Talk:Neuroimaging

message: It might be nice to have a graph showing the relative spatial and temporal resolution of each technique. I saw a similar graph in a presentation once, where the spatial and temporal resolution were the X and Y axes, and each technique was a blob which stretched over the graph. --NeuronExMachina 09:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image request 

message: I'm proposing this article be renamed to Neuroimaging. This phrase is more technically correct. A google search for the EXACT phrase '"brain imaging"' yields ~1.5 million hits, whereas 'neuroimaging' offers ~2 million. Semiconscious (talk · home) 08:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to have them separate or list brain mapping and functional neuroimaging as sub-sections.  I don't think there is a clear reason to go either way. -kslays 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename/Merger

message: A new article was recently created: Brain mapping. I've suggested that article be merged into neuroimaging as a subsection. If someone thinks "mapping" is distinct enough from "imaging" however, I will remove the notice. Cheers! Semiconscious • talk 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from

message: Despite the fact that the phrases "brain mapping" and "neuroimaging" frequently go together these are very distinct and deserve their individual domains, albeit with links to each other. Neuroimaging pertains to the protocols and techniques for acquirering and pre-rpcessing (e.g., skull stripping, tissue classification, region-of-interest delineation, etc.) Brain Mapping, on the other hand, refers to the computational techniques and tools for modeling, mapping and statistics on integrated brain structure and function. We need to make this distrinction. Neither of these two areas is a sub-field of the other, hence I'd recommend separation.
:I would be happy to have them separate or list brain mapping and functional neuroimaging as sub-sections.  I don't think there is a clear reason to go either way. -kslays 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain Mapping and Neuroimaging are related, but definetely distinct!

message: Concurring with user kslay, the field of Brain Mapping is the science of associating brain structure and function and of mapping the physical cartography of the brain. Neuroimaging is a set of methods to visualize the neurons or their activity at a variety of scales, and may have no direct relationship to brain mapping.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSCohen (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain Mapping and Neuroimaging are definitely distinct!

message: This newish article is being proposed for deletion.  Can some experts weigh in on whether this technique is notable or not?  Scarykitty 05:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Electromagnetic brain animation]]

message: Isn't single-cell recording also a neuroimaging technique? Lova Falk 09:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-cell recording 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: There are multiple pages with related content. Brain mapping is discussed above. Functional neuroimaging and functional imaging are two other articles. These topics could be distinct in principle, i would suggest to merge these articles until each subsection grows sufficiently large to merit its own article, then we could add them into one category. Kpmiyapuram (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the merge proposal with brain mapping from Sept 2007. Both subjects are notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia entry. There are several books over the years that list brain mapping in the booktitle. This is proof enough that brain mapping is a notable concept. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason I removed the merge proposal with Functional neuroimaging -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging again 

message: Why isn't there a subsection on electroencephalograms on this page? 193.203.134.198 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be!  And often is!  Far more than EEGs ever do for the brain. SBHarris 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: That's an artifically-generated image. You could be missing one hemisphere of your brain, and it would still give you an "image" for the missing half, marked as "low activity." But that's not really what we normally mean by "imaging". I could as easily attach temperature sensors to your body and "image" you by putting numbers up as colors on a computer generated figure. Wow, one of your legs is really cool and blue! You say it's artificial? Wups. Or that it's missing completely, so the tech just left those sensors dangling? But wait, I still see the image of it on my screen like Kirlian photography! That kind of thing would never happen with data from a CT scanner. SBHarris 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: What I mean by artificially generated image, is that you get the same brain image whether there's brain there or not. If you take the EEG of anything that shows electrical activity, including a random section of your posterior, your machine will still show you the image of a human brain-- with very bad or funny EEG readings stuck onto it (if you have an EEG machine which will output an image of your butt if you connect to that, please post the make and model). An "imager" is not any machine that shows you an image! SBHarris 04:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: EEG

message: An image used in this article, File:PETscan.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PETscan.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: * http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334808/title/The_minds_eye_revealed_ "The mind's eye revealed; New technology uses brain scans to see what a person is watching" by Laura Sanders November 19th, 2011; Vol.180 #11 (p. 12)  97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Science News]] resources 

message: The page History of neuroimaging has a recent breakthroughs section. It contains some methods of neuroimaging that are not listed in this page including near infrared spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and single neuron imaging. Would the whole recent breakthroughs section be better placed in this article or atleast these other methods added? I'd add them myself only this isn't my area of expertise so I'm not sure whats relevant 
MitchMcM (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of neuroimaging page 

message: should add Functional Electrical Impedance Tomography by Evoke Response (fEITER)
Carpenter, Jennifer (13 June 2011). "Images capture moment brain goes unconscious". BBC News: Science & Environment (UK: BBC). Retrieved 20 February 2013. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see the technique is being used only by one group at Edinburgh, and they only have a couple of minor publications -- but if you would like to add a brief mention, I myself wouldn't have any objection. Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fEITER 

message: 1) Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT) is quantitatively compared to MRI in paper Eggebrecht et al. (NeuroImage 61 2012 1120–1128) and matches at high resolution.  The DOI section should be updated to reflect more recent studies.
2) I don't see how EROS is any different from DOT/DOI.  There are a lot of names floating around for the same technology.  They all describe optical imaging using infrared and frequency modulated light.  I suggest the EROS section be merged with DOT and called DOT or "Optical Tomography" to keep everyone happy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.129.26 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOI Corrections and EROS section 

message: Back in 2006, "Brain function map" was merged to this article, which was a mistake because this article does not include even one brain function map.  Such a map would show a side view of the cortex with function names (NOT anatomical names) on each gyrus, both lateral and medial views.  For example "primary visual cortex" on Brodmann area 17, etc.  I was not able to find such a brain function map in Wikipedia.  All of the anatomical books I checked are focused on anatomy and do not contain brain function maps, which are distinct from "brain mapping" and deserve a separate article. Greensburger (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain function map  

message: I have removed this from the article, as it is promotional and reads like a press release, and because we are not a crystal ball (WP:NOT):
:"It will be more temporally precise than fMRI and more spatially precise than EEG. It might be as safe as ultrasound. Expect human trials for FDA safety-tests to start in circa 2019. The R&D work for ABI was funded by the BRAIN Initiative." --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback 

message: Hi everyone,
As part of my advanced writing class we were asked to improve part of a wikipedia article, and since Neuroimaging was one of the top-importance articles with a start-class rating for the Neuroscience WikiProject I chose it as my article to work on. The section "Comparison of imaging types" came to my attention because it was so short and also had a claim about gamma rays that was marked dubious. A quick google search found no real basis to this statement and most sites actually stated that gamma rays were the most dangerous compared to alpha and beta. I decided to work on a new section to replace this section, "Advantages and Concerns of Neuroimaging Methods" as my contribution. This section discuss safety concerns of different methods and also discusses advantages that certain neuroimaging methods may have over one another.
This is my first contribution to wikipedia so feedback, suggestions, and revisions are welcome and appreciated. Thank you!
Jw701 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section takes a very narrow view of some of the techniques and their applications. For eg, fMRI has better temporal resolution than PET but the latter has practical implications where fMRI isn't helpful- eg evaluation of dementia, tremor, epilepsy localization. fMRI is itself limited by the low temporal resolution. There have also been concerns regarding validity of the statistics used by some common programs used to analyze the raw data and construct images. Also it would be ideal to have a subheading on MRI which is far more commonly used in clinical practice compared to PET and fMRI. Doctalks (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of New Section