Talk:Amygdala

message: Hi everyone, I was requested to come over to this article and have a look in regards to some sort of commotion?  I gave it (and the talk page) a quick skim and the article seems reasonable in its current form; except that I would recommend putting the majority of the article in the singular form, i.e. amygdala is the most common usage.  From the talk page, I would skip any reference to the clicking stuff; there is no clicking in the brain (except for clicking in the ear), there are only voltage potentials and current; or more specifically, electrons, nuclei, and photons interacting electromagnetically.  Also, I would suggest to add more sources to the "memory section" and furthermore to add more historical neuroscience researchers to this article, e.g. who made the first connection between the fear state of mind and amygdala activity.  Adios: --Sadi Carnot 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this comment in terms of offering additional historical researchers on the amygdala, as it appears that there are a very limited number on the original article. Perhaps, would it make sense to include some of the more current researchers in the field and to explain the neuropsychological connections that are becoming more common in the field today? -  Cielo Diaz, 12:10, 18 July 2022 CieloGissel95 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with article?

message: SevenTime <<<<snipped comments already deleted by someone who blanked the entire talk page after filling it up with a defense of ideas expressed in his vanity-press publications; see page history for details  Comments by others remain. Intent is that if the person doesn't want his comments here and wants to archive them, fine, but others are participating in a lengthy intermittant discussion during several months and their comments should not be deleted by one who is unhappy that the article does not include references to his self-published original research. SevenTime 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page management 

message: Just wondering why Lizard brain redirects here? Thanks. Searles2sels (PJ) 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so. But this being the case, shouldn't there be some discussion of the evolution of the brain and how the amygdala fits in? -Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed it to a redirect to Triune brain -- it should be possible to see the reason for the redirect by looking at that article.  There is enough known about the reptilian brain to justify a freestanding article about it, but until one is created, this is probably the best redirect. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lizard Brain Redirect 

message: I renamed the "Disorder" section to "Neuropsychological correlates of amygdala activity" and included a lot of research about the amygdala in primates and in humans (with appropriate citations). I'd like to keep all of this research in the article, as I think it is very relevant, but my passage is what I'd mostly call "groundwork" and I'd like to make additions and improvements to it over time. Suggestions are welcomed. --Ubiq 10:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section I've added 

message: Hi- I have worked on the amygdala for two decades and feel the article in its current form does not do justice to the field.  As I understand it, the wiki culutre is more about small changes to what exists rather that major re-writes.  I tried doing small edits but stopped in frustration.  For this reasion, I would like to do a complete re-write of the text to improve the coverage and expand the citations.  I have sent sereral colleagues who work on various aspects of the amaygdala my version of an amygdala wiki article and we have been assembling a bibliography to go with it that reflects the current and historical state of the field.  Please advise me on whether I should go forward or leave this as it is.
Ledouxje (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One side of me would really hate to see the Neuropsychological correlates section go, especially considering I created most of it. But if you really think that the article could benefit from a complete rewrite, then by all means, be bold. --Ubiq (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A complete rewrite (leaving in any good bits) seems like a great idea if you've got the time! ferguskane (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to submit a complete re-write of the Amygdala article 

message: This has gotta be the part of the brain where the soul peeks out. There should be a section about those interesting disorders you can get where, like, if the amygdala tightens up, everything feels insignificant, like people feel like theyre not the people you know, and if it widens you get a 'religious experience' where everything's oversignificant..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: I'd suggest taking this out until someone has actually read the paper (which is not out yet?).  A BBC link just does not cut it, especially considering their abysmal science reporting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferguskane (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation 

message: The images are a bit fuzzy on my computer.  The text (in those images that have text) is hard to read.  The images associated with this article would be better done in SVG format.  Is anyone able and willing to make the change?  Thanks.  SlowJog (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images  with text. 

message: I've replaced the coronal-brain image with a PNG version and downscaled it.  The basic underlying problem here is that GIF scaling is currently completely broken on Wikipedia.  I think it now looks okay at this scale but I'm not trying to force the issue, if you want to resize it, feel free.  I would favor a very small version over a very large version, if it comes to that -- to make it obvious that the image needs to be clicked on in order to be viewed.  (I also cropped a bit of unnecessary white space at the edges.) looie496 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: I just noticed the Scholarpedia uses the GFDL image here for its Amygdala article. I can't see whether the whole article was originally GFDL (I just posted to Scholarpedia talk questioning where exactly the article copyright is listed). Anyway, since the picture from Wikipedia is GFDL that makes the Scholarpedia article a derivative work, so it has to be GFDL also, and so any interesting content can be copied back here. 129.215.37.9 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "aggregation" clause of the GFDL applies here:  A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. It's an interesting question, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What sucks is that Dr. LeDoux wanted to bring that article here but didn't stick around long enough to provide sources. I see they're listed at the end of that article, but not implemented in the same format as they would be here, with sources being matched to individual statements here. I wonder if it would technically be acceptable just to list them at the end like that here... --Ubiq (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That problem would be solvable, but I don't believe 129 is right that the licensing permits the article to be imported here.  If LeDoux would license it under GFDL, we would be able to make it work for Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the work is a mere aggregate - the aggregation clause applies to works that are "separate and independent" - in this case, the copied figure has been directly incorporated into a larger work, and is visible as part of the larger work which appears as a single article. The GFDL derives from the GPL, where aggregation is understood to cover things like burning different software packages to a CDROM, or storing them on the same harddisk, ie. cases where the works are clearly separate, but for practical reasons are stored on the same media. It is not understood to cover cases where one piece of software directly incorporates code from another - if this were indeed the case, then a programmer could happily copy code from GPLed software without any regard to the licensing requirements, and just claim that it was "aggregation". MereAggregation. Having said that, it is possible that the GFDL and GPL differ in this regard, although I don't see any reason why this would be the case. 129.215.37.137 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about raising this question at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights? Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarpedia content 

message: I've often heard this term and was disappointed not to find it on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone can expand this article with this content. Here's a link to a video explaining what it means . -- œ™ 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never seen this term -- a little research shows that Daniel Goleman originated it in his 1995 book "Emotional Intelligence", and that it has become very popular in the self-help/counseling literature, but isn't used in the scientific literature.  I'm not sure it should be discussed in this article, but a separate article about it would probably be justified if somebody knew enough to write one (I definitely don't), and then it could be wikilinked from this one. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Looie makes a good point. This seems to me more like a topic for a (linked) separate page than for a section of this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Amygdala hijacking]]

message: In many places this article speaks of the "amygdalae", a usage that is rarely seen in the literature and comes across as awkward.  I would like to change it to "amygdala", at least in places where there is no specific meaning that both sides of the brain are involved.  Are there objections? Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that too. No objection from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: There is one amygdala on the left side of the brain, and another amygdala on the right side. They each have their own central nucleus, medial nucleus, and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amygdalae vs. amygdala 

message: Hi, I removed the fact regarding schizophrenia and right amygdala volume. The citation 33 does not say that the right amygdala is larger in schizophrenia. It says "Right hippocampus and amygdala were significantly larger than the left in all groups. Mean amygdala volume in schizophrenia or all psychoses did not differ from comparison subjects." 
Regards, Nardzom (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. Thanks for catching that. Since an article about the amygdala doesn't need to report findings where nothing was affected in the amygdala, I have deleted the sentence entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Erroneous information

message: there is some interesting research suggesting correlations between political ideology and the Amygdala, would they warrant their own section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be more than preliminary findings, for us to include it here. We would also need sources to which to cite it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2 count as a reputable source? I've read through it and it does indeed seem like a valid scientific study with results that indicate political orientation is positively correlated with the size and activity of certain brain structures, including the amygdala. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:1906:619F:FBF:162E (talk) 2601:1C0:8500:1161:1906:619F:FBF:162E (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuro-political correlates ? 

message: ...but a ctrl-f in the article found no lizard. I know my spontaneous search shouldn't be taken as data, but could a Google Page Rank be considered a reliable source now? Google *is* the zeitgeist intelligence. 83.109.0.174 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even clear why Google would show this page for that search. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt there are sources other than Wikipedia that refer to the amygdala as the lizard brain, although I think it's more common to use the phrase to refer to either the limbic system in its entirety, or to all brain structures below the cortex. Anyway, on Wikipedia, Lizard brain is a redirect to Triune brain, which I just added to the "see also" section. Otherwise, I don't see any need to change anything here. In response to the IP's question about reliability, there's WP:GHITS. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Googled "lizardbrain" and this was one of the first hits 

message: I recently read a couple articles on the "influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth." Might be something to include on this page. but i didn't want to go ahead and start a new section without discussing placement and title, and that type of stuff first.
articles: 
Hewitson, Laura, et al. "Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants:
A pilot study". Found at:http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf
second article just mentions previous one: Turlejski, Kris. "Focus on Autism." http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7016.pdf
Looking for suggestions, thoughts.AnieHall (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this in talk. What I'm thinking is that, per WP:MEDRS, we probably should not include this until it's beyond the pilot study, primary source stage. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaccination and the amygdalae 

message: One study found correlation of amygdala size with altruism.  It would be interesting to see if this is reproduced. -- Beland (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altruism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Amygdala. 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/20100714174906/http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/25 to http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/25
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amygdala. 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/20080507145446/http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/hiercentraldirectory.aspx?ID=219 to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/hiercentraldirectory.aspx?ID=219
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) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amygdala. 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/20070331204849/http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/med532/amygdala.htm to http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/med532/amygdala.htm
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) 15:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This whole article should be rewritten to eliminate (as far as possible) the hidden bias in language.
For example, there is no such thing as an "emotional event" because events don't have emotion. 
Any "emotion" is a state of being that humans (and probably other vertebrates) generate in response to an event.
Ken Evans 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading form of words 

message: The subdivisions image is not referred to in the text. Would anyone object if I added a section on the Nuclei of the Amygdala and replaces the image?
This would be a good source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557007/
High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging reveals nuclei of the human amygdala: manual segmentation to automatic atlas, Z.M Saygin, D Kliemann, 2017
Also FreeSurfer has an atlas: http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/ Bodysurfinyon (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions image vs. nuclei 

message: I'm concerned about several of the claims made in hemispheric specialization subsection of "Structure," such as that there is well established and well understood division of function between the left and right amygdalae, and the suggestion that the right half of the brain responds to negative stimuli and so on. Two of the three citations are of narrow primary research, one from the 1990s and one from 2007, neither of which make the broad claims in the article. The hemispheric specialization claims should be sourced from relatively recent secondary and tertiary sources, like review articles and textbooks, and any material unsupported by citations should be removed. I'll start looking for sources and removing the most dubious claims, so if anyone wants to put stuff back in, please source it robustly. Krb19 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, . The whole section on hemispheric specializations is dubious with non-credible sources. I wouldn't object to outright deletion of this section. --Zefr (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemispheric Specialization - Unsourced material 

message: cf "The central nuclei are involved in.. neuroendocrine responses (stress-hormone release), etc." - Can anybody link to the names of these stress-hormones? Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The central nuclei produce what stress-hormones ? 

message: The following passage appears to have been lifted verbatim from the cited article which appears to have been a poor translation to English, given the idiosyncratic use of "Exploring": Exploring the primary attractive pheromone activates the basolateral amygdala and the shell of nucleus accumbens but neither the ventral tegmental area nor the orbitofrontal cortex. In contrast, exploring the secondarily attractive male-derived odorants involves activation of a circuit that includes the basolateral amygdala, prefrontal cortex and ventral tegmental area. Jim Bowery (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense of "Exploring" under emotional learning? 

message: — Assignment last updated by CieloGissel95 (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

message: I am a medical student working in addiction medicine at the moment, and was looking for research on this topic -- I can tell you, based on what I have found in other sources, this is off-base from current research and also is written in a really subjective way that is unscientific (ex., shames masturbation, weirdly?? which is an opinion that is not held by the medical community). 128.12.122.54 (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "alcoholism and binge drinking" section is written subjectively and poorly 

message: Regarding the 3rd paragraph of "Hemispheric Specializations" - "right hemisphere of the amygdala". I reviewed both linked articles and neither divided a single amygdala into hemispheres. I believe hemisphere is referring to the brain, not amygdala.  Also, if "amygdala" is intended to be consistently singular in the article rather than describing a system with both amygdalae, this phrase should probably be "amygdala in <or of> the right hemisphere" or perhaps "right amygdala".  Xtraterrestrian (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbiage issue 

message: Why would the early development of the left amygdala help with detecting danger when the right amygdala is associated with fearful stimuli?
From the article:
"The left amygdala reaches its developmental peak approximately 1.5–2 years prior to the right amygdala. Despite the early growth of the left amygdala, the right increases in volume for a longer period of time. The right amygdala is associated with response to fearful stimuli as well as face recognition. It is inferred that the early development of the left amygdala functions to provide infants the ability to detect danger." FropFrop (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed - Development and sex distinction 

message: "extentive" > "extensive" ? R. Henrik Nilsson (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "extentive" > "extensive" ?