Talk:Neural coding
 | Neuroscience C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
figure on the right?
the section on "temporal coding" refers to a figure. where is it?
watson (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article history shows that a bot removed two images that lacked copyright information back in December. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Should temporal correlation code, in which the spike timing and the interspike timing is measured, be included? (rather than just spike timing, where the precise timing of each spike (for each neuron) is determined for each (typically 50,100,300 ms) period) seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
The word 'moment' should have a link or it should be precisely defined. seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
The section on the temporal code does not refer to the origins of the temporal code, but to a text book - can anybody correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.230.7 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Another editor, not me, is proposing to merge Neural coding with Neural ensemble. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose merger. I can see some opportunities to fix redundancies, but these seem to me to be sufficiently distinct topics to justify separate pages. Although I agree that most coding studies focus on ensembles, not all do, so there is some material on coding that exists outside of ensembles, and, ensembles have structural or anatomical features that are independent of coding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Since no one has spoken in favor of the merger, I'm going to remove the templates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Merger possibilities
In the "see also" section of this page, there are seven other pages, each dealing with a specific theory of neural coding. Is it a good idea to have all these separate pages, or should we consider merging all of those other pages into this one (essentially making each one a section of this page, when that section does not already exist)? I'm not yet making a formal merger proposal, but just gaging what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I checked and none of these seven other pages are longer than an (elaborate) section. I would support a merger proposal. Lova Falk talk 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you about that, and I now Support such a merger. I would consider it necessary to actually incorporate material from these other pages into this page, thereby expanding this page, for the merge to be appropriate. I'm going to formally template the pages, to discuss this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support it's all neural coding, this is like having my grocery list on five different pieces of paper. ADDENDUM: to expand a bit, I think these are sufficiently notable topics to deserve their own page, but none of these pages are developed enough to merit that, they're basically all summaries like in the main neural coding page. But I agree with trypto that we should actually merge, not delete the others if the claims are cited or obviously true Xurtio (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC).
I think sparse coding can be merged into the neural codin as sparse coding is a type of neural coding and neurons are exclusively involved in the neural coding.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.134.218 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Removing new NeuroElectroDynamics section
I am for the moment removing a section on NeuroElectroDynamics that has been added. The contents I am removing are:
- NeuroElectroDynamics (NED) is a model that describes brain computations in terms of universal physical principles. Memory processes, information storage are related to physical machinery that keeps information unaltered for longer time periods in the brain embedded in neurons within distributions of electric charges at macromolecular level (e.g. proteins) <ref name="Aur">Aur, D. and Jog, M.S. 2010 ''Neuroelectrodynamics- Understanding The Brain Language''. IOS Press 2010</ref>. Reading (decoding) and writing information (coding) can be simultaneously performed by electric interactions mediated by neurotransmitter release. The coding phase includes changes in spatial rearrangement of electrical charges in macromolecular formations, determined by selective gene expression, conformational changes in proteins, polarizations, while the decoding phase can be related to alterations in transient charge density dynamics. NED highlights a general physical model of computation by interaction which is a non-Turing computational model and represents an alternative to current temporal coding models.
In order for this article to include this material, there should be evidence that it has drawn attention from other workers in the field. The book is not sufficient -- there should be either reviews or publication of articles on the underlying concepts in peer-reviewed journals. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The content has been re-inserted. I have restored to status quo ante. Looie496 is right. This is not a comment on the merit of the theory. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, particularly when applied to biomedical articles (see this guideline), insists that new thought may be included only when it has been evaluated by uninvolved experts in peer-reviewed journals, and when its inclusion will not give it undue weight (see this fundamental policy).
- If you make a change to an article, and it is reverted, polite practice here (per this guideline) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Please feel free to discuss this matter here, but the discussion will revolve around those policies I've linked to, not the merits or nature of the theory. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)