Talk:Neuroplasticity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Grammar

The grammar and writing in this article definitely needs work. Excessively academic, the use of long words at the expense of clarity, redundancies.

I agree. The most recent author states that plasticity involves changes to the brain's "functional anatomy and physical anatomy." If memory serves me correctly, there is no such thing as "functional anatomy." Anatomy is the term which refers to structure; physiology refers to function. For verification, check any Anatomy & Physiology textbook.04:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is "functional anatomy" anatomy describes the physical structures and locates them. Functional anatomy would be more describing say how the the shoulder joint as a whole works mechanically,rather than just the physical description of the bones and muscles (anatomy), or the oxygen/glucose use, neurotransmitters,etc.(physiology). It is a rather tedious difference, but then science is "tediophillic". HOWEVER, I think they do mean physiology as used here, and my point is that what is missing is the functional and more mechanistic interactions. It also fails to represent large areas of neuroplasticity. I will attempt some editing and addition in the near future. TEK

I'm

I'm wondering if the brain plasticity in BMI (Brain-machine interaction) section is very appropriate? I don't read much in the section as far as neuroplasticity, only the ability of a machine to operate not on physical movement originating in an operator's brain, but in the operator's mental stimulation of physical movment (brain waves?). At any rate, the section does not explain how neuroplasticity is involved in BMI. Perhaps it is involved, and just not explained, or perhaps the research has not gone that far. Either way, the section should be moved to the BMI wikiarticle or removed, IMHO. Rhetth 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The "reality" of neuroplasticity is transformational in the extreme. But does the analysis presently lack "soul"?

It does. The analysis makes a fascinating subject rather dull. Norman Doidge's book is interesting and the author leaves out the most fascinating cases, possibly for the sake of brevity. 04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity locates the human brain at the nexus between spacial/digital/virtual reality, astro-physics/string theory, and consciousness/emotion. It reaffirms the human context.

Does this alter our understanding of evolution? Neuroplastic activity is not random or experimental, but the more deliberate consequence of history, past learning, culture and environment. It embodies the human dialtectic.

I suspect you have some misconceptions about evolution. No it doesn't contradict the concept of 'evolution', it's an instance of it. (I presume you use the term to refer to the selection of well adapted mutants among replicators, the only explanation we have of adaptive complexity. You imply evolution is random, mutation is the only aspect that is 'random'). Whether it happens in geological time, cultural/'memetic' time, or in fraction of a second in a brain, there has to be some sort of 'generate and test' pattern to govern the selection of adaptive complexity, otherwise you are just positing the existence of higher order complexity due to some dualistic/metaphysical/religious compulsion, I deem. Random? Do you mean random as in irreducibly random, as in some interpretations of quantum mechanics (aka 'god plays dice') or random as in having so many factors impinge on it that it becomes unpredictable because the causal chain is hopelessly chaotic?, because there's no reason to suspect it would be either kind of random, being the result of selection among adaptive mutants. You say it's not 'experimental' and seem to imply this contrasts with deliberation, learning, culture, and experience, and conclude that it "embodies the human dialectic" (I don't see any reason to suppose neuroplasticity isn't an integral part of what makes human consciousness possible, our genetic code doesn't constitute near enough data to specify the complexity of the precise 'wiring' of the brain, so neuroplasticity becomes another 'generate and test' selection principle) ('human dialectic': this smells foul of some kind of metaphysical historicism), do you mean like Socratic dialogue?, (experimental philosophy I deem,) simply asking peoples' opinions and demonstrating that they are inconsistent?, it's pretty trivial to say that _that_ is 'embodied' by consciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoarbitaster (talk • contribs) 05:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of neuroplasticity should be one of the most robust discussions at Wikipedia.

I am fascinated by this topic, and in fact my postgrad research is looking at neural plasticity after a stroke in humans. The article is very low on references considering its scientific nature so I will try to integrate some. --Banny83 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO a list of references to as much current research on the subject would be a valuable addition.04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tetris Effect?

What is the reason for the link to this computer game? My reading on the subject of neuroplasticity is extensive and continual, and IMO the link is not at all relevant. 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The tetris effect has a unique niche in studies of learning and memory. These studies are dominated by the medial temporal lobe's necessity in forming new declarative memories (ie: H.M. ). People who cannot form new declarative memories will still have mental images of recent sensory inputs during their first round of REM sleep (Stickgold's work). People who cannot form new declarative memories can also be engaged in perceptual learning although they have no declarative memory of learning. This implies that some set of sensory cortex neuroplasticity falls below the conscious cognitive level - assessible by tests of perceptual learning and the tetris effect, but not via tests that rely on declarative memory. The studies of neuroplasticity have historically been dominated by sensory and motor cortex studies in areas of the brain that probably are largely not conscious brain activity, whereas the studies of learning and memory have been dominated by conscious cognitive areas such as the medial temporal lobe. The tetris effect is one way that ties these two fields together. On a broader note, it seems like there MUST be a convergence between neuroplasticity and learning and memory studies in the future. The tetris effect forms a portion of my lectures on learning and memory - and my lectures on neuroplasticity - for these reasons.--Animalresearcher (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is anything other than pure speculation. If studies concerning any connection between the Tetris Effect and Neuroplasticity do exist, you must cite them.FrancineEisner (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think any sort of learning, acquisition of new skills cannot occur without formation of new networks; new networks form with new synapses, and that is what neuroplasticity simply put is—formation of new synapses. So, if tetris effect has been demonstrated with validity, there's no doubt that it would require neuroplasticity, but if no references can be found to support that, then it'd be wise to not include the section. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC) PS: Do excuse me if my understanding of neuroplasticity is excessively simplistic.

Sorry - Apology accepted, but it is excessively simplistic. Neuroplasticity is not just the formation of new synapses. You appear to have done some valuable edits on Wiki. Please use your considerable intellect to do some research on the subject.FrancineEisner (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Tetris Effect Relevant?

The author who has placed it in the Neuroplasticity article apparently has a theory that it is relevant. Current studies and other literature (at least to this Wiki user) do not bear this out. Theories about Neuroplasticity unsupported by scientific literature do not belong in the science section, but somewhere else. The author who is attached to this theory is welcome to cite references (other than his own writings or blog) if they do exist.time= 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have very little understanding of the subject matter, since I am only responding to the RFC from a physics background. I don't think that the criterion for having a link is that it is scientifically supported, though. After all there is a lot of things even in scientific articles such as 'ScienceTopicFoo in popular culture' that shows up in scientific articles. The criterion that I think is important is that the relationship between the two articles is either very obvious or is stated (scientifically correctly) and prominently in one or both of the articles. The relationship is not obvious to me, even if the topics are similar in nature, and the Tetris effect page doesn't sufficiently explain why it links there. I propose that the proper way to solve this is to include a section in Tetris effect that deals with Neuroplasticity (including a {{main}} statement) that both of you agree on, then make the link. TStein (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The original RFCsci was very confused (it was added twice with the reason being placed outside of the RFCsci template so I edited it in a way that I hoped the original author intended. A little later I noticed that the original reason was not neutral so I edited that again. TStein (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit; I was unable to determine a means of deletion. Your conclusion is appropriate and hopefully the author in question will be able to provide a connnection between the two subjects.09:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancineEisner (talk • contribs)

I did not place it there, but I do think it is relevant. The role of sensory cortex neuroplasticity in studies of memory is poorly explored, and the evidence on the tetris effect is that it lies independently of the medial temporal lobe memory system. Whereas I will not debate that people studying the tetris effect have not conducted neuroplasticity studies (mainly because they work in humans), the most likely candidate for the physiological basis of the tetris effect is sensory cortex, and studies do find that sensory cortex is altered by the first sessions of learning a new task (ie: PNAS USA 99: 17137–17142, )However, I think the issue of whether a link to the tetris effect is included on the page is probably not even worth the text already devoted to it. If you don't like it, delete it. --Animalresearcher (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that neuroplasticity could be involved in the development of tetris effect. If there are research papers citing this, then the section must be included. Any way, if I remember it correctly, new synapses can form in minutes. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MUST??? Please don't post something so vehement without doing some homework. Try Norman Doidge's book. University library databases offer full-text peer-reviewed studies on the subject. Neuroplasticity is involved in all learning, and current research points to LTP (long term potentiation) as the mechanism. The development of negative, or detrimental neural pathways are involved in bad habits, depression, drug addiction, sexual fetishes, and OCD. Future edits should include mention of these examples of negative plasticity; they are included in the existing literature. The tetris effect as described appears to be one of these detrimental pathways, and it can be included under this heading, but it does not deserve its own section. The Neuroplasticity article should not be "skewed" in that direction.FrancineEisner (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think the Tetris Effect is an example of a detrimental pathway. Anytime learning occurs, there are accumulated plastic changes in synaptic connections across a wide range of brain areas. Some of these become consolidated. One theory on the tetris effect is that it results from the pre-consolidatory neuroplasticity. It occurs prominently during learning, and not after learning plateaus, occurs during early sleep, but not late sleep (the same stages of sleep related to perceptual learning thought to be in sensory cortices), etc. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to my statement about the tetris effect being a detrimental pathway, please see the following: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/032196/article038.shtml

More info is certainly needed. Please provide a reference for your statement, "One theory on the tetris effect is that it results from the pre-consolidatory neuroplasticity" and any other existing references on the subject.FrancineEisner (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A Great Deal of Work to be Done: Suggestions for Revision?

As everyone can see, I've been doing a bit of cleanup on this page. I've revised awkward wording and added and cited more references, but there is much work to be done. Neuroplasticity is so much in the vanguard of neuroscience, this article really needs ongoing revisions. For example, there is a great deal of work published within the past 2 or 3 years which the original author and editors do not seem aware of. I have pdf files of these studies, which are available in any university library database. Would someone like to help me update this article? Any suggestions for revisions? I have many, but feel that it would be hubris to continue as I have been doing. I am not a neuroscientist, just an extremely ambitious student working toward a degree in the health sciences.FrancineEisner (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)00:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to post citations and suggestions here or, just be bold. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - Some suggestions:

• A section explaining a bit of the history of the competing theories of "localizationism" and "neuroplasticity."

• A section listing current brain imaging techniques and related technology which have in fact enabled the extremely recent paradigm shift toward the theory of neuroplasticity

• Expansion of the section on phantom limbs, including descriptions of the seminal research which has been done.

• Expansion of the section about negative vs. postitive platicity. There is a good deal of documentation of this concept, and it is extremely interesting. The Tetris Effect might be included in this section, even if opinions about is value are equivocal.

• Expansion of the section about traumatic brain injury and how the brain can repair itself when presented with a program of appropriate therapeutic exercises.

• A section about the different manifestations or kinds of neuroplasticity (For example: long-term potentiation, synaptogenesis, neurogenesis, axon sprouting).

• A section which concentrates on current research about the mechanisms of neuroplasticity, particularly on a molecular level. For example, levels of calcium ion, cell adhesion molecules, and cell signaling molecules (protein kinases, I believe) have been seen to be important factors.

• A section suggesting behavioral practices which enhance neuroplasticity and their usefulness in improving learning and memory and overcoming autism, depression, age-related cognitive loss, and so on. This has also been extensively documented, and should be of great interest to Wiki readers. There are many web sites about "brain training." This sounds like science fiction, or maybe just a sales pitch, but there are many studies which indicate that it is a real phenomenon.

Revision of this article would be a very challenging job. I sincerely hope that someone who has at least as much knowledge on the subject as I do (hopefully, a neuroscientist) can offer assistance in this task.FrancineEisner (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been many content additions to this article and this has been all to the good. However, grammatical errors and stylistic awkwardness has necessitated revision of wording. In addition, the passage about phrenolgy (a 19th century concept) was eliminated, as the idea of the brain as an immutable objects dates back many centuries, even millenia. Please do not put it back. A history section outlining the dominance of the concept of brain immutability versus the emergence of the idea of neuroplasticity could be added; this might be usefulNeuro777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

I agree with the grammar comments at the top of the page. The language is very dry and academic - aimed at scientists only it seems - for what is a fascinating, juicy and cutting edge topic. It is enticing in no way. My suggestions for revision would be to take it down a register or two without dumbing down. Not an easy task, no. Spanglej (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How to define plasticity?

I believe it is rather about the question to what extent the neural program existing in the brain is native (inborn); than about "to what extent it changes in life" (or even: "to what extent it differs between various brains"). Many parts of the brain, for example the whole of cerebrial cortex, contain no inborn programs in their neural network and this is what's called plasticity... I would put it that way, instead of speaking about changes in the life course. The parts of brain cortex associated with sight nerve are generally invariable once formed and trained (it's all about neural network learning the environment), but their invariability doesn't deny the fact that they are plastic.

Besides, if I am forgiven this digression, I believe (like many neurologists) that consciousness resides only in neuroplasticity. It is because consciousness is by definition subjective: and what is subjective, differs between subjects.

Piotr Niżyński (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The occipetal lobe (associated with sight) certainly does change over time and this is in fact the basis of vision therapy, aka vision training which is taught mostly to children by certified optometrists.

It isn't clear if you've actually read any literature on the subject of neuroplasticity or if you are merely venturing an opinion.173.68.123.223 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article seriously needs to be reorganized

For some reason, this article contains multiple CVs or congratulations or resumes (or whatever) for various scientists involved with the study of the topic. But pretty much everyone seeking information about this topic really just wants to know about the topic, and not about the people who made it possible. Perhaps the scientists can get their own articles, and new subsections can be made in this article describing neuroplasticity further. Kierah (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar issue - as it currently is, the article follows very closely to the book "The Brain That Changes Itself", I think this is lazy writing and possibly plagiaristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.158.109 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to put some work into this article to sort it out. At the moment, it just seems like a rather messy collection of examples without having a clear idea of a defined structure. There needs to be a much clearer idea of how it was proposed/disovered; it was only a few weeks ago that the proposer changed from Cajal to William James, and only one sentence was altered! The page is full of quotes as well which don't seem especially NPOV. I think the article needs restructuring:

• Neurobiology and more detailed outline of how it can work
• Disovery and proposal
• Applications

• Series of examples

• Other examples which are 'non-intentional' (phantom limbs etc)

There needs to be much less focus on the people involved, as many of them already have their own articles. Jhbuk (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. This is a pretty important article, and work spent on improving it would be valued. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I should probably point out that it may be quite slow and that I'll be working mainly on my userspace. Jhbuk (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to work on the article directly instead. Userspace work often gets lost, especially if it is slow. Even if it looks awkward at first, it's easier to improve something awkward than to start over from scratch. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, I suggest that work should be restricted to the more traditional areas of investigation. For example, phantom limbs are fascinating, but more relevant to an article on neuropsychology or perhaps philosophy of mind/action. There has been work done on meditation (e.g. by Davidson), but the core areas should be a priority.

Furthermore, historical writing tends to focus on persons and not the phenomena. It is important the phenomena involved are described prior to engaging in the main historical events surrounding the discovery and establishment of the theory.

After a 1-2 paragraph introduction, I suggest:

Etymology

Cognitive Neuroscience

Neurobiology

Examples (or what have you)

--Development

--Learning

--Memory

--Stroke

History

Cortical mapping belongs to cognitive neuroscience (or the biology of mind), while neurobiology more often refers to basic neuroscience, i.e. dealing with neurons (cells) and biochemistry, rather than brain areas associated with cognitive functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostracon (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Barbra Young and Arrowmith School?

I was surprised to not see Barba Young's work (applied in the Arrowsmith School) mentioned in this article. I didn't want to make any large changes to the article so I just added it to the See Also section... But you may want to mention it. 99.231.36.219 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there are no publications related to Ms. Young or the Arrowsmith School in peer-reviewed academic journals.Ostracon (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

suggested addition: Vision Restoration Therapy (see novavision.com)

This technology has been discussed in the peer reviewed journals for about a decade now, as an excellent example of beneficial application of neuroplasticity knowledge. Hoping someone else will revise the article to include this: I am not well enough versed in Wikipedia editing to know how to avoid 'illegal' commercial references, and also have no particular knowledge of neuroscience, hence unlikely to balance this addition nicely against the backdrop of the article itself. I have no connection yet to the company in question, although I may choose to use their product as a 'customer'. Publius3 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be peer-reviewed research using Novavision, from what I could tell on the website. Possibly include.Ostracon (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Meditators spamming everywhere

Any time people who meditate see something scientific and brain-related, they jump in and try to show links between meditation and intelligence etc. The TM movement has been the most vocal. Sadly, this also applies to a few researchers, many of them having prior mystical-type interests. Note how the article even mentions the Dalai Lama. This appears to be a largely unsupported effort to assert their claims on behalf of meditation. I suggest the last paragraph on meditation be removed. It is my understanding that doing push-ups and playing piano will also alter the brain function.

The paragraph appears to be included as it is featured in the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which is what the article appears to have been based on, at least to some degree. To be honest, although I haven't yet analysed this properly (I've been working on something else), it does seem different to the usual pseudoscientific rubbish that is often thrown about regarding this sort of thing, partly in that it was carried out by a pretty notable neuroscientist. It is also pretty well referenced. I'll have a look at it, but I don't think that the idea that meditation can have an effect on the brain is entirely ludicrous. Jhbuk (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Meditation references - where to put them

All edits referring to meditation need to be on another page, such as Research on meditation or something, and briefly summarized, with internal linking, on this page. makeswell (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Activity-dependent plasticity is the same idea?

How is 'neuroplasticity' distinct from 'Activity-dependent plasticity'? makeswell (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity also includes the ability to change in response to injury or to changes in the environment. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity refers to the ability of the nervous system to change. Neuroplastic changes may occur in response to environmental changes - however, a brain area that is being damaged by a traumatic injury (i.e. due to the environment) does not undergo plastic change; rather, the areas surrounding the damaged part of the nervous system undergo plastic changes in response to the signals "having nowhere to go". Hence, I suggest a merger (see below).Ostracon (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Ramachandran?

In the section on cortical maps is a link to the name Ramachandran. This link takes us to a disambiguation page for the name Ramachandran, where we find two names that are reasonable candidates, a biophysicist and a psychologist/neuroscientist. A direct link to the appropriate one would be helpful. I don't know which one is appropriate or I would do it myself. SDCHS (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Anthony (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mind/brain dualism

In his book Consciousness beyond Life, Dr Pim Van Lommel claims brain plasticity backs up his claim that the brain is merely a receiver for the mind and does not produce it. He says this is shown by the fact that thoughts can change the brain structure, therefore they must derive from something different from the brain. Can anyone comment on whether there has been any serious research indicative of this and/or if anyone else notable share his view? Orlando098 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Although there is no consensus, the mainstream view of neuroscientists is monism about consciousness. Furthermore, the person you refer to is not widely known in the Consciousness Studies community (e.g. I could not locate his name after searching http://consc.net/online/). The research by Ehrsson who has "simulated" out-of-body experiences might be of interest you: http://www.nature.com/news/out-of-body-experience-master-of-illusion-1.9569

The argument as you have presented it is flawed. Consider the analogue: Your white laundry changes into pink while being washed. Thus, the changes must come from without the laundry. The red shirt that coloured the laundry in the first place is still a clothing item - it may have a different property, but it is still a laundry item. It would be less parsimonious to believe that an evil neighbour of yours added colouring to the detergent.

I hope that helps.

Ostracon (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Neuroadaption context

I have been doing some writing on opioid neuroadaptability, and saw that -plasticity was used interchangeably with -adaptability, where the plasticity is the ability of the system to changes in the internal "environment," such as with "shooting up."--John Bessa (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Goleman's Social Intelligence

My initial views came from Goleman's description of how a nasty security guard put him in a bad mood. He said that the "toxicity" of the guard's thinking "poisoned" his mind. I applied the opposite when I was a youth counselor with excellent results, usually in 1-2 weeks, so I believe there is something there. This suggests very quick changes to large constructs, enough to capture your present thinking/feeling paradigm, which is more profound than affects to the working memory/executive function on the immediate level. Obviously contradicts my previous statement above.--John Bessa (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Some Changes

Neuroplasticity is quite well-specified in the scientific literature. The following comment is dubious and hence removed: "The term has no specific scientific definition, as set out by McEachern and Shaw"

However, neuroplasticity can be described on many levels of description. The quote should be replaced by a paraphrase (I don't have access to the original source.), if included at all; it refers to a state of science ten years ago.

IMHO, the article should emphasize plasticity in the main higher-order domains where it has been investigated - e.g. development, learning, memory, and post-stroke recovery. In addition, a basic level explanation should be included (e.g. Kandel's work).

Ostracon (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Merzenich is mentioned 11 times. Bias. Ostracon (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Because neuroplastic changes always depend on changes in activity, I suggest the Activity dependent plasticity page to be subsumed under the heading Neuroplasticity.Ostracon (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

obviously Coginsys (talk)

• Oppose: The article s too lengthy, we can write in summmary style in the other article and then "main" link to this one! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Human echolocation

I added in an example of a study to help illustrate the notion of brain region remapping in the context of human echolocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 (talk • contribs)

Neuroplasticity review

This medical review has a lot of information which is probably worth adding at some point.

References

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neuroplasticity. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/publications/2008/DavidsonBuddhaIEEE.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000236/01/Colotla_Bach-y-Rita_2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

new content, musicians

the prose is purple and the sources, primary. need neutral language and stronger sources for this to come in:

Musicians

The study of music perception and cognition has proved to be a particularly effective method of studying neuro-plasticity. Musical training and performance is exceedingly complex and, arguably, one of the most impressive accomplishments of the human race. For example, when reading and performing music, pianists are tasked with integrating a variety of musical dimensions and bimanually coordinating the production of up to 1,800 notes per minute [(Münte et al., 2002)](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12042882). Music, itself, is a multi-faceted, complex medium. It relates to many crucial brain functions, making it a great way to study the brain’s functional complexity. [Tervaniemi et al. (2016)](http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01900/full), a study on the auditory profiles of musicians, offers insight into the effects of musical training on cortical plasticity by investigating neurocognitive differences in classical, jazz, and rock musicians. Tervaniemi hypothesizes that, since different genres of music differ from one another in terms of different musical features, musicians who are principally active in one genre will have different auditory profiles than those active in different genres. A [mismatch negativity (MMN)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatch_negativity) paradigm, which indicates change-detection to irregular auditory stimuli, was employed as the primary method of study. Results show that functional and anatomical differences *do* exist between different types of musicians, which highlights the human brains refined level of neuroplastic sensitivity regarding detailed aspects of experience.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

New editor

Hey all,

As you may notice, I have started heavily editing this article. When I think someone would need an explanation for my edits I either comment here or mention the major changes in the summary title of the edit. If anyone feels uncomfortable about any of my edits, please feel free to open a discussion with me, either here or in my talk page.

My opinion of the article is that it needs a more uniform tone, slightly less abstract wording, and —as others have pointed out before me— less focus on individuals and their achievements. I also plan on eventually adding a section on structural plasticity, that I think could be useful and some references where missing.

Cheers, V

vkehayas 11:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Vkehayas (talk | contribs)

Abstracts in 'quote' field of reference

Jytdog in a recent edit suggested that the 'quotes' in references are perhaps too extensive, so much so that they may be considered breach of 'fair use'. However these were just the abstracts of the papers cited, which are always the only part of the paper that is freely available and functions as a summary of the paper. Thus, it is very useful for people that don't have access to the paper in order to get an idea about the paper. Of course, the interested reader could just click the link and read the abstract at the source. However, at this point some references have their abstracts attached and others don't. We should have a common directive on this matter and it is not clear to me if there is a WP guideline. Either solution (with or without the abstract) is OK for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkehayas (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced/primary sourced

The following is unsourced or sourced only to primary sources; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without first finding reliable secondary sources, checking the content against it for WEIGHT especially, and citing the sources.

Operation of brain-machine interfaces

Brain-machine interface (BMI) is a rapidly developing field of neuroscience that is relevant to neuroplasticity. According to the results obtained by Mikhail Lebedev, Miguel Nicolelis and their colleagues, operation of BMIs results in incorporation of artificial actuators into brain representations. Studies of BMIs showed that modifications in the neuronal representation of the monkey's hand and the actuator that was controlled by the monkey brain occurred in multiple cortical areas while the monkey operated a BMI. In these single day experiments, monkeys initially moved the actuator by pushing a joystick. After mapping out the motor neuron ensembles, control of the actuator was switched to the model of the ensembles so that the brain activity, and not the hand, directly controlled the actuator. The activity of individual neurons and neuronal populations became less representative of the animal's hand movements while representing the movements of the actuator. Presumably as a result of this adaptation, the animals could eventually stop moving their hands yet continue to operate the actuator. Thus, during BMI control, cortical ensembles plastically adapt within tens of minutes, in order to represent behaviorally significant motor parameters, even if these are not associated with movements of the animal's own limb.

Active laboratory groups include those of John Donoghue at Brown, Richard Andersen at Caltech, Krishna Shenoy at Stanford, Nicholas Hatsopoulos of University of Chicago, Andy Schwartz at University of Pittsburgh, Sandro Mussa-Ivaldi at Northwestern and Miguel Nicolelis at Duke. Donoghue and Nicolelis' groups have independently shown that animals can control external interfaces in tasks requiring feedback, with models based on activity of cortical neurons, and that animals can adaptively change their brain's activity to make the models work better. Donoghue's group took the implants from Richard A. Normann's lab at the University of Utah (the "Utah" array), and improved it by changing the insulation from polyimide to parylene-c, and commercialized it through the company Cyberkinetics. These efforts are the leading candidate for the first human trials on a broad scale for motor cortical implants to help quadriplegic or locked-in patients communicate with the outside world.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

evolutionary content

The following was added here, and restored here without fixing the problems:

Evolution and the relation to critical thinking

Research on evolutionary adaptations to changes in the environment show that such changes, under certain biological conditions, select for plastic brains. While simple deficiency of nutrients may select for small brains that consume less energy, species that die from dehydration faster than they die of starvation are subject to selection for more plastic brains that can more rapidly adapt to the new conditions for finding water. At early stages corresponding to nonhuman animals to early hominins this takes the form of enhanced trial and error learning. Later in human evolution the origin of language provides benefits that preserve skills that would have been forgot during times of different climates had our ancestors still been exclusively reliant on observational learning, and finally critical thinking adds another incremental advantage in the ability to reject false hypotheses more actively and efficiently than would be possible with trial and error. This is argued by the researchers in question to show that the ability to think critically is positively linked to brain plasticity, and not negatively as is often assumed by people who think that more plastic brains are more vulnerable to being manipulated into harmful and irrational behaviors. The researchers also argue that it would be maladaptive for critical thinking to reduce adaptability by simple decrease of plasticity or the introduction of rigid subroutines as the ability to think critically introduces an ability to resist false persuasion that does not rely on fixity while enabling more adaptive uses for neuroplasticity than otherwise possible, and that the importance of neuroplasticity for survival and reproduction in a changing environment means that the assumption that functions that are important for survival and/or reproduction are kept by evolution in a non-plastic form is not justified.

Some researchers on brain plasticity in relation to biological evolutionary and sociocultural effects argue that the combination of models saying that women’s brains are more plastic than men’s brains (in particular, more erotically plastic), that women evolved a more selective mate selection than men out of the time, cost and risks of pregnancy requiring them to be more judgmental about selecting a suitable mate than men who merely had to invest much less in producing semen, and that plasticity increases vulnerability to being harmfully manipulated, is a contradiction. The need for selective behavior, the researchers argue, selects for resistance to harmful manipulation, which in the case of neuroplasticity increasing vulnerability to manipulation would select against neuroplasticity. The researchers argue that studies that appear to show that sexual arousal is more linked to sexual desire in men than in women, an often used argument for higher female erotic plasticity, may be a due to people who know that their physical sexual arousal is not linked to sexual desire avoiding sexual arousal studies out of fear that their unspecific arousal will give a false appearance of paraphilias, males being more informed about their bodies than women for sociocultural reasons and therefore more likely to know whether or not their arousal is specific. The researchers argue that the 80% non-sex specific arousal in homophobic men is not explainable by homophobia being caused by denied gay attraction as no sexual orientation group of men is close to that percentage of physical non-specificity in laboratory tests and large cultural differences in homophobia, but can be explained by homophobic men being less informed about their bodies, decreasing the observation bias of physical non-specifics choosing not to be studied.

Other researchers have amassed evidence that recoveries from brain injuries are more successful in environments that are not judgmental. The researchers behind these metastudies explain this as being due to people who are subject to judgment and need to defend themselves by invoking disabilities as an argument for not being able to help what they are doing are prevented by those environmentally forced justifications from learning their lost abilities again. The researchers suggest that such sociological forces are the reason why many people justify their apparent inabilities and their beliefs, as such self-defeating use of intelligence would increase the brain’s cost in various nutrients without giving advantages worth it and not be selected for by biological evolution.

The notion that there is no evolutionary justification for a negative correlation between plastic brains and the independence of critical thinking is applied by yet other researchers to changes of the brain with age, arguing that it makes no sense to assume that brain maturation that improve the ability to think critically and independently goes hand in hand with a decrease in the brain’s plasticity.

References

There are several issues here.

• The refs are not fully cited, such that they can be identified to verify the content.
• Several of them do not ~appear~ to be reliable for content about science or biology
• The focus on "critical thinking" as the thing evolution drives is OFFTOPIC.
• The content about women being evolutionarily more sexually fluid is problematic on multiple levels and also OFFTOPIC
• The paragraph starting with "Other researchers have amassed evidence that recoveries from brain injuries are more successful in environments that are not judgmental." is just OFFTOPIC altogether

This content is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In what way are the sources not reliable? In what way is evolution of neuroplasticity offtopic? The part about critical thinking is about its link to neuroplasticity, in what way is it offtopic? On what levels is the part about women's allegedly greater sexual fluidity problematic? Or offtopic, when it is a question of plasticity? And in what way is the effect of the environment, in this case a non-judgmental environment, offtopic? I think you may be making up problems.2.70.177.219 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. As a starter would you please provide complete citations for each of the refs you cited? For books, please provide page numbers as well. I have said my piece about why things are offtopic and will leave it to other pagers to explain that further. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neuroplasticity. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720014221/http://www.smpp.northwestern.edu/savedLiterature/Donoghue2002NatureNeurosci5p1085.pdf to http://www.smpp.northwestern.edu/savedLiterature/Donoghue2002NatureNeurosci5p1085.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Recent articles"

Seppi333, regarding this content that James343e keeps trying to add, any thoughts about how to cover it? Like I've stated before, we do not automatically give more weight to recent views. It's about what the overall literature states. This is per WP:Due. We do keep WP:MEDDATE in mind, however. If scientific consensus has changed, that is obviously important to note. But so is previous scientific consensus. And the lead is meant to summarize. Per WP:Lead, if it's not covered lower, it should not be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No "overall literature" reports that "there is no critical period". That claim needs references from you. Plus, I'm not saying there is critical period either. I'm just saying younger brains have higher plasticity, which is true. Wikipedia cannot put as an indisputable fact that there is no critical period, or that there is one. It is a matter of dispute. Is there any evidence that a person who starts playing the violin at age 27 or 28 can play as well as a child who started at age 4? Is there any evidence that the feral child Danielle Crockett can count to 19? Even laboratory chimpanzees in Japan can count to 9, and to 19 with less accuracy.

Chimpanzees counting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPiDHXtM0VA

Danielle Crokett, a severaly damaged feral child who probably can't count (she can't do almost anything by herself):

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/girl-in-the-window/neglect-feral-child-ten-years-later/

It is a matter of dispute whether there is or not a critical period for brain development, I even added recent sources. What sources did you give to support that "the consensus is that there is no critical period". Wikipedia cannot put as an indisputable fact that there is no critical period when indeed it is a matter of dispute, wheter you like it or not.

You're also displaying a double standard. The lead clearly says "Research in the latter half of the 20th century showed that many aspects of the brain can be altered (or are "plastic") even through adulthood." That is not covered below either.

So the claim "Research in the latter half of the 20th century showed that many aspects of the brain can be altered (or are "plastic") even through adulthood." is not covered below, but you don't say anything.

The claim "However, the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain." is not covered below and you complain.

Either ALL aspects which appear in the lead must be mentioned below, or there is no need to be mentioned below. Otherwise, you're displaying a double standard to just put whatever you want.

I think to just put that many aspects of the brain are still plactic through adulthood is misleading. It should be said as well that younger brains are more plastic to avoid confusion. James343e (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2018‎ (UTC)

James343e, the lead states "scientific consensus [was] that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or 'static')." Whether "critical period" is included or not, this aspect is addressed lower in the article. The Origin subsection of the History section quite clearly states, "Until around the 1970s, neuroscientists believed that the brain's structure and function was essentially fixed throughout adulthood." It's supported by a source. Sources like this 2012 "Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 140, state similarly; it states, "The full import of some of the revolutions in brain science is only now beginning to be understood. Chief among these revolutions is the overthrow of the notion of the static brain. Thirty years ago, scientists believed the adult brain was 'hardwired' -- immutably fixed like electronic circuits. They now know that the brain is flexible, adaptive, and resilient." Per WP:Lead, this aspect should be covered in the lead. You interpreted the line as stating "the consensus is that there is no critical period." I don't see that the line states that at all, and "critical period" can be easily excluded and instead covered lower in the article. The "research in the latter half of the 20th century showed that many aspects of the brain can be altered (or are 'plastic') even through adulthood" aspect is covered lower in the article. The sentence is simply summarizing the material in the article. No one said that the exact sentence needs to be in the lead and lower. And either way, the lead being poor does not mean you should make it poorer by including material not included lower. You are supposed to cover the material lower first and then include it in the lead. I'll alert WP:Med, WP:Neuroscience and WP:Anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I came here from the note at WT:NEURO. On science pages, we should reflect recent sources when the most recent science shows that earlier sources were incorrect, although we have to consider due weight until there are sufficiently many independent sources that agree about the changed understanding. In this case, I'm pretty sure that there is an abundance of agreement among neuroscientists that brain plasticity continues into adulthood, although the greatest amount of plasticity remains before age 25 in humans, and even most of that is before maybe age 15 or so. As for a critical period, it depends. There are some kinds of brain damage, that when they occur early in life, can never be recovered from; for other functions, that is not the case. Taking that together, I'm not seeing a problem with the edit that James343e wanted to make, and I tend to think that it is an improvement. And I do not see anywhere where he said that he thinks there is no critical period. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time tracking the exact sequence of the events to the debate here; I thought that Flyer was the one trying to introduce the statement skeptical of the critical period? Well, anyway, however this has played out, I am inclined to agree with your general assessment. Flyer's quoted source is perfectly RS, but, critically, it is simply a bad one from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. The quotes section in particularly is particularly problematic, because...

"Chief among these revolutions is the overthrow of the notion of the static brain. Thirty years ago, scientists believed the adult brain was 'hardwired' -- immutably fixed like electronic circuits. They now know that the brain is flexible, adaptive, and resilient."

...is just a massive and far-reaching over-simplification of the prevailing theories thirty years ago and where they have been in the interim, meant to make the material accessible to a different class of expert than neurophysiologists: that book is primarily directed towards ethical and not technical issues and is not about breaking trends in actual research, except as stripped-down descriptions of those debates relate to social issues and policy. I am not surprised that it is fudges that blip of a summary of the last three decades of research and nor do I even blame it for that somewhat inaccurate short-shrift; it has a purpose distinct from informing upon the actual nuances of said field of research. But that's certainly not the right kind of source (nor, even if it were, nearly enough weight) to be the predicate for inserting a huge and purely WP:OR canard (meaning no offense to whoever put this forward, but I have to fairly describe it that way) that this is the death of a strong theory of developmental periodicity in neuroplasticity nor the notion of a critical period. No major figure or movement in the entire field of nueroscience/cognitive science broadly thought that the human brain was "hardwired like a circuit" thirty years ago, and similarly none today think that ther eis no such thing as developmental phases of neuroplasticity. Both are problematic exagerations that don't fit to the general WEIGHT of reliable sources from within the field. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish and Snow Rise, as noted above, and below by James343e, I wasn't objecting to James343e's addition by itself. I have no issue with that statement. I objected to James343e removing the "previous scientific consensus [was] that the brain develops [sometime] in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or 'static')" part. In other words, the "neuroscientists believed that the brain's structure and function was essentially fixed throughout adulthood" aspect. I was arguing that noting the previous scientific thought in the lead, which is covered lower in the article, should be done. I was not focused on the "critical period" portion. I also objected to James343e adding the piece he added to the lead without first adding something about it lower in the article. As for James343e not stating that he thinks there is no critical period, I never said he does. He did, however, argue that the sentence in the lead was arguing that there is no critical period. And I don't see that the sentence argued that at all. Snow Rise, regarding your review of the source I cited, my point was to cite a decent source on this talk page that addresses the previous thought aspect I was focused on. A number of reliable sources state similarly. Obviously, you disagree with such a summary. How would you summarize the matter, and what sources are you thinking of for it? Keep in mind that the lower part of the article (in the Origin section) also states, "Until around the 1970s, neuroscientists believed that the brain's structure and function was essentially fixed throughout adulthood." It's currently supported by a Slate magazine source, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

And I think the only sources you will ever find to support such a statement will be general interest pop science news articles written by reporters unversed in the particulars for a general interest audience (and other such cites which are not proper WP:RS representing the actual WP:WEIGHT of sources which provide more detailed analysis of the science in question here). Even in the 1970's (and indeed, even well before that point) no respected neuroscientist that I ever heard of ever actually espoused the view that "the brain's structure and function are essentially fixed throughout adulthood." I mean, exactly zero researchers with an actual degree and publications in a relevant field have made such a statement in the entire history of modern field of neuroscience. Because it is such an empirically invalid/nonsensical/goblidigook statement, it just has no place in the discourse of scholarship on the topic. Clearly, most neurologically healthy people are capable of learning highly complex and involved tasks well into late life, so actual researchers just don't talk in those kinds of generalized terms, and never really have--at least as the actual literature and research are concerned. Now, have some researchers occasionally given sound-bite like statements that got further filtered through the distorting lens of conventional media coverage, especially after these chestnuts have been repeated over and over? Yes, of course that has happened. But that doesn't mean we should use these highly problematic myths about how scientists A) used to believe the adult brain was static, but now B) increasingly believe it is plastic, neither of which statement accurately reflects the common beliefs, then or now. We especially can't do so when the sources supporting such statements are the likes of Slate.com, and they are used in the place of a more faithful and nuanced representation of what is found in MEDRS sources.

All of that said, you put forward a couple of reasonable questions. I would personally prefer that (at least as far as the lead is concerned, where we only have so much space for full context) that we say something that does not over-reach to put words into the mouth of researchers: something that imparts the notion that the exact parameters and constraints of plasticity, especially in the developmentally mature individual, have been a subject of profound debate for the entirety of the modern study of the human brain. To the extent that we talk about a trend towards accepting that the brain may be "more plastic than previously thought", any such statement should be predicated in specific examples of particular mechanisms which were once thought impossible but which are now experimentally validated (there are such examples, though their scope tends to be narrow and another example of overstatement in the popular press). That would avoid using cumbersome news sound bites to impute views that are supposedly common to researchers in this field but which can only be found in pop news summaries and nowhere in the actual research.

Your question about the sourcing is even more complex. On the one hand, there's any number of sources which can attest to the actual variations of perspective on particular technical and physiological questions, but what you are asking for is for others to prove a negative with regard to a specific pop coverage canard, which is often an impossible thing to do, but in any event, not how we go about judging the weight of such matters for these topics on en.WP. The party who wants to make a broad and over-arching statement about what most scientist once thought about the topic broadly (or what researchers generally think about it today) bears the WP:ONUS of supporting that statement, not the other way around. And given the topic area and that any such broad statement is an WP:exceptional one about a massively important area of scientific inquiry, the citations used to support such a statement should be literary review or other sources that unambiguously clear the hurdles of WP:MEDRS, not the likes of Slate.com, other clickbait online magazines, or popular press generally. That said, I do suspect, like you, that there's a reasonable middle ground here that could possibly suit. Your interest seems to be in stating that there has been a minor sea change in perspectives on the issue of plasticity. I think that might be a bit of an overstatement, but so long as we confine our discussion of that matter to specific recent findings, there may be room for something along those lines, even in the lead--provided, again, that we don't overgeneralize and perpetuate pop science inaccuracies not to be found in the corpus of expert treatment of the subject. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I wasn't asking to prove a negative. I was simply stating that the "once thought of as static" statement exists in some decent sources, like the book source I cited above. It's not just in sources like Slate. Below, we can see that James343e stated "you are right that in the past some researchers like Lenneberg in 1967 held that adult brains remain fixed (or unplastic)", and such suggested alternative wording for the piece that had been in the lead. I've seen this type of statement in WP:Tertiary sources even back when I was a teenager. Because of all of this, and what you stated above, I was asking how best to report on previous scientific thought. It's why I asked you what type of summary you would use (meaning what type of summary do you think is more accurate), and what type of sources you would use for it. I understand that we shouldn't just repeat popular myth or something that is possibly a popular myth. But, as you know, we can only go by what reliable sources state and with due weight. It's why I'm interested in sources that present the matter differently than what the aforementioned book source I cited states. I'm not disagreeing with you that, unlike that source, we should be conservative with our wording. At the Female hysteria article, we were faced with numerous WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary sources reporting on a matter as though it's a fact, while a minority of sources challenged this widely repeated statement. After extensive discussion, which was aided by the author of the hypothesis clarifying things in an interview, we came to an agreement on how to report on the information in a way that did not present the statement as definitive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, unless I am missing something, this is the edit in contention: [1]. So we are not conflating issues, let's be clear about separating the two changes that edit would establish: A) It adds the statement "the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain.", and, B) it challenges/removes the statement "This notion is in contrast with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or "static").". These are topically related but not mutually inter-dependent statements; the adoption or non-adoption of one is not determinative as to the other, so it is a false choice if we narrow our options to the binary choice of adopting one over the other; as a matter of WP:WEIGHT, each can be evaluated.

As to A ("the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain."), there is literally not a single fact regarding the topic of neuroplasticity which is more readily or easily sourceable; there's absolutely no question as to where the weight of the sources is on that matter--it's a basic predicate of all research and empirical understanding in the field. As to B ("This notion is in contrast with the previous scientific consensus that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or "static").") that statement contains multiple contentious and WP:extraordinary elements which simply do not begin to jive with the weight of the sources broadly. Indeed, I still have not seen a single source presented so far that meets WP:MEDRS here and would even begin to lay the ground work for suggesting either that 1) recent developments undercut the validity of the critical period (not found in any sources that I am aware of, and so WP:SYNTHESIS), nor 2) that belief in near-absolute non-plasticity was the conventional view of researchers in the recent past (it wasn't, that's an inaccurate contrivance of pop press coverage). The ethics of nanotechnology book is certainly better than Slate.com, I will grant you that, but it's still a long way from the WP:NPOV/WEIGHT bar needed to support the statement.

So yes, as to B, I have to think there is a reasonable compromise position here that addresses the concerns of all. But it is a false dichotomy to suggest we are choosing between A and B on a WEIGHT pendulum. A as statement read independently on its merits in relation to reliable sources is clearly supported, no question whatsoever, regardless of what we do with B. Statement B on the other hand, as it currently reads, is highly inaccurate and not satisfied by the weight of the sources generally, and if the choice is between using the current wording and saying nothing at all along these lines, we'd need to go with nothing at all. But, not to sound like a broken record, but I think that can be avoided, with a more nuanced statement that still captures the idea of changing perspectives without going as far as to assert points 1&2 that I noted in the second paragraph above, neither of which is accurate or the best way to capture the developing trends in this area. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've read everything here, but I've got to say that it's difficult for me to follow what exactly the disagreement is about. Insofar as I can tell, it boils down to whether or not the lead should continue to point out that, in the past, neuroscientists believed that there was rather little plasticity in the brain in adulthood, but over the last several decades it has become clear that there is more plasticity than what was previously thought. The way I just said that is probably better than the language that has been in the lead, and I don't feel strongly about whether it needs to be in the lead so long as it gets covered in the main text. I'm really not hearing any disagreement about how to describe the present-day understanding of brain plasticity. It comes down to how much attention the lead should give to history. I'd say either skip it in the lead, or present it in such a way that it doesn't sound like there was an abrupt, all-at-once, reversal of the scientific consensus. It was a progressively emerging understanding that emerged over a couple of decades. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I was not stating that we should adopt one over the other. The dispute does, however, partly concern removing one. James343e noted that he only removed the sentence because he felt that it was stating that there is no critical period. As for WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, there's all of what WP:MEDRS states to take into account. WP:MEDRS begins, in part, by stating, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." So I don't see how the book source I cited above fails WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS is clear that History sections in medical articles usually do not strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS. That is why something like a statement supported by Slate in the History section can be viewed as fine. I personally would have cited an academic source, but that's me. As for it being an extraordinary claim, I can only judge that by what sources state. I'm not trying to look at the literature and ascertain the matter on my own. I'm trying to see how sources document that historical aspect and if any disagree with the summary you take issue with. I trust your judgment, though, and I also understand what Tryptofish means with his latest post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. Cover the critical period more in the article first. Also: "the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain." - that bolded part needs to be qualified with more detail when it's re-added to the lead after being covered in the article's body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, no apologies needed. The "developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain" part is still in the lead, though. It's now just matter of it being covered lower. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"scientific consensus [was] that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or 'static').

Hi again, Flyer22 Reborn (talk). Thanks for your explanation. Now I understand the reason why you wanted the sentence "scientific consensus [was] that the brain develops during a critical period in early childhood and then remains relatively unchanged (or 'static')" in the lead paragraph.

My problem is only with the word "critical period" not the second part of the statement "and then remains relatively unchanged (or 'static')". You are right that in the past some reasearchers like Lenneberg in 1967 held that adult brains remain fixed (or unplastic). That notion has been challenged, of course adults still have plasticity in many aspects. You can put that "research has challenged the traditional notion that the developing brain is plastic while the adult brain is not plastic". But... what does it have to do with the critical period? Many cases of feral children (children who have been raised in isolation, lacking a crutial stimulus their first years) are unable to talk or behave like a normal person. Their IQ is also lower than the normal range. Typical examples are Genie or Danielle Crockett. So, while it is true that adult brains are still plastic, it does not fully challenge the critical period.

I have never find any article suggesting that “adult plasticity challenges the notion of critical periods of brain development”.

Crutially, many contemporary studies still defend the existence of critical periods of brain development:

1) H. T. Chugani (1998). A Critical Period of Brain Development: Studies of Cerebral Glucose Utilization with PET. Preventive Medicine. Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 184-188 https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0274

2) Catharine R. Gale Finbar J. O’Callaghan Keith M. Godfrey Catherine M. Law Christopher N. Martyn (2004). Critical periods of brain growth and cognitive function in children. Brain, Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh034

3) Fulton Crews ⁎, Jun He, Clyde Hodge (2007). Adolescent cortical development: A critical period of vulnerability for addiction. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 86, 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2006.12.001

4) De Roo et al. (2009). Anesthetics Rapidly Promote Synaptogenesis during a Critical Period of Brain Development. Plos one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007043

5) P. S. Erzurumlu and P. Gaspar (2012). Development and critical period plasticity of the barrel cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 35, pp. 1540–1553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08075.x

6) T.K. Hensch and P. M. Bilimoria (2012). Re-opening Windows: Manipulating Critical Periods for Brain Development. Cerebrum. 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3574806/

7) Delia Fuhrmann, Lisa J. Knoll, and Sarah-Jayne Blakemore (2015). Adolescence as a Sensitive Period of Brain Development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.008

8) Juzoh Umemori1, Frederike Winkel1, Eero Castrén, Nina N. Karpova (2015). Distinct effects of perinatal exposure to fluoxetine or methylmercury on parvalbumin and perineuronal nets, the markers of critical periods in brain development. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 44 (2015) 55–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2015.05.006

9) Juzoh Umemori Frederike Winkel Eero Castrén Nina N.Karpova (2015). Distinct effects of perinatal exposure to fluoxetine or methylmercury on parvalbumin and perineuronal nets, the markers of critical periods in brain development. Volume 44, Pages 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2015.05.006

10) Hensch, T. K. (2018). Critical periods in early brain development. Chapter 6 in The Neurobiology of Brain and Behavioral Development. https://books.google.es/books?id=BlnXDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&dq=critical+period+brain+development&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil6erex-_aAhWBLhQKHX77CAo4ChDoAQg9MAM#v=onepage&q=critical%20period%20brain%20development&f=false

P.S.: If you want, you can put in the lead that "research has challenged the traditional notion that the developing brain is plastic while the adult brain is not plastic". But without alluding to any critical period.

Thanks for your time, and please do not "threat me" with "I'll allert". I want to help and reach a consensus with you and other editors. User:James343e (talk).

To my reading, "I'll alert" was not intended as a threat. Flyer22 was simply letting you know that he/she had invited other people who might be interested to join the discussion. Best wishes, Looie496 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to make sure I am not misrepresenting Flyer here by adopting James' description of the previous debate as accurate to Flyer's assertions, edits, or whatever, but I will say this: if anyone really is forwarding the assertion that "recent research as to the constraints on neuroplasticity = critical period does not exist", it must be said that such a statement would be categorically WP:FRINGE and deeply WP:UNDUE of inclusion in the lead. I know of no exercise of literary review or major figure in the field who has said anything remotely similar to that-- nor have I even have seen primary speculation tying such an assertion to any piece of recent research. In particular, any assertion that the two are mutually in-operable models would be WP:Original research via WP:SYNTHESIS, and not even a variety that reflects a minority within the research community. Honestly, it's just simply a misstatement to assert that we are going through a period of findings about plasticity that are so unexpected that they turn the conventional frameworks on their head; that's just plain fiction and also original research as far as I can tell. Recent research has all more or less been within the spectrum of possibilities that were anticipated. They certainly don't bring the question of the critical period into disrepute by any means. Indeed, nobody has ever really believed in such a thing as "strict non-plasticity", not even for those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool natisvists. The question has always been about the degree to which plasticity changes over the course of life. But no recent trends in research or scholarship broadly that I am aware of have made such an unexpected proclamation that the difference is so negligible that the critical period could not exist. That would clearly be a fringe assertion and close to being on the opposite side of current scientific consensus.

I'm happy to contemplate the WP:WEIGHT issues of particular sources (ideally MEDRS-oriented sources, though I'm happy to at least discuss "pop science" articles if only to frame their assertions in context), but not only do I think it's certain to be that the critical period skepticism language will need to go as OR, I think we also need to be careful about how we word any language which might be taken to suggest that plasticity is a model generally in doubt. That's not what is going on with recent research; we are rather just getting a more nuanced understanding of the contours of plasticity with regard to specific mechanisms of neurophysiology, and any statement in the lead should lean in the direction of presenting those complexities--at least as best we can while maintaining generally-accessible encyclopedic prose. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

James343e, yes, that is what I was focused on. I wasn't focused on the "critical period" aspect. And again, I didn't (and still don't) view the sentence you removed as challenging the critical period. To me, it was simply noting, like you stated, "research has challenged the traditional notion that the developing brain is plastic while the adult brain is not plastic." To me, "critical period" was included simply as a part of the statement, not as specifically disputing the critical period. And Looie496 is correct that I didn't mean the "I'll alert the following WikiProjects" piece as a threat. Snow Rise, like I stated to you above, there are reliable sources that state that scientists previously thought of the brain as static. I'm just wondering how to convey this previous thought in the lead since it is also covered lower in the article. It should obviously be better covered lower before it's covered in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some examples?

I came to this page looking for examples, and found none. Are these examples of brain plasticity?

- People who get glasses, either for the first time or replacements, anecodtally often report experiencing "strange feelings" (as distinct from headaches) for a while, and then note that they can see better after a while. Is this an example of the brain trying to reconfigure itself to cope with an increased flow of visuaal information?

- Conversely, people who go blind, almost always report a sharpening of other senses, especially hearing. Is this an example of the other senses getting "more brain" from the area that was used for vision?

I have no medical training so no doubt have used the wrong words. But I am hoping that someone can take these questions seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:4C03:F91C:8CF3:A52F (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)