Talk:Cognitive neuroscience

message: There is so much jargon in this article, that it is extremely hard for anyone without medical or scientific expertise to even grasp the basic idea of what Cognitive Neuroscience is. I suggest a rewrite of the first paragraph into plainer English or a short new article made at simple.wikipedia.org. I would do it myself but I came here looking for knowledge on the subject and even with my college am struggling to find any legible reading. 94.173.157.177 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: I removed the Neuropsychology template from this article.  I have nothing against neuropsychology, and it is of course related to cognitive neuroscience (it is one of many methods that are part of the general project of cognitive neuroscience). I added a section listing cognitive neuroscience methods, one of which is cognitive neurosciece.  If this template belongs here at all, it certainly should not be right at the top, significantly impairing readability and implying neuropsychology has a special importance above all other methods, which strikes me as misleading.--Cooper24 12:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Neuropsychology template

message: Just wondering why emotion/affect is not listed as a cognitive neuroscience topic. I know that it traditionally has not been considered within the domain of cognitive science, but I think 'cognitive neuroscience of emotion' is common enough for it to be considered a de facto topic if not a real one. This is partly reflected in the affective neuroscience article. If it helps, there is an opinion by Pessoa published recently in Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2008, vol 9, pp. 148-158) which argues that the distinction between cognition and affect should be dropped. dr.alf (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Emotion

message: I deleted the very long list of references that had been placed under "Further reading" as well as a number of listed journals that were either nonexistent or clearly not concerned with cognitive neuroscience (I suspect there are still several journals in this category but I decided to only delete the ones that were obvious right now).  The list of references under "Further reading" appeared to be selected arbitrarily--what about the other thousands of articles concerned with Cognitive Neuroscience published every year? The list of references was more than five times as long as the article itself.  A few classic papers or books might be appropriate here, but this list was not helpful, and mostly added noise.--Cooper24 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted long list of references

message: This article is quite turstworthy, quite biased, a little complete, a little well-written,and quite accurate. This article could use some editing for organization and clarity. The history, in particular, is not very organized  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criener (talk • contribs) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article review 

message: I thought to change the statement:
"Parts of the brain play an important role in this field. Neurons play the most vital role, since the main point is to establish an understanding of cognition from a neural perspective, along with different lobes of the Cerebral cortex."
to:
"Parts of the brain play an important role in this field. Neurons play the most vital role, since the main point is to establish an understanding of cognition from a neural perspective, along with connections within & between the different lobes of the Cerebral cortex, and brain nuclei."
by adding the phrases shown above in bold, but I'm not sure if that's exactly true or not. Perhaps someone who is actually well versed in the subject can comment or make a valid addition/change? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid change/addition or not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Cognitive neuroscience. 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  tag to http://www.petemandik.com/philosophy/papers/brookmadik.com.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028090722/http://www.in-mind.org/issue-4/there-s-something-about-zero.html to http://www.in-mind.org/issue-4/there-s-something-about-zero.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828044459/http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/whatiscognitiveneuroscience.asp to http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/whatiscognitiveneuroscience.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714022154/http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/ to http://www.cognitiveneurosciencearena.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514235449/http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/cases/caseM/case.html to http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/cases/caseM/case.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815082715/http://www.neuroscienceforums.com/cognitive-neuroscience/ to http://www.neuroscienceforums.com/cognitive-neuroscience
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528010810/http://beebrite.tumblr.com/post/22320464480/jonides-neuroscience to http://beebrite.tumblr.com/post/22320464480/jonides-neuroscience
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) 07:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section contains only one subsection that is not relevant to cognitive neuroscience. Indeed, because the subsection says that Hubel and Wiesel studied cat brains, one could argue that, because the cats were under general anaesthesia, no cognition was involved, even if it could be shown that cats have cognitive processes in the visual cortex--which Hubel and Wiesel did not do. Hence, I deleted all of the section.
The section could go earlier, as a major contribution to neuroscience (after all, Hubel and Wiesel won a Nobel Prize for their work). If so, I give the deleted subsection here:
=== Hubel and Wiesel – 1960s ===
David H. Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, both neurophysiologists, studied the visual system in cats to better understand sensory processing. They performed experiments which demonstrated the specificity of the responding of neurons. Their experiments showed that neurons fired rapidly at some angles, and not so much at others. A difference was also found in light and dark settings. Their studies gave rise to the idea of complex visual representations being formed from relatively simple stimuli.
They also discovered the simple cell and complex cell. These exist in the primary visual cortex and respond differentially to differently oriented presentations of light.
Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major contributors to the field 

message: David H. Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, both neurophysiologists, studied the visual system in cats to better understand sensory processing. They performed experiments which demonstrated the specificity of the responding of neurons. Their experiments showed that neurons fired rapidly at some angles, and not so much at others. A difference was also found in light and dark settings. Their studies gave rise to the idea of complex visual representations being formed from relatively simple stimuli.
They also discovered the simple cell and complex cell. These exist in the primary visual cortex and respond differentially to differently oriented presentations of light.
Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubel and Wiesel – 1960s