Talk:Cerebellum/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: Police snipers in hostage situation aim for the cerebellum, to kill the target without allowing movement that could harm the hostage.
In theory this is about right, but there are several vital structures in the area that can be targeted, so this doesn't do much to describe the cerebellum. O\./O
confusing
i find the information included about the cerebellum quite confusing! I am a secondary school student and i have found researching it quite difficult, the terms and phrases used, although technical and correct, are offputting for someone of my age! I was wondering if you had any other less compliacted information, sorry to be a pain but i am quite confused by everything included in the article! just thought i should give you some feedback, thanks anyway, graciegirl@hotmail.com
i want to know about the role of the cerebellum in coordenation
Nominate for featured article?
I was thinking of nominating Cerebellum for featured article. Before I do, however, I think this needs a few things: 1) Sources 2) Better picture of the cerebellum 3) Diagram showing cerebellar lobes
I'll work on adding these items in the next few days, but if anyone wants to help out, please do. Nrets 14:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Nrets, you read my mind. After my last major edit I looked at the page and thought, "with a little cleanup, some better images, and source citation this may be a good featured article". I'm in it with you on this one. But then, you probably already knew that. Once we clean it up we can send it to peer-review. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, I added a few general sources that should cover everything in the article. If you have anything more specific or other general ones it would be good. I'm also thinking of changing the section "Computational Theories" to "Function". It could be expanded, but then it's hard to know when to stop, so I think it's OK as is, just a new heading would be better. What do you think? Also, I'll try and make some general diagrams of the main divisions of the cerebellum. Nrets 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Two new diagrams
Nrets, what do you think of the two new diagrams I've added? They look good to me, but I just threw them together this afternoon. If you can think of any more useful information to add to them--or if you'd like to make any changes--I've still got the Photoshop PSD versions of the files where each layer is still seperated. Easy to edit. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I also wrote a quick little article for spinocerebellar tract to fix a red link. If anyone wants to add to it, feel free. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Semiconscious, Not as pretty as Cajal's... just joking, actually they are really good. I just have one question, what is the "tonsil"? Is that another name for the nodulus? It's not mentioned in the article (and I've never heard of it either), so maybe we should re-label it in the diagram. I was working on one showing a view from underneath, so that you can see the hemispheres, the vermis and the flocculus/nodulus. I'll add it when it's done. Nrets 01:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- The tonsil is the portion colored pink, labeled "tonsil" :). Actually this is something I learned more from clinical work. Herniation of the brain will often cause the tonsils (located at the midline there) to swell through the foramen magnum, which will press against the medulla and can cause fatal respitory failure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Another thing,how does one go about generating a stub category? It would be nice to have a "neuroscience stub" for all those litte articles. Nrets 01:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yes I did notice you using the anatomy stub. I also noticed you had a severe episode of "Wikirrhea" yesterday - about 1 edit every 2 minutes! :) I'll look into the stub thing, I think one has to nominate it and demonstrate aneed for it. There's definitely a need for it, I think. Nrets 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
SC - I added another schematic diagram with the major subdivisions not covered in your diagram. Nrets 14:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Other useful facts
Instead of sticking these in the article, I figured it'd be easier to put these here for others to use as they like:
- the human brain has around 15e6 purkinje cells (and, incidentally, purkinje cells were one of the earliest neurons identified, and that dendrites have active electrical properties as opposed to being passive cables was first shown in purkinje cell dendrites)
- there are around 6 times as many basket cells as purkinje cells, and 16 times as many small stellate cells
- LTD has been shown onto purkinje cells from both mossy fibers and parallel fibers, but there's no consensus as to the functional role of this LTD
- finally, to quote a chapter by llinas, walton, and lang: "The Purkinje cells thus demonstrate the following set of voltage-dependent ionic conductances... 1. a rapid, inactivating Hodgkin-Huxley sodium current that generates a fast spike; 2. a fast voltage-activated potassium current that generates the afterhyperpolarization following a fast spike, 3. a calcium-activated potassium conductance, and 4. a noninactivating, voltage-activated sodium conductance capable of generating reptitive firing of the Purkinje cell following prolonged depolarization." (this might be too much information, and it ought to be reworded, I expect)
actually, all that information came from that chapter, as I'm more a medial temporal lobe person than a motor person, but still wanted to help out Digfarenough 23:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, there is actually an article on Purkinje cells, you might like to add some of the info there. BTW, mossy fibers don't go to Purkinje cells, I assume you meant climbing fibers (where both LTP and LTD have been shown). Nrets 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- oh, you're right, climbing fibers.. I'll take a look at the purkinje article and make the additions if I can fit them in nicely (I didn't do that here because I wasn't sure where to add the purkinje cell count so I just didn't try with the others)Digfarenough 00:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It seems like all these facts fit in the Purkinje article. Where did you get the 15,000,000 Purkinje cell figure from? This is the only fact I can't readily verify. Also, what year is the Llinás article from? I think that PC have quite a few more intrinsic currents than those 4. Nrets 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
the cell count is from Purkinje (1837) as cited in Llinas et al (2004).. the four currents as above are from the same 2004 chapter without any specific sources for them, though it looks like they come from two Llinas and Sugimori papers from 1980.. Llinas seems to prefer citing the original papers instead of more recent ones, so I can't say offhand how accurate the claims are in light of recent data, but I can't imagine them being too far off Digfarenough 14:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Peer Review
What's the plan of attack? Where do we go from here. We've got pretty pictures, we've got some consensus on the accuracy of what we've written. What else do we need to add? If you all feel we're set, then I'd like to put this article up for peer-review tomorrow or Friday. I've read and reread this thing, taken it apart and rewritten entire sections, and I think we've got a pretty thorough, well-written article here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Go for it! Nrets 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- We've gone to the peer-review page. Keep an eye out. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Horizontal lines?
What happened to the horizontal lines? I think they made the subsections easier to follow. Nrets 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I left a note to Alex.tan regarding just that:
"I noticed you did some cleaning up on this article; thanks! Is it common wikipedia style to have section titles with only the first word capitalized and the rest lowercase? If so I shall be sure to follow that in the future. Also, I notice you removed my horizontal lines from the article. I thought those helped section the article a bit, as it looked a bit crowded with all the anatomy subsections. I'd like to hear why you disagree with their use. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"
"Hi. Regarding my changes in cerebellum - yes, capitalization in headings is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), so according to that, only the first word and proper names should be capitalised. As for the horizontal lines, I removed those because the current formatting is due to how the software is formatting the various levels of headers. My policy is to leave the headers as is and don't try to impose manual formatting as this will likely change when someone changes the global template for headers - as will surely happen someday... Alex.tan 17:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)"
I say put 'em back. Even if the global template changes, the lines are still useful, and it would still look OK. Nrets 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Cortical Layers
Semiconscious- I like the reorganization you did. I added a little introductory section to the cortical layers, hopefully this clarifies the diagram and the general scheme of things. Let me know what you think. Nrets 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Micrograph picture
Great article (wish my undergraduate training had used it). The micrograph picture is currently level with Peduncles, should it not be 2 sections higher up against 'Purkinje layer description ? --David Rubentalk 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm glad you like the article. I've moved some of the pics around. Those two pics are more intended as just neat images of the cerebellum mainly, rather than to be associated with any specific section. We don't really have any peduncle images! I've swapped two of them to try and make that more clear. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I actually liked the Cajal picture first, it gave the article a historical kind of feel. We could put the confocal image before the peduncle section, stilll in the layers section? Nrets 00:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
New Intro Pic
What do you all think of using this pic instead of the pic that is currently at the top of this article? Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Cerebellum_sagpurp.jpg
I don't like the old picture either, however this one looks a little funny. Why does the whole brain look, well, kind of squished? But it is better than the old one. Nrets 00:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Doh! It's squshed because I uploaded the image before I corrected for pixel/voxel size. It's properly sized, now. I've also tried another image reorder using your suggestions. I agree that the Cajal pic gave a nicer feel at the top. It would be nice to have an MRI of a cerebellar lesion down at the bottom of the page, but I don't have access to any except for ones on film. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Featured article?
So we should make this page a FAC after a week or so. I'm going to leave it up on peer-review to see if we get more feedback, but late next week I'm going to make it a FAC. I think we've got a really strong article here now. Next up: basal ganglia! That one needs a lot of work, and I'm much more knowledgeable about that system than I am on the cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. As far as basal ganlgia, I really don't know too much about them, but when you get to Visual cortex I can definitely help out with that. cheers, Nrets 15:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
FAC
Heading over to FAC. Good work everyone! Thanks Nrets; let's see what happens... Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
A few things to fix
It's a really good article (or it will be), but it requires urgent work.
What is 'most & segment'?
-
- This one I had time to fix this morning as it was easy: I'm not sure what happened, but in your edits you changed the word "caudal" to "&". I've changed it back, but if you still had a question about this and changed it simply to bring my attention to it, I'll get back to you on an explanation later. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The function of 'yet' in the following sentence is unclear: 'Given its alar plate origins, the cerebellum should be devoted primarily to sensory functions, yet its motor functions are very well known.'
'Most forward' and 'farthest back' are unclear as contrastives: 'the flocculonodular lobe is the most forward and the posterior lobe the farthest back'. 'Furthest forward'? Even then, it's unclear. 'Located ....
Readers will not like 'that will not be discussed here'—it's not a journal article of doctoral dissertation. Can it be reworded?
'which are more structures important for the maintenance of balance'—please fix.
'These fibers carry duplicate the information'—remove 'carry'?
The article appears to be oversegmented; some subsections and some paragraphs are very short.
Can someone number the figures, and refer the reader to them at various points during the main text. You really need to walk the reader through this lexically complicated text more kindly. Who, I wonder, is your target audience?
Tony 07:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Tony: I think I've managed to address most of the inconsistencies that you mention, and have added direct citations to the figures in the text. Thanks for you excellent input and edits. If you see any other things that could be improved please let us know. Nrets 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind comments (I'm used to rudeness or indifference). A few more things in the second half:
'These fibers make excitatory synapses with the granule cells'—Is there a better word than 'make'? ('produce' or 'generate'? or perhaps everyone does use 'make' in the literature ...)
'Golgi cells provide inhibitory feedback to granule cells, forming a synapse with them and projecting an axon into the molecular layer.' I changed 'sending' to 'projecting', as more colorful—is it OK?
'Both stellate and basket cells form GABAergic—or inhibitory—synapses onto Purkinje dendrites.'—Do you mean 'either GABAergic or inhibitory synapses', or 'GABAergic—i.e., inhibitory—synapses'?
'Mossy fibers originate either from pontine nuclei originating within the pons'—can either 'originate' or the two 'originatings' in the sentence be substituted to avoid the repetition? Possibly 'Mossy fibers arise from/start from'?
'The majority of the efferent pathway sends fibers from ...'—I'm confused; are you referring to components that constitute this pathway?
'The middle cerebellar peduncle only carries afferent fibers originating at the pontine nuclei into the cerebellum.'—Syntax is crucial here; 'ony' needs to be relocated, but where? Possibly before 'afferent': 'The middle cerebellar peduncle carries into the cerebellum only afferent fibers originating at the pontine nuclei.' Please check.
'Obstruction of the AICA can cause facial paresis, paralysis, loss of sensation, and hearing impairment.' This is currently floating at the end of the PICA section; should it be in the AICA section, and can it be tacked onto the end of a paragraph?
'An obstruction of the posterior inferior cerebellar artery (known as 'PICA syndrome') can cause a wide range of characteristic effects, including a loss of sensation in the contralateral limbs because of the inferior cerebellar peduncle'—because of [obstruction of?] the ICP? Something is missing.
Check my replacement of the comma with a colon in: 'The Marr-Albus model mostly attributes motor learning to a single plasticity mechanism: the long-term depression of parallel fiber synapses.'
'neuroimaging'—surely it's hyphenated to avoid 'oi'; but sadly, I see many google entries as a single word. Some US entries are, however, hyphenated.
'such as positron emission tomography in the 1970s and fMRI in the 1990s'—fMRI is never spelt out, and PET is never abbreviated. At this level, I wonder why PET needs to be spelt out ... even I know what it is.
'numerous diverse functions are now at least partially attributed to the cerebellum'—is my change OK?
'despite the importance of this region and the heterogeneous role it plays in function'—the last word needs qualification: 'motor'?
PS Sorry about 'caudal' and '&'! I look forward to seeing this article promoted to feature status; it might set the standard for biological entries in Wikipedia. Needs daughter articles too, at a later stage.
-
- Meh. I was just confused as to what you were getting at. :) I truly appreciate your hard work on this, as well as your approval of this article. As someone who is interested in writing (free, wiki-based) textbooks, and someone who wishes to become a teaching and research professor, this kind of feedback and editing is extremely useful. In the future I plan on reworking the basal ganglia article just as thoroughly as I did cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Tony 00:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Then buzz me when basla ganglia is ready for an edit, i.e., 95% of the way through the task. If I have a window of free time, I'll happily assist. There's still a bit to do here, though. PS You'll automatize most of this process yourself during the writing of your doctoral thesis, although a fresh pair of eyes usually has the advantage. :-) Tony 13:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Second time through ...
Sorry to be a pain, but I'm going through the article once again from top to bottom, more slowly.
In the opening paragraph, this doesn't make sense: 'The numerous loops within and through the cerebellum with the motor cortex and spinocerebellar tracts'. Do you mean: 'The numerous loops within the cerebellum, and that link it with the motor cortex and spinocerebellar tracts,'?
It would lift the article if the broad view of advances in our knowledge and imaging of the cerebellum over the last 40 years (in the very last paragraph of the article), were tacked onto this opening paragraph. It would give a sense of excitement at the dynamic nature of this field and its existing and potential power to improve people's lives.
Tony 00:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The second sentence is still unclear, so I've changed it as above to prompt the authors to consider the meaning. Is 'function' alone clear enough? Tony 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it in US or BrEng? There appear to be inconsistencies. Tony 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
General features, end of first para: I've used 'contains' twice, instead of 'receives' and 'comprises'; they should be the same, but is it the right word?
This is yet another of many of the great ironies of the “little brain”.—Why call it the little brain just here? The reason for restating it at this location is unclear. I've changed 'yet another' to 'one', since you haven't yet mentioned any of these ironies.
'The external granular layer ceases to exist in the mature cerebellum, leaving only granule cells in the internal granule layer.'—Is it worth saying why, briefly?
'The cerebellum is of archipalliar phylogenetic origin, meaning that it is one of the most evolutionarily primitive brain regions.'—(1) The logical connection either side of the comma relies on the reader's knowing what 'archpalliar' means; I don't. (2) The last clause was stated in the first section, I think.
'The intermediate zone receives input from the corticopontocerebellar fibers, originating from the motor cortex. ' Please check my inserted comma; still unsure whether you mean that the fibers or the input or both originate from the mc.
'these nuclei constitute the sole output of the cerebellum'—Shouldn't this be cast in informational terms? Perhaps: 'these nuclei produce/are responsible for the sole output of the cerebellum'.
'form GABAergic (i.e., inhibitory) synapses onto Purkinje cell dendrites'—Elsewhere, it's 'forms with'; please check that 'onto' is OK here.
'originate within' --> 'in'; please check my rewording to accommodate the repetition of origin...
-
- This section was rewritten.
'Obstruction of the AICA can cause paresis, paralysis, and loss of sensation in the face, and hearing impairment.' I've reworded to try to clarify the application of 'facial'.
In the section 'Lesions to the cerebellum', the second para about alchohol abuse doesn't explicitly relate to lesions. PS I've taken the liberty of messing with this para.
Double spaces between sentences are creeping back in. (These are undesirable because they can result in 'rivers of white' in the text.)
Tony 00:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Edits by PZFUN
I'm not entirely partial to the edits made by PZFUN. The images were bigger before so people could actually read the descriptive text embedded within the figures without having to open the figures in a different window. Because of that limitation, the images needed to be laid out as they were. You've also removed the horizontal lines which have already been discussed on this talk page: they break up the article more cleanly and make it less intimidating. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, was away for a few days. I think the old layout with larger figures was better, you can hardly read the text in the images this way. I say revert them! Nrets 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Briefcase example of cerebellar function
I wrote a short, real-world example of what it is the cerebellum does exactly. It was removed. I think it may be useful for someone who is unaware of what "feedback deficits" and all that actually mean. Maybe it should go somewhere else in the article? What are others' thoughts? Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Bradley, sorry, I acted unilaterally there; maybe retain the example, but somewhere else? I thought it didn't add anything, particularly at the top of the article, which is pretty good as is, in my view. In view of the demands made on the reader generally throughout this text, it's too simplistic! Tony 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it shouldn't be in the introduction. --WS 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
ikkyu2's comments
Sorry if the heading "ikkyu2's comments" seems vain; I am writing them as I read and I don't see that they're going to have any other common thread. For clarity, each new point begins with a unordered list item marker.
- This article is very wonderful. I have already learned much from reading it. If it stayed exactly as it is I think that I could not find a serious criticism to levy against it.
- Please pardon my Purkinje-centric view of the cerebellum. As the big neuron it gets the most attention from casual students.
- Each Purkinje cell receives excitatory input from 100,000 to 200,000 parallel fibers. Parallel fibers are said to be responsible for the simple spiking of the Purkinje cell.
-
- I don't understand this. I understand that parallel fibers smack the Purkinje's dendrites with EPSP's and eventually these sum to threshold and the PC fires off an AP - and I assume that's what you mean by 'simple spiking', though that could be better worded, as 'spike' is an electrophysiologic term used out of context here. I don't understand how or why a PC can or should integrate 200,000 inputs, though. But I've never understood this, so I'm not sure why you should be able to explain it. On the other hand you're doing pretty well so far :)
- Thanks for your comments Ikkyu. I'll try and address the ones that I can. In essence that is correct, EPSPs from parallel fibers are simply integrated until the PC fires a simple action potential, in contrast to climbiing fibers where the action potential has a complex waveform and consists of various voltage-gated currents. Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- So in general I'd say: reword 'spiking' and, if you know why these facts should be true, try to explain it?
- I love figure 5. It is the heart of the kind of understanding of the cerebellum I'd like my students to have. Is it out of K&S, or did you make it yourself?
- Thanks! I actually drew a version of it for my PhD thesis many years ago.Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Purkinje cells' output is 100% inhibitory and goes 100% to the deep nuclei. This is something that confuses the beginning student of the CBLM; nowhere do you contradict it, but it could probably stand to be stated more explicitly somewhere, ideally in the section on Purkinje cells or the Purkinje layer. As a beginner one thinks of those Purkinje giant axons plowing out the brachium pontis to synapse in the brainstem, and one would be very incorrect and get points off on the anatomy exam for this.
- The Purkinje axons (although the PC dendrites are extensive, the axons are not particularly giant) really don't leave the cerebellum at all (save the ones going to the vestibular nuclei, which are analogous to the DCN). It is correct to say that the DCN carry information out of the cerebellum into the brainstem.Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I learned 'Don't Eat Greasy Food' too, but the mnemonic I actually remembered was 'Don't Ever Get Ffff...fastigial.' I do not think there is a proper way to incorporate this and preserve your academic tone, even though neuroscientists know you have to get the limbic system involved for real mnemonic effect :)
- You should either omit completely the brief description of the AICA vascular syndrome or include all the pertinent vascular syndromes. Since a properly careful description of each one of them would run to several thousand words - and since most of the effects of their occlusion are due to death of non-cerebellar brain tissue - I strongly suggest omitting all of them. Not to suggest they shouldn't have their own page(s); slap a dead link to 'AICA syndrome' on there and I or another neurologist will eventually get around to it.
-
- In a way the fact that the cerebellar arteries are so named is an accident of history; they deserve names more appropriate to the functions of all the tissue they supply.
- Under Peduncles, the first sentence says, Similarly, the cerebellum follows the trend of “threes”, with three major input and output peduncles (fiber bundles). Probably owing to insertion of text through various edits, this sentence is now far enough away from Cortical layers that the reader has plumb forgotten that anything ever came in threes; also, under Cortical layers no "trend of threes" is mentioned, further confusing the picture. Rather than omitting the rule of threes, which is a good mnemonic aid to understanding, I would suggest explaining it a bit more explicitly in both places.
- For example, they show “intention tremors”—a tremor occurring during movement rather than at rest, as seen in Parkinson’s Disease.
-
- The strict grammatical sense of this sentence is opposite to that intended. Consider deleting the ref to PD or else clarifying that PD has REST tremors whereas cerebellar dysfunction causes ACTION tremors. (I hate the term 'intention' tremor and will keep hating it until someone accurately localizes intention, but this may be a somewhat personal or idiosyncratic bias.)
- To avoid suspicion by the police of public drunkenness, American patients who suffer archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards written by their physicians, indicating their medical condition.
-
- This seems like a good idea to me, but I doubt its factual accuracy. I have treated many dozens of such patients and never encountered, been asked for, created, or even heard of such a card.
- You need to ask Semiconscious about this, he works with a neurologist who apparently does this routinely, see his talk page for a question I had for him about this. Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Alcohol abuse is also a common cause of cerebellar lesions. Alcohol abuse can lead to thiamine deficiency, which in the cerebellum will cause degeneration of the anterior lobe. This degeneration leads to a wide, staggering gait but does not affect arm movement or speech(Sereni & Degos 1990).
-
- I am concerned that two separate entities have been conflated here:
- 1. Wernicke syndrome of acute thiamine deficiency, with ophthalmoparesis, ataxia, and encephalopathy, associated with hereditary transketolase deficiencies;
- I am concerned that two separate entities have been conflated here:
and
-
-
- 2. Vermian atrophy of chronic alcoholics, resulting in the classic staggering, flailing gait ataxia with limited non-gait appendicular ataxia and no eye findings.
-
Both deserve mention, but they are completely separate and I don't think anyone is now seriously contending that chronic thiamine deficiency is responsible for vermian atrophy? A more authoritative reference than my old tired brain might be of help here.
- Whoops, here's PICA syndrome, out of order under ischaemia and thrombosis. Again, I recommend omitting these or, better, moving them into their own stubs and linking to them. PICA syndrome is often caused by vertebral dissection and discussion of that is too far afield for this lovely article.
- A 1996 or 1997 article in Brain, out of France I believe, looked at findings pertaining to regulation of emotional states in about 40 patients with cerebellar lesions and found strong evidence that it was impaired; most by lesions in the intermediate zone near the midline, if I recall correctly. That might be fun to include, as nowhere else do you mention CBLM's role in emotion. It will certainly be fun to look up and see how badly the 9 intervening years have mangled my memory of it.
- May I make a small plea, as an amateur historian of cerebellology, to include the now somewhat forgotten nomenclature of the lobes of the cerebellum? According to my precious, somewhat moldering copy of Friesner and Braun's 1916 Cerebellar Abscess, published by Paul B. Hoeber Publishing Co., New York, they are:
- Vermis, upper half: From top to bottom, back to front: lingula, lobus centralis, culmen, clivus, folium cacuminis
- Hemispheres, upper half: frenula, alae lobi centralis, anterior crescentic lobes, posterior crescentic lobes, postero-superior lobes.
- Vermis, lower half: tuber valvulae, pyramid, uvula, nodulus
- Hemispheres, lower half: postero-inferior lobes, biventral lobes, tonsils, flocculi.
-
- Please feel free to make these additions to the anatomy section! Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, dear old Friesner and Braun; they show you how to localize lesions to each of these 27 places.
Again, I wish to stress that I found your article very wonderful and perfect to go as-is! Please accept the length of my comments as a compliment to your thoroughness and excellence. If my overpedantic ramblings are of any use in the final work, I will consider myself honored. --Ikkyu2 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Anatomical terms of locations
Raul: The link to anatomical terms of location is not for disambiguation purposes, rather is to help the uninitiated reader have a reference when terms like, rostral, caudal, saggital etc. are used in the text. While most of these are explained throughout, it is still helpful to have that link. I'm going to put it back, if you still think it is unecessary I cann remove iit. Nrets 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
New pic
The pic of the brain at the top is good, but it's not of a real brain, is it? Can the caption specify that it's a model? Tony 10:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
It IS a real brain! The reason it looks strange is a result of being perfused with some type of fixative, probably paraformaldehyde. This gets rid of all the blood, giving it the strange color. Nrets 11:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
congrats!
Well done, Semiconscious and Nrets. Your hard work has paid off! Tony 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! And thanks for all your suggestions. I think having someone, who edits scientific texts and research grants for a living, really helped bridge the gap between scientists and the general public -- maybe I should send you some of my grants! :) I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Now, how do we get this featured in the main page? Nrets 20:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
