Talk:Suprachiasmatic nucleus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

The suprachiasmatic nucleus is one of four nuclei that receive nerve signals from the retina, the other three being the lateral geniculate nucleus (aka LGN), superior colliculus, and the pretectum. The LGN is responsible for passing information about color, contrast, shape, and movement on to the visual cortices. The superior colliculus is responsible for controlling the movement and orientation of the eyeball itself. The pretectum is responsible for controlling the size of the pupil. The suprachiasmatic nucleus is responsible for controlling diurnal rhythms and hormonal changes.




This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

I'm happy that there's so much good information here, but the article moves too fast and offers too little background information for a piece within a general encyclopedia. Help from an expert or specialist on the topic would be greatly appreciated. Cathryn 07:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Molecular clock" (cited under Gene Expression) is used incorrectly. This term actually refers to the evolutionary divergence of species based on DNA differences. Consider replacing "molecular clock" with "circadian rhythm" or another appropriate term.

---

What in the world is that diagram with all the red, white, and blue boxes? I can't make any sense out of it, and the image behind the boxes is almost completely covered up. I think either the diagram needs redoing, or at least some explanation of the diagram would be useful. But still, thanks for the effort!

---

I have no problem with the picture nor with the text. It is difficult stuff, I think it cannot be explained in a way that affords 'one shot learning'. This is just stuff you should study on. Read it again. Do not glance at the picture, but study the picture. I really want to thank the people that make these sites, they are very informative for someone who wants a quick update on some part of the brain. Of course, you need to know a bit about the brain and about reading brain pictures and reading brain-related texts. Perhaps there should be a link, at the beginning of the page, to some basic introductionary text. Perhaps there should be a link from the caption of the picture like: This is a brain image of ..bla blah and then this link would give you a short course in how to read these diagrammes.


---

I would keep the phrase 'Molecular Clock' as it is commonly used (in both Cell and Nature) in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt03 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The article from Brain Research, (Brain Research 537 from 1990 referred to) is much less emphatic that what is suggested in this text and the neuroscientist who wrote the article understand the limitations of the research they did and refrained from grand announcements as the ones emphasized by the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.232.134 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are pointing out a very common failing in a great many Wikipedia articles. You know, like an experiment done on 10 rats in a lab proves something about humans ;-)
You are welcome to rewrite the section! --Hordaland (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops. Now I notice that you already did. Good.--Hordaland (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)