lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Posterior perforated substance

message: In the lead I see, "...contains a nucleus named the interpeduncular ganglion;...", for which page does not exist is indicated for said 'interpeduncular ganglion'.  It looks to me as if that link could be made to be to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpeduncular_nucleus and/or the wording changed directly to interpeduncular nucleus, though I don't know for sure. I do know that 'ganglion' is itself technically incorrect, since the item is in the central, not peripheral, nervous system, but that in at least one instance (basal ganglia) the term is used in a 'grand-fathered' sense. I don't think 'grand-fathering' is generally the case for this particular item, but I'm not sure. If there's no objections, at some point I'll be bold and make one or both those changes.UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could 'page does not exist' (red link) for interpeduncular ganglion be accurately linked to extant Interpeduncular_nucleus ?
Talk:Uncinate fasciculus

message: Hello.
I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Reassessment for [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]]

message: 08:38 watch memory-hackers-nova-pbs, more data needed!!! also add modern data about cases refering to the uncinate fasciculus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:E00:1CD8:FB92:5E70:FFD6 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: memory-hackers-nova-pbs

message: The latter part of the last sentence in the FUNCTION section says, "...re-experiencing previous events as part of one's past as a continuous entity across time has been linked to the right uncinate fasciculus[6] as has proficiency in auditory-verbal memory and declarative memory to the integrity of the left uncinate fasciculus".  But what does, "...to the integrity of the left uncinate fasciculus." MEAN??? Could 'integrity' just be replaced with 'been linked to' ??  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  what does "...to the integrity of the left uncinate fasciculus." mean?
Talk:Splenium

message: I suspect that the splenium is mislabeled on the two (same but of different zoom) photos showing the peduncles, but I cannot say for sure. Can any body bring a third opinion? Also, I'm very much sure that the "third hemisphere" labeling on one of them is completely wrong. --46.117.237.207 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabeling on photos?
Talk:Pharyngeal branch of vagus nerve

message: What reference did we use for this? I know it looks like a branch of the vagus, but I have only ever seen in my lecture notes the nerves innervating the tongue to be from fibers from "CN XI via X" i.e. from fibers of the acessory nerve that run with the vagus... Prissi (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Proximal stimulus

message: It is probably impossible to define either proximal or distal stimulus without explaining the other... Shouldn't this page be merged with the one about distal stimulus?--Jonas.kluk 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both merged into Perception MartinPoulter (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge page with Distal stimulus?
Talk:Neural facilitation

message: The first section should be broken into two. The general outline of most wikipedia articles is that they have an initial overview paragraph under the main heading that gives a very general overview of the subject and then other sections/headings later on that go into more depth describing experiments and such. A good example of this is the article on the glutamate receptor.
I agree with the editor above who stated that it is awkward to discuss PPD under this article about facilitation. I think that what they proposed was a good idea. You could also rework some of what you have to focus less on PPD. I think it would be appropriate to mention PPD and briefly describe it and how it relates to facilitation but it might not be appropriate to discuss it in as much depth as you do in an article entitled facilitation.
:Do you mean in the intro or in general? I agree, the extended discussion of PPD in the intro felt a bit odd. I think a discussion of PPD/STD in its own section is relevant in this context, though. - Frankmic (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of things

message: It might make more sense to describe STD before this paragraph because you discuss STD in this paragraph before you define it later on.
:Agreed - I switched the order of the information transmission and other forms of synaptic plasticity sections; I think that should allow for a bit better flow. Frankmic (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: sound source localization

message: There are some places you cite sources in the text and not with the numbered Wikipedia citations, such as the third paragraph and the large paragraph under Mechanisms.Tanookiinashu (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations
Talk:Radial glial cell

message: "the content of glycogen granules or the expression of the astrocyte-specific glutamate transporter or the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). " These are glial properties? If so, should we find some references and then put it into the glial cell article? Keith Galveston (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  glial properties 

message: I have doubts whether this new material belongs in the article, mainly because I find it very difficult to tell whether the sources are reputable, or whether this is a fringe theory. Looie496 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find only one citation of the dissertation, here but can't access it. The dissertation itself seems to have been translated into English here. If that is the only English language scholarly notice taken of the theory, mention in this article is premature and fails our reliable sources and weight policies and guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: If you want to put text into a Wikipedia bio-medical article, other editors need to be able to check the sources you cite. This is a limitation of Wikipedia, due to its unique (anonymous volunteer) quality control system. Your text can be returned to this article if you can provide English language peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks that evaluate the theory. The policy governing this is WP:MEDRS. This is not a criticism of the theory, it is a limitation of Wikipedia which frequently prevents the very latest research and thought from getting into the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The astrocytic hypothesis of aging of mammals]]
Talk:Semantic satiation

message: I removed the following uncited paragraph which has been fact-tagged since June.  It seems to be discussing an entirely different phenomenon.
:The phenomenon was also shown to apply at the macro level by analyzing the life span of popular hit songs as given in weekly charts by trade magazines. Songs that were instant hits, taking only a few weeks to rise to the top, disappeared from the ratings charts faster than songs that took more weeks to rise to the top ten. The explanation was that the fast-rising hit songs get played on the radio more frequently (by all disc jockeys), creating semantic satiation of those songs in listeners more rapidly than songs that are introduced and played gradually.
Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph removed 

message: This seems to be closely related to Massed negative practice, could the two articles share some information? AndreasBWagner (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massed negative practice 

message: The further reading list could be more selective  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quorn3000 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section seems excessive 

message: Here's a post on the topic: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2833
67.119.12.141 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  language log 

message: It seems as though the movie Pontypool would also be a good addition. I'm not doing it myself because this is not my area of expertise, but it did come to mind. Cheers! TwoSpear 01:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Another entry for such as section could be episode 6 ("Two Aces") of season 1 of Ted Lasso. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I see no evidence that this is an appropriate alternative name for this effect. The literature describing the effect refers to “satiation” and the redirect from “semantic saturation” will catch any searches for the incorrect name. DAnuu (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed “also semantic saturation”. 

message: This may explain why communist ideology collapses in people's minds really fast when the oppressive regime topples: the overabundance of communist propaganda slogans on every wall makes it dissipate rather than imprint in the brain, so it quickly vanishes when the force is removed, regardless its merits (laborer must own its labor, there should be peace in the world, etc.)  Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist world 

message: I'll remove it unless someone can show it's relevance 79.76.155.74 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure looks like someone's idea of attempted humor; the Bible verse in question is instructing the reader not to repeat themselves. In any case it's not useful or relevant, so I vote for its removal. AvaUVqSG3Nphw7wE (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  ta, done 79.76.136.13 (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the relevance of Matthew 6:7 in the See Also section
Talk:Spike-triggered average

message: Is article still as stub? I've been BOLD on other pages, but this seems to still be mostly a lot of technical info. How do the articles get reassessed?Keepstherainoff (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: Here is a new 3D illustration diagram for STA. It might be clearer than the actual version for a broad audience that is not familiar with the manipulation of dimensions. I can also modify it.
StphTphsn (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration
Talk:Pelvic splanchnic nerves

message: I'm fairly certain that these nerves do not actually enter the sacral plexus.  Can someone confirm this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsagat (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

message: The Futurama episode Parasites Lost mentions this.  Someone put a mention of the episode earlier, and it got taken down.  I put it back in the intro section.  Let's talk about this.  Should it be in the article?  Zweifel (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurama
Talk:Subventricular zone

message: The different layers need picture of them, possibly stained to show the different cells.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.38.68 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please also cite Kriegstein et al. 2010 in Nature Reviews Neuroscience http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n4/full/nrn2825.html.
In future, all researchers and scientists should publish their results immediately in Wikipedia (like here) => this would be a scientific (unified) paradise!!!!!
Please, you scientists everywhere, eliminate all arbitrary journals, and only publish here in Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.84.95 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kriegstein et al. 2010
Talk:Dorsal nucleus of vagus nerve

message: More details regarding the sites innervated would be useful.--Xris0 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sites innervated - details?
Talk:Premovement neuronal activity

message: pre-SMA should be defined when the term is first introduced NeuroJoe (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *In your introduction, what do you mean by “Premovement activity is not thought to reflect a single parameter”?
*In the Bereitschaftspotential section, you could mention the site specificity of this potential.  I found a paper online by Hiroshi Shibasaki and Mark Hallett called What is the Bereitschaftpotential? that goes into detail about the early and late segments of BP and how they relate to the movement.  I do not think you need to go that in depth, but the paper does a good job of explaining BP.  It includes how BP phases differ depending upon the movement conditions and subjects.  You write about the different phases of the readiness potential in the Parietal Area 5 section, but you do not relate it to the BP.  This makes it a bit unclear and difficult to follow.  The web address for the paper is http://keck.ucsf.edu/~houde/sensorimotor_jc/possible_papers/HShibasaki06a.pdf.
*There is also a section in the paper that focuses on studies that have been performed that relate BP not only to voluntary muscle contraction but also muscle relaxation.  You could include how premovement is similar and/or different when a muscle is being contracted versus when it is being relaxed.
*You could also include a section that focuses on premovement neuronal activity in people with movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.  You could even touch upon how this activity is altered in older people compared to younger people.
*There are a lot of interesting studies that are being performed or have already been published concerning mirror motor neurons.  There is one being conducted by Daniel Glaser that I found where it is believed that the same neurons that fire when we perform a movement also fire when we watch someone else perform the movement.  This neuronal activity also shows variation depending upon what a person is skilled at as a result of practicing and repetition.  You could include how premovement neuronal activity is altered from individual to individual depending upon what movements they have practiced repeatedly and mastered.  For example, how is my neuronal activity different from a concert pianist’s if we were both to play the piano and have our brain activities recorded?  The web site where I found this study is http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01-resup.html.
*You may also want to include a conclusion where you summarize premovement neuronal activity and even include where research in this area is moving.
Katie1341 (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions
Talk:Olfactory trigone

message: Article currently says it's an 'area', but is it an area that is a part of the olfactory tract itself, or a part of the under-lying olfactory sulcus, or what? The phrase, "...is brought into view by throwing back the olfactory tract." suggests it's part of the sulcus, but #4 on the accompanying picture, perhaps unavoidably, suggests it's part of the tract itself?  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What IS it?
Talk:Medullary pyramids (brainstem)

message: What is the etymology?  This needs to be included.Curb Chain (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Would be better presented in a single place, would add to clarity & quality, benefit readers, & reduce needless fragmentation LT910001 (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Decussation of pyramids]] 

message: I do not have access to the Nieuwenhuys et al. text referenced, but Haines' text (Fundamental Neuroscience) does not mention the presence of corticobulbar tracts in the pyramids. Purves et al.'s text (Neuroscience) goes further, and indicates that corticobulbar axons exit the bundle superior to the pyramids to terminate in various regions of the medulla. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how corticobulbar axons could be present in the pyramids, because the pyramids lie at the extreme caudal end of the medulla, just before it transitions to being the spinal cord. The point is important because without the corticobulbar tracts, the statement under Clinical Significance that attributes difficulty swallowing and difficulty speaking to pyramidal damage during whiplash does not make logical sense. Whiplash could cause swallowing and speaking difficulties by damaging other structures present in the medulla. Does any one have access to the Nieuwenhuys et al. text to check the reference, and if the statement is there, to check Nieuwenhuys et al.'s references? I would suggest that the article be rephrased to omit reference to the corticobulbar tracts and to swallowing and speaking.
Artabr (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corticobulbar Tracts
Talk:Nerve fascicle

message: According to Gray's anatomy, funiculus is "a small bundle of fibres, enclosed in a tubular sheath; if the nerve is of small size, it may consist only of a single funiculus; but if large, the funiculi are collected together into larger bundles or fasciculi, which are bound together in a common membranous investment" i.e. the epineurium. In this article and another article (Nerve fascicle), the terms are used interchangeably, which I think is wrong. Kindly have a look at this. Thanks. Che (Talkin' Bout A Revolution) 19:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage has changed since early Gray's see  --Iztwoz (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Funiculus (neuroanatomy)|Funiculus]]/[[Nerve fascicle|Fascicle]]
Talk:Remyelination

message: Hi, currently working on adding much to this page in my Neuroscience class with much research from reputable sources. I will have the fully update article posted by November. If you'd like to add "remyelination" in the mean time, please use the Talk page to discuss. Thanks! -Matt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mphil7 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned expansion

message: In the introductory paragraph, it is stated, "This is a process naturally regulated in the body..." but in section 1.1 (Characteristics of remyelinated axons) it is stated, "remylenated axons tend to have values closer to 1, indicating a thinner myelin sheath than those myelinated naturally." Its unclear which it is. Sbbarker19 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction in text
Talk:Synaptotropic hypothesis

message: I would like to make a case for upgrading this topic from ??? to at least low importance in the Neuroscience field. The main problem is that it is an area that has been ignored, more I think because of its obscurity, than because of its importance. What we are discussing here is one of the primary mechanisms by which dendritic selection might be done. We know that dendritic selection happens, and is important to the connections between neurons, however studying the mechanisms of these connections has fallen out of vogue, if only because the individual connections are opportunistic, and are not as important to the structure of the mind, as originally thought by the connectionist school. New work on a Neural Model that incorporates more information on synapse formation, and the neurochemistry of the fibril absorption process would be needed for this topic to have much importance, pending that research this topic has a probable low importance to the Neuroscience field.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done as suggested, and added a couple of basic references that I dug up by a little Google-Scholaring.  The topic hasn't really been ignored, as the second ref makes clear, but I can't quite see elevating the importance above Low at this time.  (By the way, ??? only means that nobody has yet evaluated the importance of the article, it does not count as a lower level than Low.) Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I see that you've been tweaking the form of the article a bit.  If you would like to make any improvements to the content, please go ahead.  Nobody else has done any work on it in a long time. Looie496 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Good things
* good amount of internal links that make helpful clarifications
* good amount of information
Improvements
* go through language and tone throughout article
* don't have speech in parenthesis, make into a sentence.
* italicize scientific species, ex. Xenopus laevis
* rework language of Supporting Evidence section. Info is good, tone and language could be improved
* expand upon Dissenting Evidence Section
* pictures? if any could be included, I think it would really contribute to the article
* if possible, maybe find more sources that either support/do not support the synaptotropic hypothesis (expand the support sections)
*  more sources in general wouldn't be a bad thing
Kaleinonen (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Review
Talk:Special visceral efferent fibers

message: The term 'special visceral efferent' is now increasingly regarded as a misnomer because the 'branchiomotor' components of the pharyngeal arches are now known to be derived from paraxial mesoderm just like the somite derived muscular elements. So these skeletal muscles are neither 'special' or 'visceral'so the nerves suppling in them are really just 'efferent'
The use of the SVE term is really now to link to older texts.Doctorpete (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled