Talk:Human brain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I can't verify cited source for number of neurons

In the STRUCTURE section, "has shown about 200 billion neurons in the human brain" is note 4. I read the paper linked at that note, but I can't find any mention about the brain having 200 billion neurons. Am I misreading something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.73.42 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Language and emotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Language and emotion is a redirect to this page. What's the point of that? Is there a better target? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that I misread as two items - Language and Emotion being redirects so removed the tag. Then changed redirect to Language section. Don't know if that redirect notice still needs to be re-entered? thanks Iztwoz (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging this with "human brain size"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey!! Can I merge the article "human brain size" by adding it under a chapter called "size" in this article..? The current size of the article about the size of the human brain is not very long. And it seem to fit under the article. MicroMacroMania (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you have moved Brain size to Human brain size. After all, there are other species besides humans. I'm going to start a discussion at WT:NEURO#Brain size and Human brain size. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You pretty much need to slow down a lot here. You are playing around with highly important articles, and doing so from a perspective that is clearly controversial. You have also been told several times that you should not misrepresent sources, and should do a better job at finding and using reliable sources. Moving and splitting articles without prior discussion is also not a good approach. Slow down, learn the rules and the policies, read more about the topics you are interested in.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I am reversing it all I guess..? Or does an admin do it? And okay I am slowing down.. MicroMacroMania (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flynn effect

It is not possible to insert the Flynn effect as a related article to the section on the evolution of the human brain, it quite simply has no relation whatsoever to that topic. The Flynn effect is an effect related to the testing of Human intelligence in ther 20th century, and to my knowledge noone has ever proposed that it has an evolutionary or even a genetic cause. If the flynn effect has any place in the article it would be in the section that describes relations between Brain size and intelligence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this is a freighted topic when I put it back as "further information". I was just noting that it had been a "see also" for a long time without previous controversy, and I consider "further information" to simply mean "you can find more information here", and not "this topic is mechanistically the same thing as the topic of this section". I'm not sure which section of this page you are referring to in the last sentence of your comment, because the only place I see that discussed is in the evolution section, second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But you cant find further informaiton about the evolution of the human brain at the article about the Flynn effect because they are entirely unrelated topics. You inserted as a further reading in the section about the evolution of the human brain. I thought there was a subsection on intelligence, and if there were that is where it would be relevant. The Flynn effect is by most accounts a demonstration that intelligence scores are susceptible to environmental changes. It really has no place outside of a specific discussion about trends in IQ test scores.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Brain size and Human brain size. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements to Evolution Section

There are a few things that I would edit in the “Human Brain” page. Focusing on the evolution section I think that it is only very general information. I think that this section could be improved if it was expanded. The different structures of the brain as stated frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, the hippocampi, and the cerebellum could be added to in regards to how each section of the brain has also evolved. Also another thing that could be improved is the transition between the paragraphs in this section because as of now it is kind of choppy and confusing so I think maybe fixing the transition leading into intelligence and its relations to brain size. Lastly this section also discusses a study that states that fertility and intelligence have a negative correlation however the name of the study is not stated so if the study name or citation was added here it could help people navigate to the study itself for more information. These are just a few improvements that I saw that could be made but overall the page looks very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patel.1340 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Brain size and Human brain size, about reorganizing our pages on brain evolution. There will likely be expansion of our page on Evolution of the brain, as well as creation of a new page on Evolution of the human brain, and much of what you are talking about would probably fit better at those pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it is a real good idea expanding and even creating a new page on the evolution of the human brain because there is so much information that could be added in that section without drawing the attention to evolution only in the general Human Brain page. --Patel.1340 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This article can be improved If the author stated the cause for the changes in brain size. For instance, the genes ASPM and Microcephalin have been linked to the evolution of the human brain size and is often related to the split between chimpanzee and humans. Also the author could have mentioned that the genes that control brain size could be a larger part of the genome that is associated to higher cognitive processes. The final way this article could be improved is if the authors focused less on the IQ. The article itself, states that IQ is a variance that doesn't necessarily respond to real world intelligence in the first place yet half of the Evolution section of the Human brain article focuses on the brain size evolution and its correspondence to IQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solanki.15 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this may be a student project. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a student project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solanki.15 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alot of vandalism

We should semi protect the page probably...ParanoidLemmings (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Requested page protection for 1 week. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure

Kudos to this article's authors, when browsing it I have to say it's written well and clearly, so well done and thanks for your contributions! I've reorganised this article so that sections follow WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. The benefit of this approach is that it's a standard approach for anatomical articles, and the second benefit is that sections that are missing tend to stand out a bit more. I've retained all of the content. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The new order seems better.. But should the pictures not generally be on the right?ParanoidLemmings (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks paranoid lemmings, I don't believe I changed any of the images during my reorder. So, if you see something like this, that's probably not too contentious, be bold and fix it! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The guideline about image placement is at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. For small numbers of images, the default is for them to be placed right. However, when there are many images, as there are on this page, it's often good to alternate left and right. Of course, it's all a subjective matter of editorial judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. No you did not move any of them. It is just me who is thinking abit about where to place the pictures. I just remember that pictures in general tend to be on the right. I dont know what is best for this article though. Tryptofish seems right about what to do. A mix of right of left seems goodParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

IQ

"Neurological differences between the sexes have not been shown to correlate in any simple way with IQ or other measures of cognitive performance." that is not true following the page on IQ. Look down in the part about group differences. " Items like the MRT and RT tests that show a male advantage in IQ are often removed". Which statement is true..? One of them have to be changed..ParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the statement in the article is not inconsistent with the fact that some tests show malke advantage and others dont, because it says that there is no SIMPLE correlation. The finding is that some types of IQ test tasks seem to systematically favor men and other women. So there is a correlation but it is not simple.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of citations and references

Large parts of the article dont have any citations at all. Forexample the part about Lateralization and Topography dont have any references at all. We should try to see if i can find some citations for the unsources parts of the article.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. This article has been relatively neglected for a long time. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I know of some much better sources than have been used beforehand on this article. I'll keep a close eye on this article, and I encourage Looie496 to do the same. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, why did you remove this tag? Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Weight

The adult human brain does not weigh on average about 1.5 kg. The average european brain weight is much less but I don't know of studies made in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcastellanos (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide the source for those statements? Looie496 (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This article [1] says "The slices of the cerebrum with removed leptomeninges weighed only 79.2 - 84.4% of the total brain weight" and this book [2] in the Appendix 1, pag. 28 says that with leptomeninges, the mean weight between males and females is lower and very different. (Most studies have been done in Europe). What about human brains in other places?. So, the brain (without leptomeninges) probably weigh much less than currently stated.Gcastellanos (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The first of those says, "The removed leptomeninges had a mean weight of 34.2 g (2.5% of the total brain weight)". That yields a total weight of about 1350 g, or 1150 g if the meninges are excluded. (Our article doesn't say one way or another.) But this is a primary source based on only 8 brains, so it wouldn't be appropriate to use it for precise values. As far as I know that "standard crude approximation" for the weight of the human brain is around three pounds; I suppose that 1.5 kg figure was arrived at by converting three pounds to metric and rounding to the nearest half-pound. I would welcome a better value, but we really need something that is properly sourced. Note that we have an article on brain size that discusses this issue in some detail -- although it might not resolve the problem here. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the article on brain size has 3 different values "The adult human brain weighs on average about 1.5 kg (3.3 lb)"; "Average adult male brain size is 1,345 gram, while an adult female has an average brain weight of 1,222 gram"; "whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb)"Gcastellanos (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources clearly are not always consistent on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Section needed on major fibre pathways

There needs to be a section describing the major fibre pathways in the human brain. Although the corpus callosum and other pathways from one side of the brain to the other are mentioned, there is nothing in the text about anterior/posterior, rostral/caudal, and other pathways.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I think writing such a section and getting a result that is useful to readers would be a bit of a challenge. Looie496 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thinking

I have noticed that different thinking patters such as thoughts of sex, fear, anger, superiority complex or inferiority complex were shown when EEG graphs were studied in India but since it is original research at my place, I cannot add that in this section. However, if somebody has already worked on it and the different data available, I feel it should come on this article. I have noticed that if these oscillations are carefully analysed we may be able to read the thoughts. I also feel that different places in the brain give out thought waves of these types and we should note that to do proper mapping of places of different thought. If anybody has already worked on this it should be included as that is a very important information. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Meditation

Brain activities during meditation is not discussed in this article. A lot is discussed elsewhere about brain activities during sleep. Meditation is a type of conscious sleep. Presently, I am working on it and have a good amount of information but since it is original research I cannot add that here. I hope somebody has already done work on it; if so, it should be included in this article. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm, @Pathare Prabhu. We can't include everything related to every subject on the article. A good location for this and the above may either be a small section on the EEG, or directly on the meditation article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Diagram Accessibility

In the diagram about regions of the lateral surface of the brain, it is difficult for people with deuteranomaly (there are lots) to see the different colors marking the regions. I can distinguish only two colors in the cerebrum, and I'm not sure which region(s) they are. Please refer to the page for the Articles with images not understandable by color blind users category.

Frans Fowler (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

General features section

In January, with this edit, I removed "male" from the following passage: "The human brain is composed of neurons, glial cells, and blood vessels. The number of neurons, according to array tomography, has been shown to be on average about 86 billion in the adult male human brain with a roughly equal number of non-neuronal cells."

As seen, the reason I gave for removing "male" is that I didn't see sources making the "86 billion neurons" matter simply a male feature. From what I see, when sources report it, they simply talk about the human brain in general, not the human male brain. I also clarified 84 billion as the "roughly equal number." I used this 2015 Neuroimaging Genetics: Principles and Practices source, from Oxford University Press.

A couple of days ago, with this edit, Dbachmann changed the "on average about 86 billion" neurons part to "estimated at roughly 100 billion," stating "'Bigos' just refers back to Azevedo et al." With that same edit, he moved the "86 billion in the adult human brain with a roughly equal number (about 84 billion) of non-neuronal cells" part to the second paragraph, and added "According to Azevedo et al. (2009)" to the beginning of it. With this edit, he stated "excessive accuracy" and re-added "male" to the "human brain on average has about 86 billion in the adult human brain with a roughly equal number (about 84 billion) of non-neuronal cells" piece and changed "86 billion" to "86±8 billion neurons" and "84 billion" to "85±10 billion."

My concerns are this: Per WP:Secondary (and WP:MEDRS as well, since it partly pertains to anatomical content), we should be using secondary sources and tertiary sources instead of primary sources. And I don't think that sources usually cite the "86 billion neurons" aspect as a male feature only. The second paragraph is currently mostly about the male brain, and the "According to Azevedo et al. (2009)" piece makes it seem like they are the only ones who support these findings; this is the type of in-text attribution we shouldn't use, per WP:In-text attribution. I also don't see why we should state "The number of neurons is estimated at roughly 100 billion," and then go on to state "According to Azevedo et al. (2009), the the adult male human brain is estimated to contain 86±8 billion neurons, with a roughly equal number (85±10 billion) of non-neuronal cells." Or why we shouldn't simply state "86 billion" and "84 billion" like sources usually do, instead of "86±8 billion" and "85±10 billion." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely be referring to the brain in a gender neutral manner unless there are strong sources that point otherwise. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sure there are secondary sources on this topic. If that is the case, we should be using those. If there are not, or if we really want to include the upper estimate (which is pretty interesting, I suppose), we can do this: "The number of neurons in the brain is estimated at <<secondary source>>, with some researchers estimate up to <<primary source>>" or some form of phrasing to help distinguish between a secondary and primary source. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Dbachmann doesn't have much of an opinion on the formatting of that section? I'll leave that section alone for now, and focus on sourcing/tweaking other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This whole business of counting neurons is really kind of bogus. The great majority of neurons in the human brain are granule cells in the cerebellum -- tiny little neurons with few synaptic connections jam-packed into a small space. So a count of the total number of neurons essentially comes down to a count of the number of cerebellar granule cells -- not a very important statistic overall. It doesn't make sense to obsess about refinements of a measurement that hardly means anything anyway -- in my opinion we should just say that the total number of neurons in the human brain is on the order of 100 billion and leave it at that. (Counts of the total number of neurons in the cerebral cortex would be much more significant.) Looie496 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint on the matter, Looie49. I'm not entirely sure what should be done in this case, but I'm leaning toward keeping the "86 billion in the adult human brain with a roughly equal number (about 84 billion) of non-neuronal cells" aspect since it's so often cited in the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I can live with that wording. Let me note though that and fewer than 1% of all brain neurons are located in the rest of the brain is not justified by the cited source. That phrase does accurately describe the number that were counted, but as the Discussion section explains, the method of counting unavoidably missed an unknown fraction of neurons in the "rest of the brain" -- their actual number might be as high as 5% of the total. I would favor dropping the phrase about the rest of the brain. (The paper can be freely accessed at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lea_Grinberg/publication/24024444_Equal_numbers_of_neuronal_and_nonneuronal_cells_make_the_human_brain_an_isometrically_scaled-up_primate_brain/links/0912f50c100f1e72ba000000.pdf, if it is useful.) Looie496 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

By "the cited source," I take it you mean this source that Dbachmann added. And by "the phrase about the rest of the brain," do you only mean the "and fewer than 1% of all brain neurons are located in the rest of the brain" part? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I made these changes thus far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Function Section

The function section needs to be totally reworked, as it only covers a few of the functions, and includes irrelevant things like laterilzat on and metabolism(an intrinsic part of all cells, not a function of the brain). I am going to do a total rewrite, but I will save the stuff here.Petergstrom (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the function section could be improved. However I do not think that things like lateralization and metabolism are irrelevant. The functioning of the brain is influenced by these and other factors, and I think that should be reflected in the article content.

To me, it seems impossible to make a complete list of functions, since it is subjective when something is considered a function. So, I'm curious which functions you have in mind to be added to the article?

Maybe it is a better idea to do multiple smaller edits, instead of a total rewrite. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 13:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Really the whole article needs to be reworked. It has never received the attention it deserves given its importance. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. There is a huge amount to mention and a lot to be added. A good start of things to be added might be something like "Sensory", "Motor", "Cognition", "Consciousness, "Memory", "Emotion". So long as edits are sourced I support begin WP:BOLD. --Tom (LT) 06:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Saving the removal of the metabolism section here, and the removal of the lateralization section(not a function) here.Petergstrom (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom (talk · contribs) Could you add references to the individual sentences instead of to the whole paragraph? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes no problemPetergstrom (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

lateralization is not a function. Neither is metabolism, as it is something that is not unique to the brain in any way whatsoever. Petergstrom (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right those are not functions. That is not a reason to remove the information; You could move it to another section. The metabolism section is about metabolism of the brain not metabolism in general. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 22:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding two of Petergstrom's changes, which I reverted here and here, and which VeniVidiVicipedia also reverted, he is incorrect that lateralization is not an aspect of function. If he were correct, then sources such as this and this one would not make it clear that lateralization is an as aspect of brain function and we would not have the Lateralization of brain function article. From what I know of the literature, lateralization should be under the Function section. Metabolism also has a lot to do with how the brain functions, as sources like this one indicate. Petergstrom edits also did not simply move material; they removed material. Petergstrom should be discussing matters and taking objections seriously instead of trying to have things his way.

As for fixing up this article and this article getting the attention it deserves, I was already doing that. And Petergstrom, who I have a tempestuous relationship with and who decided to follow me to this article despite that, already knew this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I, too, am concerned about material not pertinent to the dispute being removed. El_C 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 above. Metabolism and lateralisation are clearly worth mentioning here. --Tom (LT) 10:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that the Function section be restored to its previous setup and that we then integrate Petergstrom's additions into the respective sections...without adding any redundancy, of course. If it appears that anything should be given its own section, or split away from the Function section, we can then discuss that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

LT910001, Iztwoz, VeniVidiVicipedia and El_C, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should maintain this content in 'function' and also maintain the additions, which I think are useful.--Tom (LT) 10:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the real issue is that the article in its current state insufficiently explains the close relation between the structure of the brain and its functioning. Sections like: "functional divisions" and "lateralization" (of brain function) are about the anatomy aspect of function. They could either be placed in "Structure" or "Function", but there will always be good arguments to place them elsewhere. I suggest to focus more on the relation of the two instead of trying to separate them. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Haven't really looked at the page much of late - first rapid response is that it seems a long way removed from the quality of the Brain page which seems to have a much better structure. I would agree with an earlier thought of VeniVidiVicipedia that it makes life a lot easier to have smaller groups of edits that can be more readily looked over.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, getting this article to WP:GA level is the goal. As the edit history shows, I have been sourcing material, removing unsourced or poorly sourced material (only an occasional small removal, nothing big), and adding just a bit of material. Sourcing has been my initial focus because the content is generally verifiable and I don't want to lose important information. Expansion, and restructuring if needed, would come after that. I think it's best to take things one step at a time for such a big, complex and important article as this.

Per above, it seems that my proposal is a go. The Brain article has a Physiology section and a Functions section, and it has the Metabolism subsection in the Physiology section; so that is a setup to consider. This link shows the previous setup of the Human brain article. And this link shows Petergstrom's setup, the current state of the article. You can see that the Structure and Function sections have more subsections with that setup (well, the Structure section only has one additional subsection -- Lateralization). Besides not agreeing with how he divided things, there is no need to state "function" for the subheading when the main subheading is "Function," and, per MOS:HEAD, the subheadings should be in sentence case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Looie496, I don't want to leave you out. What are your thoughts on sectioning? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, LT910001, Iztwoz, VeniVidiVicipedia and Looie496, since the article is no longer full-protected as a result of the dispute, I have reverted the article (followup edit here) to the way it was prior to Petergstrom's setup. User:Flyer22 Reborn/Human brain shows what the Human brain article looked like before Petergstrom's setup. And below is what Petergstrom added.

Now the question is how to integrate Petergstrom's addition without adding redundancy. So I propose that we edit User:Flyer22 Reborn/Human brain to integrate Petergstrom's material, then check it over to make sure that we are okay with how the material has been edited, and then we add it to the article. Everyone is welcome to edit User:Flyer22 Reborn/Human brain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

LT910001, maybe you want to take the lead with integrating the material? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom's addition

Sensory Functions The human brain receives external stimuli through the sensory systems, composed of the chemical sensory systems, auditory system, visual system, and somatosensory system. The chemical sensory system in includes senses such as taste, and olfactory system. Taste systems allow for the perception of flavor and consist of vagal, facial, and glossopharyngeal neurons that innervate the mouth and project into the nucleus of the solitary tract before projecting into the thalamus, hypothalamus, Stria terminalis, insula, frontal operculum, amygdala, and hippocampus. The specific taste is determined by activation of receptors on the tongue such as the TAS1R1 receptors. The brain determines the hedonic value of a taste, primarily involving the gustatory cortex, composed of regions of the frontal operculum and insula. The olfactory system is composed of olfactory neurons, which project into the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex. The visual system allows organisms to perceive the surrounding environment using light sensitive neurons in the eye. These neurons carry information into the brain through the optic nerve, which innervates the lateral geniculate nucleus, superior colliculus, the nuclei of the oculomotor nerve, trochlear nerve, and Abducent nerve, and the visual cortex. The visual cortex consists of two streams, the dorsal and ventral, which are hypothesized to guide behavior and the identify objects respectively. The somatosensory system allows for the sensation of touch, divided into mechanoreceptor|mechanoreception, thermoception, nociception, and proprioception. The somatosensory system consists of primary neurons that terminate in the spinal cord or medulla, followed by second order neurons originating in the spinal cord or medulla that terminate in the thalamus. The thalamic third order neurons then project into the sensory cortex. The nociceptive and thermoceptive systems are distinct from proprioceptive and mechanoceptive systems as they terminate in the spinal cord rather than the medulla, forming two distinct pathways. Motor Functions The motor system generates moment in humans. The motor system involved in generating basic movements such as locomotion and chewing are controlled by motor programs located in the brain stem and spinal cord. More goal directed behaviors involve the basal ganglia and hypothalamus, while more complex motor functions such as fine motor skills and speech are controlled cortical structures. The cortical structures are also involved in regulating more stereotypical movement generated by brain stem and spinal cord systems. The cerebellum plays an important role in coordination and motor correction. The motor system may also be divided into pyramidal system and extrapyramidal system. The pyramidal system consists of the cortical descending motor tracts, while the extrapyramidal system consists of the lower level motor tracts. The basal ganglia is generally considered extrapyramidal, however it's role in action selection makes it more of a prepyramidal system. Regulatory Functions The brain regulates many functions, including regulation of autonomic processes, cardiorespiratory function, food and water intake, the circadian rhythm and endocrine functions. The brainstem, spinal cord and hypothalamus are particularly relevant in regulation. Cognitive Functions The brain is capable of producing higher cognitive functions, such as learning, emotions, consciousness, executive functions, abstract reasoning, language, social behavior, causal reasoning, and memory. The circuits involved in generating these functions include both cortical and subcortical structures. Executive functions, involved in inhibition and self control, and learning, or the modification of existing knowledge behavior and skills, involve subcortical structures such as the basal ganglia and cortical structures such as the prefrontal cortex and cingulate cortex. Language, or the ability to use complex communication systems, are generally localized to wernicke's area and broca's area, although multiple regions are involved in controlling language. Emotions have multiple definitions, but generally include multiple components and functions. Emotions involve elicitation, and a response. Emotions are generally believed to have five components, appraisal, expression, autonomic reactions, feelings and an action tendency. Emotion have had many areas implicated in their function, such as the limbic system, cerebellum, basal ganglia, temporal cortex, prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, hypothalamus and brain stem monoamine nuclei.

Further discussion

Many thanks. I will copy and paste the content back into a sandbox, edit it, and put it back into the article. I have marked the article as "In use" temporarily.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have had a read of the article and content above and have a number of concerns.

1. I have taken a massive rearrangement and axe to the article as can be seen. This article (Human brain) should not be constantly comparing our brain against animals; nor should such a large section be given to discussion about the cortex alone.
2. I have consequently centralised animal information and removed a large digression into the cortex of the cerebrum
3. I have made a number of edits to the clinical significance section. This section needs a large copyedit and sources
4. I have moved the 'cognition' section to 'society and culture' as it is discussion the brain's function from a philosophical perspective. I have copied may copy the cognition section above to the function section, it needs a large copyedit as it mostly just lists structures.
5. I have too many concerns with the text above to use them presently - including long lists of sections; misleading and potentially incorrect statements such as "regulates... cardiorespiratory function, food and water intake, the circadian rhythm and endocrine functions."; excessively complicated and also potentially incorrect statements ("The somatosensory system allows for the sensation of touch, divided into mechanoreceptor, thermoception, nociception, and proprioception. ")
6. I have left a large number of empty sections which I will (hopefully other editors will also) flesh out over the next few days

Ultimately, integration of the content above and improvement and expansion of this article will need more work. Hope we can get to it in the next few days / weeks Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thats true, in the haste of writing that, I should not have divided sense of touch into those, but the somatosensory system into mechanoreceptrion, thermoception, nociception and proprioception.Petergstrom (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative and cleaning things up, Tom (LT). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

LT910001 (talk · contribs) regarding this edit, are those general references? or suggestion for further reading? If it is the former, can you make them inline citations? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see that would be confusing as I haven't actually used them yet... I tend to paste in some relevant book references prior to using them, and cite them by page using {{Sfn}} which is very handy. I will use all of these four in the next few days and I apologise for the confusion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if they were supposed to be references used in the article or for further reading. I was tempted to add a "Further reading" heading. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom, did you fully consider what Tom (LT) stated above? Simply re-adding your material without discussion after objections have been made to it is not how we are supposed to do things. This is why Tom (LT) had make to this and this edit afterward. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It is totally new content, not just re-adding. I actually don't see why he removed what he did, but I don't care enough to argue it.Petergstrom (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

When one compares your previous "Motor Functions" material to your latter "Motor Functions" material, they can see that it's not "totally new content." You have edited the above collapsed content, but it's still clear that you essentially re-added the same content. I had removed your material per what I stated above. Tom (LT) analyzed it, trying to decide what to integrate (because I suggested integrating your material without adding redundancy)...but he saw issues with it. The point is that simply re-adding contested content, even if changed a bit, can be considered edit warring and is often not productive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if other editors see problems with it that is fine by me. If he could point out directly what problems he has that would be nice, but I am content with not re-adding any material, as it was rather hastily written by me.Petergstrom (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Above editor appears to have been blocked for several months from medicine-related articles (Which would include this one)... and I don't see any further active discussion here. Any objections to archiving this, so as to keep the talk page focused? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Synapses

There is virtually zero information here about the interconnectivity of the neurons. I am NOT an anatomist, but failing to discuss the ways in which the brain is connected, vasculature, blood system, glial cells, and synaptic connections (if I'm not mistaken), is like describing a car's structure with (only) a parts list. Almost any other lay description will mention the average number of synapses connecting a neuron to others, but it's nowhere to be found here. Why not? In a rapid scan of the article I found so many problems that it probably needs to be completely revised. I'll list some of my observations, fwiw.
It gives two values for the number of neurons in the adult brain, and more to the point gives them in two consecutive sentences. This is nonsensical (and sloppy) and jarring to anyone reading it. If I read it carefully I'd conclude that adults have fewer neurons than an "average" human 86 vs 100 billion. Is this the intent? If the article is about the Human brain, then the article should be about that. (duh!) And yet no where can I find whether "healthy adult" brains vary in the number of neurons, or whether the range given (76-96 billion) is due to measurement uncertainty. Wow. If there is no consensus (and if it actually matters), why not just say (modern) estimates range between x and y? It is mentioned that female brains are smaller than male, yet no mention is made about whether the difference is due to a number difference, or a difference in cell size. The volume difference is often mentioned in the popular press, but when I computed the encephalization quotient (e.q.) of an average weight (US) female and male, I was shocked to learn that women's is higher. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned? (or is it only original research?) (E.q. is used to compare brain measure between species, but I don't know how applicable it is to differences between the sexes of a single species.) It is egregious that the lede fails to mention what the brain does. That is, primarily it sends and receives electric (more specifically electro-chemical) signals to the rest of the body, as well as internally processing them. (I believe it has other (hormonal) signalling mechanisms...?) It is just as much of a failure that the word "control" doesn't appear as a major part of its function. Yet a lot of (less useful, imho) space is wasted on comparing human to other species and (worse, imho) an entire paragraph about "techniques for studying" it. After reading this article I have zero idea of how the human brain develops - while mentioning the ectoderm, neural plate, and neural tube, zero context is given. Here's an idea: As a human embryo develops, the blastula grows and reforms into a hollow spherical shell of cells called the gastrula. Early in this process, a stripe forms on the exterior of this sphere (the extoderm) which is called the neural plate. The neural plate goes on to form into the neural tube, which is the precursor to the central nervous system (brain and spinal column). The tube's ends close, and the brain starts to form at one end of this structure. Cells differentiate, forming neurons and glial cells. Neurons form axons and dendrites which will later form synapses, allowing them to communicate to each other. ... There is zero discussion of what the (average) number of neurons are at various stages of development. This makes no sense! There is zero discussion of what apoptosis does and when. There is zero discussion of the loss of neurons with age. Treating the brain, which is constantly changing, as a static organ is really poor example of what Wikipedia should be doing here. Abitslow (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Physiology section

A couple of days ago someone above suggested a physiology section, where we could put lateralization and metabolism. I haven't heard anything since. I think that, as the brain doesn't exist to be lateralized or to metabolize, there are aspects of its physiology not its function, that these sections belong in a physiology section. What are others thoughts on this?Petergstrom (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The thoughts of some other editors are described above in the thread you started titled "Function section". I agree with Flyer22 that both are relevant to function. Lateralisation describes how the function of the brain is split into left and right halves, and metabolism directly describes how brain cells function.--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm a proponent of placing the "lateralization" and "metabolism" subsections in a "Physiology" section. I suggest to place the section below the "Functions" section, as it describes "the way in which a living organism or bodily part functions" i.e. "how" it functions. @LT910001: are you for or against this idea? To me it is not really clear from your comment above. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 12:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It really does make more sense to put in the physiology section. If not, we would have to decide wether or not to cover, myelin, the basics of neurons(action structure, action potentials, neurotransmission, gap junctions etc etc). Where do you draw the line between how the brain functions, and what the brain does? It really becomes philosophical if you want to argue it logically, however intuitively, lateralization does not belong in the functions section at least with that much weight.Petergstrom (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe lateralisation should be covered in the "function" section, which is where we talk about sensory and motor function and language. All these functions are divided by hemisphere. This is what the lateralisation section relates to. Lateralisation relates to the collective function of groups of nerves or pathways, rather than individual nerves above. Even if we agree to move 'metabolism' to a separate section, 'lateralisation' should still be kept in the 'function' section.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You could slap that label on anything. Neurotransmission refers to the function of multiple proteins and chemicals that allow nerves communicated with each other. Should we have a neurotransmission section too? Take this analogy. A flashlight exists to create light, that is its function. The button to turn the flashlight on or off is functional, yes, but the button is not a function of the flashlight. A flashlight does not exist so a button can be pressed. The same goes for lateralization and metabolism.Petergstrom (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say above. I think given that we are (I think) at odds about the function/physiology split it might be worth waiting for the opinions of other editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, for reasons I've already stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

And Petergstrom creating a Physiology section and moving the metabolism material there while there is disagreement about doing so here on the talk page is him being his usual "my way or the highway" self. is disruptive and not productive in the least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't go all personal attack and stuff again, ok? go read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It was not him who moved it. And I believe there is some agreement with the move of metabolism, atm. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIA^talk 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I struck through the previous comment. Thanks for suggesting that I read a policy I am already well aware of. And, obviously, there is disagreement with where to place the Metabolism section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I should note that I am not strongly opposed to "Metabolism" being in the Physiology section, but I am strongly opposed to "Lateralization" being moved there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Development section -- why the brain wrinkles and folds

I mentioned that I am interested in adding a bit on the hypotheses for why the brain wrinkles and folds. I just noticed that Iztwoz removed the following sentence I'd added: "Scientists still do not have a clear answer as to why it later wrinkles and folds, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed." I understand why he removed it, since the sentence told us nothing. But I'm still interested in adding material on this aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyer - cannot recall if I moved info to Development or changed it there. As it was leaving it as something not understood really implies that nothing more can be added ? Hopefully left room for any additional material. Basal ganglia is on the list! best --Iztwoz (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Why presume my gender?)

Speaking of the basal ganglia, like I noted here (followup edit here), why are we stating "The inside of the human brain is not as densely packed" when there are sources that state that "The human brain is densely packed with about one hundred billion neurons." or similar? How are we defining "inside of the brain" in this context? I see no sources stating that "The inside of human brain is not as densely packed" when referring to the basal ganglia or any other part of the brain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit on the basal ganglia part, Tom. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! I should also mention why I integrated the content... basal ganglia is a part of the cerebrum, and it definitely deserves coverage, but not its own section unless we plan to add sections to many of the other subparts, which will be difficult given the article is already very long. That said my tiny in-text explanation may not be that sufficient... --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have merged the material too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing up the references, too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean this? No problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see the harm in saying "Scientists still do not have a clear answer as to why it later wrinkles and folds, but a number of hypotheses have been proposed." Stating that the purpose of folding is currently unknown is informative. However, if any hypotheses or further detail is added, it should probably be cited to a fairly recent (i.e., 2015 or newer) neuroscience review to ensure that we aren't adding out-of-date information. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure that there are any fairly recent reviews on these hypotheses, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Working

Sorry that I am not working as fast as others on this article. I am busy a lot off Wikipedia. And when I log onto Wikipedia after being absent from it for a couple or more days, I usually have so many other articles to attend to. But, yeah, I will continue to work on the article whenever I get a good chance to do so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, Flyer22 Reborn, I am facing the same problem. I really hope to finish up the modern history and clinical significance sections this week (ideally today) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional note: I have asked Seppi333 who has some knowledge of brain-related things and made some edits yesterday, to have a look at the article and provide some feedback. Fingers crossed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Tom. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Seppi's suggestions

FYI: it may take me a few days to finish reading through the entire article and making reivisions. I'm going section-by-section, starting with subtopics that I'm most familiar with. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've started to look through the article. The most glaring omission from the lead is that the fact that the brain is an organ is not mentioned; this should probably be included in the very first sentence; i.e., say something along the lines of:

"The human brain is an organ that functions as part of the central nervous system."

or, alternatively, you could also include what the human brain, in conjunction with the rest of the CNS, is responsible for; i.e., something like:

"The human brain is an organ that functions as part of the central nervous system, which is responsible for cognition, perception, and motor control."

The second proposal is more in line with how the lead sentence of heart is written. IMO, saying what a particular piece of human anatomy is classified as and what it does (or is responsible for) is the ideal way to write the 1st sentence in an article on a human anatomy topic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I also think that adding (i.e., basically just copy/pasting) the 1st sentence from the Human brain#Microstructure section into the lead somewhere would be useful. That sentence states: "The human brain is primarily composed of neurons, glial cells, neural stem cells, and blood vessels." The current lead doesn't cover the cellular composition of the brain and I think that the article content on this topic is worth summarizing in the introduction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333, you are worth your weight in gold already. Some straightforward and obvious suggestions, agree to both. (will get to editing tomorrow if Iztwoz doesn't pip me at the post) --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a character flaw Tom, but I'm quite partial to pipping.--Iztwoz (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333, what do you think of what I stated #Development section -- why the brain wrinkles and folds section above? I think you have access to better sources on that matter than I do since I let go of my subscriptions to journals, etc. years ago, and mainly stick to academic sources from Google Books these days. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I deleted my last comment; I'd suggest reading it since it might help you in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Seppi333. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human brain. 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/20160118132843/http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/home.html to http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/home.html

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) 11:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Physiology/Neurotransmitter section

Have expanded this and will do so slightly later. I know I am rehashing an old discussion, but now we have an idea about what a finished section will look like. What do you guys think about it thus far? I am worried that it stands out like a sore thumb by virtue of being short and stubby. Would it be better to merge metabolism / neurotransmission elsewhere (or merge neurotransmission into an introduction to the "function" section)? Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems valid as its own section. Doesn't look that stubby anymore. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)