Talk:Lateral inhibition

message: Its better if there is a diambiguation page linking to Lateral inhibition in development- A similar concept (to whats discussed) in which a single specialised cell arises from a field of cells capable of adopting a particular cell fate193.174.111.250 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that. If the presence of astrocytes promotes the development of neurons, that might make a nice graphic illustration. I think it should be a section heading. Brewhaha@edmc.net 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood him/her.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.12.139 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lateral inhibition in development 

message: Hello, I am currently working on this wiki page as a part of a final project for my Introduction to Neuroscience class so I will update my information and I would appreciate feedback that would aid me in making this page as concise and informative as possible. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpicon1212 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Let me mention that the convention is that new talk page messages should be added at the bottom of the page.  Also after writing a talk page message you can automatically sign it by typing ~~~~ at the end.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: thank you, I appreciate it.Mpicon1212 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Class project

message: ===Comment 1===
Hey guys, your article looks great! Here are just a few small things that stood out to me:
1.I wonder if it would make sense to move the Mach band image down the page a bit. Instead of having it next to the overview of Lateral Inhibition, have it next to your paragraph on visual inhibition because that is where you describe Mach bands, and at least for me personally I was able to understand the image more after reading that paragraph. I know that you already have another image next to your visual inhibition section, so maybe you think that fits better. Just a suggestion. 
2.In your Tactile Inhibition paragraph, there suddenly seems to be a lot less links to other wikipedia pages. Maybe this is because you have already linked to most of the relevant pages. However, one thing that did stand out to me is that maybe you could link to the Receptive field just to give some added background on that topic. 
3.The only other very small thing I noticed is that under your History heading, in the middle of that second paragraph, there seems to be a tiny typo. The third sentence says "i humans" instead of what I am guessing you intended to say was " in humans." So very small thing, but just wanted to point it out. 
Otherwise, looks great to me! Nphilip (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. However, we are reluctant to move the image because we did not post it on the page and we do not want to interfere with other contributors' work without their permission. Also, we addressed your comment about tactile inhibition and resolved that issue. We also fixed the typo. Thank you again, it was a pleasure reading your feedback. Mpicon1212 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. However, due to time constraints of this project, we were unable to receive permission to use the photos. Also, we did move the history section to the top because most other wiki pages address that first so we thought it would make sense. Thank you again, it was a pleasure reading your feedback. Mpicon1212 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you for you comment! Moving up the history section was a really good idea, and I agree that the Introduction got a little confusing, so I edited it and I hope it is a little cmore clear now. I plan to expand on the tactile inhibition section and go a little more in depth. I need to do more research on this process because some parts of it are still a little convoluded to me. 140.233.183.200 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I plan on writing a sentence that further describes centreal exitatory and peripheral inhibitory regions. Thank you for drawing my attention to this ambiguous sentence. I addressed the confusing nature of the introduction to the page, I hope. Please let me know if it is still confusing. Also, I plan on elaborating on auditory inhibition more, unfortunately, it is difficult to find sources on this type of inhibition. My partner will address the problems with visual inhibition and embryology. Thank you for your feedback! 140.233.183.200 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review from Intro to Neuro Classmates

message: Hey guys, your article looks great! Here are just a few small things that stood out to me:
1.I wonder if it would make sense to move the Mach band image down the page a bit. Instead of having it next to the overview of Lateral Inhibition, have it next to your paragraph on visual inhibition because that is where you describe Mach bands, and at least for me personally I was able to understand the image more after reading that paragraph. I know that you already have another image next to your visual inhibition section, so maybe you think that fits better. Just a suggestion. 
2.In your Tactile Inhibition paragraph, there suddenly seems to be a lot less links to other wikipedia pages. Maybe this is because you have already linked to most of the relevant pages. However, one thing that did stand out to me is that maybe you could link to the Receptive field just to give some added background on that topic. 
3.The only other very small thing I noticed is that under your History heading, in the middle of that second paragraph, there seems to be a tiny typo. The third sentence says "i humans" instead of what I am guessing you intended to say was " in humans." So very small thing, but just wanted to point it out. 
Otherwise, looks great to me! Nphilip (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. However, we are reluctant to move the image because we did not post it on the page and we do not want to interfere with other contributors' work without their permission. Also, we addressed your comment about tactile inhibition and resolved that issue. We also fixed the typo. Thank you again, it was a pleasure reading your feedback. Mpicon1212 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: This article looks very good!  Here are my suggestions:
1.  You describe the multiple cell types in the visual system very well, but because there are so many different ones (ganglion, photoreceptors, horizontal, bipolar, etc), I think it would be helpful to insert an image to help the reader visualize the pathway you're describing.  Maybe something along these lines...I found this link on google:  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webexhibits.org%2Fcolorart%2Fganglion.html&h=0&w=0&sz=1&tbnid=dGwY6ZgsZU-Q5M&tbnh=190&tbnw=266&zoom=1&docid=vMl7pc7A4kvq5M&ei=zBuRUvnxKtHrkQflloGADA&ved=0CAEQsCU.
2. I agree with Nan's comment above in that a link to the Receptive field page would be helpful, as you mention the term several times.
3.  I also think your tactile inhibition section could benefit from an image of the somatosensory/motor homunclui maps that represent different proportions of the cortex dedicated to different body parts (our textbook has a pretty good image on pg. 365).
4.  The only other thing you might consider is moving the "History" section to the beginning of the page.  Many wiki pages start with this type of background before delving into more detail, but it's up to you- just a suggestion!
I think you've done a great job with this! Vbraddick (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. However, due to time constraints of this project, we were unable to receive permission to use the photos. Also, we did move the history section to the top because most other wiki pages address that first so we thought it would make sense. Thank you again, it was a pleasure reading your feedback. Mpicon1212 (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: Thanks for writing a very solid article. I hope the following questions and comments may be of some help to you.
On the structure: Consider moving "history" to the top, as suggested. Additionally, this is perhaps a stupid question, but I think worth asking nonetheless: does lateral inhibition only encompass sensory inhibition? Does lateral inhibition have any effect on the body's motor systems? If so, definitely worth adding…(and you do allude to it in your "history" section).
On the introduction: Overall, this is a good paragraph. However, I think you could keep the reader's interest and make the article more accessible by revising just the second sentence. The first sentence is clear and jargon free, but your second sentence is bogged down with vague science-talk. Perhaps it's a product of my unfamiliarity with the topic, but I think this sentence lacks clarity in contrast to the rest of the paragraph.
Otherwise, this section could use a little cleaning up (e.g. you misuse a semicolon), but is generally well done.
On visual inhibition: I think this section would benefit from a little more structure by better integrating the two paragraphs. You describe the topic in the first paragraph, but then seem to repeat the process in more detail in the second. Otherwise, nice detail in describing the process.
On tactile inhibition: I appreciate the clarity in this section. One question: are there more steps along the way, or is lateral inhibition limited to the function of "peripheral inhibitory regions?" The other two sections talk explicitly about neural pathways, why does touch not work the same way?
On history: As mentioned, consider moving it up the page. It might help provide some context to the rest of the page if placed at the top, instead of appearing as an afterthought. 
Overall, nice work! Please take each comment with a grain of salt, feel free to dismiss any one, and/or write back in this forum if anything needs clarification! Thanks for the quality contributions.Rowettb (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for you comment! Moving up the history section was a really good idea, and I agree that the Introduction got a little confusing, so I edited it and I hope it is a little cmore clear now. I plan to expand on the tactile inhibition section and go a little more in depth. I need to do more research on this process because some parts of it are still a little convoluded to me. 140.233.183.200 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 3

message: This article is very well-organized and does a great job of describing this phenomenon. I think the first sentence in the article is a good start to the page--very short and to the point in lingo that is easily understandable by pretty much any reader. However, the rest of this introductory section gets a bit bogged down with lingo, at least for me. It is very complete, which sets a good background for the rest of the article, but may be a tad bit detailed or “wordy”. The images on the page are fantastic--really descriptive and matched-up well with the text.
Sensory inhibition intro: I am a bit confused about the last part of this sentence—“sharpening”?
“Visual inhibition”: I agree with the other peer comments concerning the integration of these two paragraphs—“contrast” vs. “sharpness”? I think that the first one does a really great job of explaining the idea of image recognition. Maybe elaborate on the “Mach band visual effect”?
“Tactile inhibition”: I think that the way you describe receptive fields is very easy to follow which helps the reader in understanding tactile stimulation. Maybe write one more sentence distinguishing between central excitatory and peripheral inhibitory regions?
“Auditory inhibition”: Good synthesis of the possible roles of lateral inhibition in auditory sensation. However, the third sentence in the second paragraph (“If certain sound frequencies that contribute…”) confused me a bit—which sound frequencies contribute to inhibition more than excitation? how does this occur?
“History”: I agree with other peer comments concerning the placement of this section—could make more sense for this to be earlier in the article (before “sensory inhibition”?).
“Embryology”: Maybe elaborate more on the “interaction” referred to at the end of the first paragraph in this section? Also, what is “neuroblast”?
Take all of my comments as helpful suggestions. It looks great!  --Ephlegar (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on writing a sentence that further describes centreal exitatory and peripheral inhibitory regions. Thank you for drawing my attention to this ambiguous sentence. I addressed the confusing nature of the introduction to the page, I hope. Please let me know if it is still confusing. Also, I plan on elaborating on auditory inhibition more, unfortunately, it is difficult to find sources on this type of inhibition. My partner will address the problems with visual inhibition and embryology. Thank you for your feedback! 140.233.183.200 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 4