Talk:Cerebral cortex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale |
---
I deleted this wrong subsection (purkinje cells are in the cerebellum...). I keep it here, maybe the picture could be useful (Golgi's picture is more beutiful though)
" ==Purkinje==</niwiki> The [[Purkinje]] Neurons are located in the Cerebellar Cortex. They are responsible for the sole output of all motor coordination. [[Image:Purkinje.jpg|thumb|200px|Purkinje Cell]]"
Rto 17:00, 25 Ago 2005
[edit] Picture
The image captioned "Location of the Cerebral cortex" should really be replaced. It (regardless of source) is highly inacurate. The blood vessles are all in the wrong places, the thalamus is about four times too big, and the pattern of invaginations show severe departures from reality, most notably the lack of a temporal lobe, sylvian fissure, or central sulcus. Does anyone have a better picture?
--Selket 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Location
Where in the brain is the cortex located? All i've found is the picture, and it's not very precise. If it is indeed said in the text of the article, perhaps it needs rewording?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] pink matter?
isn't the brain a light red or pink, not gray. I recall hearing the gray matter as a common misconception
- The living mammalian brain is redish and soft. After the brains have been preserved they turn a sickly grey/tan color. This is a misnomer true, but it's harmless convention. Semiconscious • talk 08:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please clarify:
"Grey matter is formed by neurons and their fibers, and white matter below the grey matter of the cortex is formed predominantly by nerve fibers interconnecting cortical areas with each other and with subcortical structures."
So, gray matter is formed by "neurons and their fibers", but white matter is formed by "nerve fibers"? Isn't this essentially the same defination?
- I've tried to clarify the differencs in the opening paragraph. Let me know if it is still unlcear. Semiconscious • talk 07:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formation
I added the section formation because I wanted to include 'cortical plate' which comes up regularly in a lot of papers. Feel free to add to it or edit it Paskari 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) uts...........
[edit] Other Animals
Do non-primates have a cerebral cortex?
I think information on the cerebral cortex of other animals should be added to the article, if someone knows about this.
Pagw 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that all mammals have a cerebral cortex.Phaseinduction 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all mammals have a cerebral cortex, although it looks very different in smaller mammals, having no gyri or sulci (bumps and grooves) and constituting a vastly smaller proportion of the brain as well. Birds and reptiles I beleive also have structures that are evolutionarily/phylogenetically also cortex... It would be good to put a picture of a mouse brain with cortex highlighted, for comparison. PhineasG (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] cortico-cortical connections
"The main source of cortical stimulation is the cerebral cortex itself: up to 75% of the total connections."
Hi, Could you tell me where you got this number from please?
From my readings in of:
V. Braitenberg and A. Schüz, Anatomy of the Cortex: Statistics and Geometry, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1991.
Douglas, R. and K. Martin, “Neocortex,” in The Synaptic Organization of the Brain, 4th ed., G.M. Shepherd (ed.), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998.
they have quoted between 96-99% of fibres are cortico-cortical. Even though for e.g, thalamo-cortical afferents maybe higher in particular layers in general
only 1 in 100 or 1000 are sub-cortical.
I personally don't really know, its just what I've read...
Please let me know where you got this number from?
Thanks Punkterfuge 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- It comes from: "Cortex: Statistics and Geometry of Neuronal Connectivity" by Valentino Braitenberg and Almut Schüz, 1998, ISBN-10: 3540638164
- Hello again. I re-checked Braitenberg&Schuz 1998, and Shepherd 2004 (synaptic organization of the brain). I was wrong and you were right. The 75% figure is about the connections between pyramidal neurones in the cortex. The complete table is:
connections pyramidal-pyramidal= 85%x85% = 72% connections pyramidal-stellate= 85%x15% = 13% connections stellate-pyramidal= 15%x85% = 13% connections stellate-stellate = 15%x15% = 2%
but nothing is said about the proportion of subcortical connections. However, if found the citation in Shpepherd's (ed) "Synaptic organization", chapter 12 "Neocortex" by Dougals R et al:
"Braitenberg and Schuz (1991) have calculated that only 1 in 100 or even 1 in 1000 fibers in the white matter are involved in subcortical projections"
I changed the article's text accordingly. 128.243.220.41 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hippocampus part of the cortex?
"The phylogenetically more ancient part of the cerebral cortex, the hippocampus, is differentiated in five layers of neurons, while the more recent neo-cortex is differentiated in six basic layers. "
Is the hippocampus really part of the cerebral cortex? I think not but don't know for sure. Anyone? Roadnottaken 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this feild, I'm just taking an AP Psychology class, but from what I've learned, the Hippocampi are not located within the Cerebral Cortex; they are located within the Temporal Lobes of the Cerebrum. Also, the Hippocampi are too large to fit in with the author of this article's definition of the Cerebral Cortex. He states that it is only 2-4 mm thick in humans, which seems much too small.
--CDel921 (18:40 EDT 10 October 2007)
The hippocampus is, as the article states, a phylogenetically older part of the cerebral cortex, and it and associated structures are therefore sometimes called archeocortex or paleocortex. However, it is not differentiated into five layers, but three. The hippocampi are part of the cerebral cortex, which is the outermost part of the cerebrum, although "cortex" is often used casually to mean the cerebrum as a whole. The whole article needs clarification on divisions of the cerebrum. If I have time I may work on it soon... PhineasG (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Martin, Whitteridge, and Somogyi in 1985: citation needed
I added a "citation needed" to the reference to "the models put forth by Martin, Whitteridge, and Somogyi in 1985". A brief search turned up a couple of articles by Martin, Whitteridge, and Somogyi in 1985, but each of these articles had other authors too, and none of their titles seemed to be related to a general cortical processing model. Probably one of these articles is what the author meant, but without an actual citation it's unclear which one. Bayle Shanks (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] regenerating brain cells
does any one have some usefull info on restoring brain loss from accedents, ageing, or desiese? im trying to gather links for a biogerentology page.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royissick (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Same as neocortex?
is this the same as the neocortex? can't someone make a general overview of all these things
- No, I don't think it is. Regards, RelentlessRecusant [iTalk § iWork] 04:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- This overview is already in the article. Cerebral_cortex#Classification Lova Falk (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neurocongnitive World-View is not the only one, as this article would imply.
Anyone who has studied Neurology, Cognitive Psychology AS WELL AS basic philosophy would know that there are deep and persuasive arguments against the MEAT=SOUL hypothesis cradled by Cognitive Biology. That is to say that: while the senses and the CNS are used in the apperception of the world, that is not equal to the statement that our conciousness IS the firing of our neurons. Any 101 Philo course would tackle this question and raise the observation that the nervous system, including the cortex, performs the task of creating an image for the individual to perceive. However, while such an image is useful, a painting of a bowl of fruit is not a bowl of fruit; perceptions are not the things they perceive. To say so would create a self-invalidating Godel loop. This was a well written article, however, in most contemporary advanced learning institutions when one studies neurobiology the point is cleary made that there is not a provable chain of evidence to support the statement that conciousness is created by the cortex rather,evidence that the cortex is working while the individual has experiences (EEG, fMRI, PET) is a correlative method not causal! I am not opposed to the article or its information on the whole, but this differention must be made as it results in profound theorhetical and logical consequences. Plutophanes A & D Beckett Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I find that it is not clear which specific parts of the text you are criticizing, e.g., consciousness is in the present version said to play "a central role". It does not say that conciousness is created by the cortex (as you write). — fnielsen (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
