standard procedure? TjeerdB (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've given it a quick look and, while further improvements are always appropriate, I think it is reasonable to remove the big tag. I do notice one more stylistic correction to make: the inline citations for references should all be after the period at the end of a sentence (or the comma within a sentence). Thank you for your work on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section has multiple issues 

message: I've been watching this article; it's still Start class in my opinion.  There are major subtopics that aren't even mentioned -- membrane potential oscillations in single neurons and central pattern generators just to mention two.  It's almost exclusively about EEG oscillations at the moment, and doesn't even deal with that topic in anything like a comprehensive way -- a look through Gyuri Buzsaki's book "Rhythms of the Brain" might give a sense of the domain this article ought to cover. Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. I've changed the structure of this article to accommodate future additions to cover those topics more extensively. However, several subheadings are still lacking content and references, in particularly the section on the mechanisms and on memory. TjeerdB (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course it's still operational, and this page is on my watchlist, although I haven't been actively editing it. I don't understand where you made a request. I don't see anything about it at the WikiProject page or talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see it, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment.  I was intending to look at it, but hadn't gotten around to it due to the complexity of the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't know about that page! It's on my watchlist now. WP:There is no deadline. This article is rather complex, and probably could do with a serious copyedit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't want to rush or upset anyone, it's just not always clear how things work as a relative outsider.. I would be very happy if someone is prepared to copyedit this article. TjeerdB (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely not at all upset, and I don't think anyone else is, either, so please don't worry about that at all. And I think Looie did a fine job of reviewing it—thanks! I'll put a note at the WikiProject, instructing others like me to be aware of the assessment page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed the content structure of article to give it a clearer organization and cover the missing topics. Although a number of sections need editing, I was wondering whether you think the new structure is an improvement or whether you have some suggested changes.TjeerdB (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Considering the changes since the last assessment and comparing it to related articles in WikiProject Neuroscience, I'm assessing it as B class. Happy to hear comments from the other editors.TjeerdB (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment for WikiProject Neuroscience 

message: I disagree with the page rename from plural to singular. (I'm also not convinced that neural synchronization does not still merit a separate page.) What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm not sure which name makes more sense logically, but the singular seems to better match the way other articles are named.  As long as a redirect for the alternative name exists, I don't see that it matters all that much which is the "official" name.  Regarding the merger, I think perhaps in principle separate articles are justified for all of the things that were merged, but all of them were very sketchy in their existing state, and nothing prevents splitting the material off again if somebody wants to expand it. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: In neuroscience most people will refer to it in plural, which also has my preference. I agree with the above two editors that the different topics merit separate articles. That is, although they are clearly related, some of these terms refer to fundamentally different phenomena. For the moment it might be good to have them merged in a single article though, as this might attract more people who want to contribute to this underrepresented topic. TjeerdB (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rename 

message: In my opinion, 'spontaneous activity' and 'ongoing activity' refers to the same type of activity and should be merged. What do other editors think? TjeerdB (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, although there is little in the 'ongoing activity' section that is worth merging, in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I merged them now. Åkebråke (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activity patterns 

message: In previous discussions on this article it became apparent that the focus was mainly on large-scale oscillations as measured by EEG/MEG. The spiking patterns of individual neurons also reflect oscillatory neural activity. I tried to reorganize some of the headings so to better reflect the multiple topics this article should cover. At present, the sections of single neuron activity are very short and require further expansion. This is however not my main expertise so I hope someone would like to help generating some content on this topic. TjeerdB (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuronal spiking 

message: In response to Looie496's assessment on 19:09, 21 July 2011, I propose a new organization of the content structure. At present the main division is between neuronal spiking and large-scale oscillations, which is not very clear. In addition, it includes the topics that were identified as missing. Please leave any feedback below. Otherwise, I'll carry out the reorganization on 2 August 2011. TjeerdB (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content structure 

message: I agree with Rjanag that Scholarpedia is peer-reviewed and articles are written by experts. In my opinion, most articles are of very high standard and written on a more advanced level than wikipedia. As such, they may provide valuable background information for people who would like have a more detailed understanding of some of the concepts discussed, in particular for a technical article as neuronal oscillations. I'm not an expert on WP:MOS, but this is my reason for adding those links to Scholarpedia. TjeerdB (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, no objection from me. (I also made a null edit saying this, before I saw this comment here in talk—sorry for not looking here first.) No worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarpedia 

message: The 'brain wave' disambiguation page has a link to this page and also a link to electroencephalography, styled 'a layman term for the electric fields measured by electroencephalography'. 
It seems from the Overview here that whatever the terminology, 'brain waves' and neural oscillations are the same phenomena, or at least that the former is a class of the latter. 'Neural oscillations have been most widely studied in neural activity generated by large groups of neuron. [...] EEG signals reveal... oscillatory activity in specific frequency bands' - namely alpha, delta, beta, theta and gamma activity. As it happens, the EEG article has a section on these wave types, and each wave type has its own wikipedia entry (alpha wave, etc.). 
So my point is, as a layman with (like most intelligent, well-informed non-specialists) a vague idea that there are things called brain waves divided into alpha, beta, gamma, etc., and correlated with states of consciousness/alertness, I would expect the article on what appears to be that concept, i.e. neural oscillations, to have a clearly signalled section on those wave types, and/or some sort of terminological clarification (not just a redirect), including the fact that 'brain wave' - and presumably 'alpha wave', etc. - is a laymans term, and that the term used by experts is... ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.177.75 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Brain wave" is a more general term, because many recognized types of brain waves are not oscillatory, for example the P300 and the readiness potential.  Our articles on this whole topic area are something of a mess. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I haven't checked this page in a while, hence my late response. I appreciate your point. Apart from "brain wave" being a layman's term it is also a terminology specifically linked to EEG activity. But there are also other types of oscillations in the central nervous system, such as the heartbeat, breathing, walking but also on the cellular level that is not directly linked to 'brain waves' such as alpha activity. Given the amount of research devoted to neural oscillations it can be hard to cover all topics appropriately, but I'll keep you point in mind when I have time to work on this article again. TjeerdB (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceptual and terminological inconsistency vis-a-vis 'brain waves'. 

message: I felt that the topic of episodic memory was not given full justice in the context of neural oscillations.  I added in this section to provide a brief description of episodic memory because this is a type of memory that is strongly related to gamma and theta oscillations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed that new section (before reading this), because the contents very nearly duplicate the material in the "Memory" section directly above it.  A reader who went through them both would be very puzzled.  It would be more productive to modify that existing section, if necessary, than to add a new one.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added in my information as per your suggestion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened it, because we don't really need to define episodic memory here, since we can just link to it. The take-home message is that theta-gamma are broadly important, after all. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodic Memory Section Added

message: The article jumps right into the (no doubt fascinating) details of the matter, but I was expecting (and missing) a little basic information which maybe an encyclopedic article of this length and detail should have. Just as a suggestion here are two questions this article does not currently answer:
* Is this limited to humans? It probably isn't, since animals have central nervous systems too, but the article just doesn't explicitly state so, while mostly covering humans. Animals are only mentioned two or three times and glancing over the sources most use human subjects with a few monkeys mixed in. So are there differences between human brains and brains of other animals when it comes to neural oscillation? Can findings in one species be applied to others immediately?
* When does neural oscillation start in fetal development and is it different from adult oscillation? 88.116.229.82 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Info: Which organisms? When does it start? 

message: This article reads like a medical text or journal article -- it is too technical for the average Wikipedia user. Rissa -- obsessive/compulsive copy editor 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: This article says delta waves are 1-4 Hz, but the delta waves article says they are 0.1-4 Hz. This discrepency should be corrected, or sources should be cited to reflect differing opinions. I'm not too familiar with this topic, though.
Piojo (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta waves start at 1 Hz or 0.1 Hz? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neural oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705004813/http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/MANSWWW/MANSWWW.html to http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/MANSWWW/MANSWWW.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The following appears in the cytoskeleton topic: 
: "With the help of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, it was discovered that microtubules vibrate within neurons in the brain, suggesting that brain waves come from deeper microtubule vibrations.[13]"
::[13] is Elsevier. "Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in "Microtubules" Inside Brain Neurons Corroborates Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness". www.elsevier.com. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2017-11-20."
:92.25.47.124 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain waves arising from the cytoskeleton and microtubule vibration 

message: unfourtunatly most of the reaserch on this topic is original and cant be added to wikipedia.
idid find one source though.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/brainwaves-propagation-may-hinge-on-glial-cells/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  role of astrocytes in brainwaves: a source