![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Evoked potential.
|
Similar to the discussion in Talk:Visual_evoked_potential, can the "In neurophysiology" phrase be removed from the opening sentence? Edwardian 04:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Whether neurophysiology or not, an evoked potential is always the same thing. Dontaskme 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The article currently suggests that EEG and evoked potentials are completely unrelated. My understanding is that evoked potentials are a component of the EEG. In other words, the EEG is a mix of (a) the evoked potential, (b) spontaneous/ongoing/"background" activity, (c) misc. other things, (d) possibly interactions between the aforementioned components. The article should at least reflect that the EP is a part of the EEG. Dontaskme 22:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Steven Luck (MIT Press 2005), and also just about everyone else who writes on this, "evoked potential" is just an outdated term for event-related potential (ERP). The two articles should therefore be merged. The article on wikipedia is out of step currently with widely-used terminology as it suggests that evoked potentials differ from ERPs in that they are sensory and stimulus-linked. This is what is commonly called an "exogenous" ERP, where as an endogenous ERP is one that depends more on organism factors than on environment factors.
Certainly anyone searching should/would use event related potential as term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrjagger ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a brief comment: "evoked" is also opposed to "induced" in the field of EEG and MEG research. Induced is generally used for neuroelectric activity that is not phase-locked to a stimulus but still time-locked to it so that it may be seen by averaging the envelope of filtered EEG/MEG but not in the average of the signals themselves. cf. http://kurage.nimh.nih.gov/meglab/Meg/InducedEvoked knd ( talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would move the section auditory evoked potential under auditory event related potential, because it seems to fit under ERP. For example, in http://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu/documents/Kraus_Nichol_Encyclo_Neurosci_AEPs.pdf both are said to synonymous. It's a question of usage, because the concepts are the same, and this reference seems reliable as far as usage is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.251.62.95 ( talk) 07:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there are links to several pages with subtopics that possibly do not merit their own pages until expanded sufficiently. Kpmiyapuram 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that the two pages be merged. Evoked potentials include measuring EMG (peripheral muscle response) whereas ERPs are limited to measuring brain responses. Hdesousa ( talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Hansel de Sousa
Would a section on the diagnosis of MS be appropriate here? Jobonki ( talk) 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Evoked potential.
|
Similar to the discussion in Talk:Visual_evoked_potential, can the "In neurophysiology" phrase be removed from the opening sentence? Edwardian 04:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Whether neurophysiology or not, an evoked potential is always the same thing. Dontaskme 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The article currently suggests that EEG and evoked potentials are completely unrelated. My understanding is that evoked potentials are a component of the EEG. In other words, the EEG is a mix of (a) the evoked potential, (b) spontaneous/ongoing/"background" activity, (c) misc. other things, (d) possibly interactions between the aforementioned components. The article should at least reflect that the EP is a part of the EEG. Dontaskme 22:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Steven Luck (MIT Press 2005), and also just about everyone else who writes on this, "evoked potential" is just an outdated term for event-related potential (ERP). The two articles should therefore be merged. The article on wikipedia is out of step currently with widely-used terminology as it suggests that evoked potentials differ from ERPs in that they are sensory and stimulus-linked. This is what is commonly called an "exogenous" ERP, where as an endogenous ERP is one that depends more on organism factors than on environment factors.
Certainly anyone searching should/would use event related potential as term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrjagger ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a brief comment: "evoked" is also opposed to "induced" in the field of EEG and MEG research. Induced is generally used for neuroelectric activity that is not phase-locked to a stimulus but still time-locked to it so that it may be seen by averaging the envelope of filtered EEG/MEG but not in the average of the signals themselves. cf. http://kurage.nimh.nih.gov/meglab/Meg/InducedEvoked knd ( talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would move the section auditory evoked potential under auditory event related potential, because it seems to fit under ERP. For example, in http://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu/documents/Kraus_Nichol_Encyclo_Neurosci_AEPs.pdf both are said to synonymous. It's a question of usage, because the concepts are the same, and this reference seems reliable as far as usage is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.251.62.95 ( talk) 07:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there are links to several pages with subtopics that possibly do not merit their own pages until expanded sufficiently. Kpmiyapuram 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that the two pages be merged. Evoked potentials include measuring EMG (peripheral muscle response) whereas ERPs are limited to measuring brain responses. Hdesousa ( talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Hansel de Sousa
Would a section on the diagnosis of MS be appropriate here? Jobonki ( talk) 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)