Talk:Neuromodulation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

neuromuscular

The second paragraph was clearly based directly on the first paragraph in the reference cited. Unfortunately, it was rewritten in a way that lost a lot of the actual information from the source, to the point that I had little idea what it was actually talking about. For those curious: it's a paper on modeling neuromodulation at the neuromuscular junction of the heart of the blue crab. I'm going to give it some very quick editing, but it'd be better if someone else came along and did a real rewrite of it. This whole page, in fact, is a moderately important subject that has nearly nothing written about it. digfarenough (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

how great to see my concept!

I'm starting to believe in myself ;) Yes, I was already postulating that in my model of the brain some two years ago at least, tho of course not in professional press but in an article (because I am CS, no biologist). I'd say that, excuse me the simplification, to an extent we have different conscious brains in different moods (and the transitions are smooth). The premise was that depending on neurotransmitter configuration, various sides of personality are more or less active, and also open for shaping. Piotr Niżyński (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate the input from anyone involved in computer science! There is much to be learned from comparisons between the brain and computers. (But, always remember that the brain can physically reorganize itself, whereas a computer cannot.)Fuzzform (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge

No. Absolutely do not merge. This article needs to be separate. Unless there are objections within 6 months, I will remove the merger tag.Fuzzform (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - no merge. See for example several independent journals for the area of "Neuromodulation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.179.67.89 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not merge. Neuromodulation is distinct from neurotransmission. Anyone who actually reads both pages can tell why they should remain separate, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.80.176 (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No do not merge. The 2 concepts are quite different. Roughly, neuromodulation is an important subclass of synaptic transmission.Neurobrit (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the merger tag, since it clearly wasn't getting any support. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Optogenetics

We need to include a section. There's a lot of emerging literature on the power of this novel neuromodulatory technique. For examples, see:

• Henderson, Jaimie M. (1 May 2009). "OPTOGENETIC NEUROMODULATION". Neurosurgery. 64 (5): 796–804. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000339171.87593.6A. PMID 19404144. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Reichova, I (2004 Oct). "Somatosensory corticothalamic projections: distinguishing drivers from modulators". Journal of neurophysiology. 92 (4): 2185–97. doi:10.​1152/​jn.​00322.​2004. PMID 15140908. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); zero width space character in |doi= at position 4 (help)
• Casasanto, Daniel. "Neuromodulation and Neural Plasticity". Retrieved 10 January 2013.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Hurt (talk • contribs)

Hmm. I have always understood "neuromodulation" to mean changes in activity produced by diffuse systems such as the serotonin and norepinephrine systems -- the use of the term for optogenetic effects seems novel. Also, as far as I can see, only the first of your sources uses the term that way. Looie496 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very possible that I'm wrong. I just started reading about optogenetics, and the first connection that I drew was to neuromodulation. So I just Googled "optogenetics neuromodulation," and I found several articles comparing to two. Try that search, and let me know what you think of the idea.

I realize now that the other two links were to sources that I wanted to look into so that I could improve the neuromodulation article. I don't know why I included them in that post. Rob Hurt (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My take on this is very similar to Looie's. It seems to me that this kind of content actually fits best at Optogenetics. I think of neuromodulation as being something that neuromodulator molecules do. Nitric oxide would be a good example. Here, it's more about using optogenetics as an experimental tool, either to study neuromodulation, or to modulate neural systems, or both. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My point was that (I think) that neuromodulation is something that neuromodulators and now optogenetics do. I guess the crux of the issue is whether or not neuromodulation is, by definition, exclusively an endogenous process, or if it can be accomplished through artificial means. I would argue that neuromodulation is neuromodulation, however it is induced. Thoughts? Rob Hurt (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that opens up a can of worms. It isn't just "now, optogenetics". How about drugs, transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, life experiences, a bop on the head? I think it's pretty well established that neurotransmission is limited to endogenous processes, so probably neuromodulation would be too. In other words, we aren't using the word "transmission" in its general dictionary sense, so neither are we using the word "modulation" that way. Optogenetics is more like an experimental tool. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Negarc (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Hello. I have heard feedback from both experienced researchers (Jaimie Henderson, cited above) and the general public about this page. There was a sentiment expressed that "Neuromodulation" should reflect its most common use as a term denoting medical therapy (in a Google search you will see this meaning comes up more often). Meanwhile, a member of the general public trying to understand the biology found this page very helpful. Perhaps the simplest solution, if it can be implemented, would be to adjust the title for this entry to say "Neuromodulation (Biology)" -- I have submitted a draft today that explains the use of the term to refer to (existing and emerging) medical treatments, calling that draft entry "Neuromodulation (Medicine)" and giving a line at the top directing readers interested in the biological underpinnings to this page. I listed many "see also" entries that fall under the umbrella of neuromodulation treatments. If I may say so here, the one that seemed to need some sharpening and distilling was Neurotechnology -- it mentioned medical uses a few times, but not neatly under one heading -- so maybe it can be marked for future refinement. I do hope the heading on this biological explanation can have the parenthetical word (Biology) added. As someone who has not delved into more than minor edits up until now, I do not know how to request that. Thanks. (P.S. optogenetics is being eyed by Sheila Nirenberg, PhD, for a clinical trial as part of a visual prosthetic, so there are envisioned clinical applications beyond the research tool aspect -- she received a MacArthur Foundation grant for that work this week.)

Hello, and welcome! I think that starting a page on Neuromodulation (medicine), or perhaps Neuromodulation (therapeutic)?, is a good idea. I'm not entirely convinced that we would really need to rename this page, but we could have disambiguation hatnotes at the top of each page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Negarc (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC) A hatnote on each is a good idea. I liked the idea of adding (Biology) to this page for clarity if people searching for the medical application land here first, and so that the titling of the two pages can have somewhat equal weight. Glad overall you do think a second page is a good idea.

"See also" section

Neuroplasticity, especially formation of neuronal ensembles, synaptogenesis & synaptic pruning of the neuropil, and paracrine activity in the CNS (like gliotransmission or this example) all affect/are affected by neuromodulation, directly or indirectly. 80.240.162.190 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, be bold and create a See also section in the article! Lova Falk talk 19:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think any of those things are appropriate for a See Also section. Their relevance to neuromodulation won't be apparent to a reader unless it is explained in the article text. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if articles above are not seen as relevant, then could the references linked below change that opinion?

"Integrated Brain Circuits: Astrocytic Networks Modulate Neuronal Activity and Behavior"

"Where the thoughts dwell: the physiology of neuronal-glial "diffuse neural net"."

"Imaging extrasynaptic glutamate dynamics in the brain"

Mentioning the role of astroglia and especially glutamate spillover would make this Wikipedia article more complete. 80.240.162.190 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 02 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Neuromodulation (biology) → Neuromodulation –
Please see #Optogenetics, above. This page was moved to Neuromodulation (biology) without, I think, a clear consensus that the parenthetical "biology" was needed. At this time, Neuromodulation is a DAB page with only two entries, and it is highly improbable that any more will ever be added. There are hatnotes at the tops of each of the two pages, making a disambiguation page unnecessary. The word "neuromodulation" is used routinely in neuroscience to refer to the topic on the "biological" page, without further qualification. It's the basic natural phenomenon, whereas the more specialized medical procedures are largely either experimental or used clinically only in highly specialized situations. Therefore, I feel that it is clearly the primary topic, whereas the "medicine" page deals with the secondary topic. Thus, I propose that this page, the "biology" one, be moved back to where the DAB page is now, and the longer title be a redirect to here. -- Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support moving this article back to the primary topic title, as the biological process is the more fundamental and longstanding topic. Frankly, there's something a bit fishy about the Neuromodulation (medicine) article, perhaps because of its link to International Neuromodulation Society, which is a highly boosterish page (borderline advertisement) created by the single purpose account, User:Neuromodulation. Also, it seems to me that even if the medical variation is legitimate, it is a subtopic of neuromodulation generally, in the same way that an artificial heart is not ambiguous with heart, but is a subtopic of it, the medical substitute for the real thing. bd2412 T 12:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Although this is a very peripheral point, most medical applications actually do not directly tap in to the biological phenomenon (defined strictly), but instead, alter nerve activity in some other way. I do agree with you, though, that there is a boosterish tone to the medical page, and that has bothered me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support moving Neuromodulation (biology) back to Neuromodulation. The biological context is more fundamental and is dominant in neuroscience. A quick GScholar search shows the biological context to be dominant in the first 50 or so hits. The Neuromodulation (medicine) article strikes me as not mainstream. I did research in neuroscience for 10 years and in both basic neuroscience and medical contexts (e.g., epilepsy surgery), electrical perturbation of neural systems was always neural stimulation, not neuromodulation. --Mark viking (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Now that I think of it, it's much more common to call the medical applications "stimulation" instead of "modulation". Although it's a separate discussion, that page may well ought to be renamed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I did the move and don't really care where it ends up. An awful lot of instances of "neuromodulation" in other articles that linked to Neuromodulation were about the medical intervention. I "piped" those all to Neuromodulation (medicine). About a quarter of the links to Neuromodulation were about the biological process, though, which are now piped to Neuromodulation (biology). If you decide to do without the DAB page and return Neuromodulation to the biological process, let me know and I'll fix those links. (There isn't an automated method of doing that is there?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, at Multielectrode array, I had to change the link you made, because the content was really about the biological, not the medical, meaning of the word, something I take as adding weight to the argument that the biological usage is really the primary topic. But that's a quibble, and I thank you for being open to the move request. I was concerned that you might have felt strongly about it, and that was a big part of the reason why I decided to open a full discussion. But your agreement is likely to make consensus a lot easier to reach, so, thanks. I'm pretty sure there is now a bot that cleans up double redirects, but I'm not sure if it can handle everything here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up that error at Multielectrode array. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If the page is moved back, there is no need to change any links back. Sometimes it is actually helpful to see valid links piped through a redirect, so that newly linked instances are more visible. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

broken section# link for Acetylcholine? or not?

There's a template at the top indicating a broken section link for 'Acetylcholine#in CNS', but the only place in the article for Acetylcholine that seems relevant to CNS is in the intro, where it's in the context of, 'Major neuromodulators in the central nervous system...', so maybe that is where it's intended to link to 'Acetylcholine#Central_nervous_system' ? Otherwise the link in the intro is to Acetylcholine itself. Is this where the template is referring to? None of the other mentioned neuromodulators link to a specific section related to CNS. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Cholinergic System

There is not a section on 'further information' of the cholinergic system. I have currently provided two sources reviewing signaling and cognitive effects of acetylcholine as a neuromodulator. I plan to draft a Cholinergic Systems section over the next few weeks. Btravers (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Student here - while the content of the norepinephrine and dopamine sections appears to be valid, I am not aware of sources for this material. Am I missing something, or is this material not properly cited? Btravers (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think that both of the sources you list here look like very good choices, and I think that an expansion of the cholinergic content would be welcome. And you are quite correct that citations are missing for NE and DA, so please feel free to add them. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Terminology

In light of recent edits, I'd like to make clearer some differences in terminology. Neuromodulation, neural pathways, and neurotransmitter pathways are all related concepts, but they are three different things. Neuromodulation, the topic of this page, is a process, something that happens when one kind of neurochemical exerts effects on the actions of another. Neural pathways and neurotransmitter pathways are anatomical structures, physical parts of the nervous system. The process of modulation is not something that one would find in an anatomical dissection. Neural pathways are defined structurally, whereas neurotransmitter pathways are a subset of neural pathways, defined by the neurotransmitter that they produce. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for writing us. --Exert yourself (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Neurotransmitter pathway

Dear @Tryptofish, Iztwoz, and Railfan23:

So what's the difference between Neuromodulation (neuromodulator system) & neurotransmitter pathways？

Sincerely yours,

--Exert yourself (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish gave a very succinct answer above: "Neuromodulation, the topic of this page, is a process, something that happens when one kind of neurochemical exerts effects on the actions of another. Neural pathways and neurotransmitter pathways are anatomical structures, physical parts of the nervous system." Railfan23 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I overlooked that post. My fault. --Exert yourself (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputed - Neuradrenaline System

In the Neuradrenaline System section, it states:

"The noradrenaline system consists of just 1500 neurons on each side of the brain, primarily in the locus coeruleus. This is diminutive compared to the more than 100 billion neurons in the brain."

I think this inaccurate. It seems the 1500 number came from this reference, which states "The exclusive source of NE in the cortex, the locus coeruleus (LC), is a small, pontine nucleus made up of approximately 1,500 noradrenergic neurons in the rat". However, the "more 100 billion neurons" figure seems to refer to humans, not rats. Also, the human neuron count figure is not cited, and does not reflect recent research. According to this paper, human brains contain approximately 86 billion neurons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.150.236 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)