![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let me add to this article (without an overlap with "brain waves"), and then let's consider merging it with brain waves. "Neural oscillations" seems actually a better term.
All the Fingelkurts references look a *lot* like self-promotion. Esp the links to reprints from 'Brain and Mind' a journal that is not indexed by PubMed. This work may well be of high quality, but it is certainly not on a par (in terms of historical relevance) with that of Gray, Laurent, &c.
I'm a scientist in an electrophysiology lab that uses scalp EEG, human intracranial recordings, and monkey intracranial multiunit recordings. In particular, we study oscillatory mechanisms of cognitive processes such as selective attention. For us, the term "neural oscillations" means oscillatory neural activity, independent of how its recorded. The data that are collected by the various methods are just numbers in a computer file, which we take to reflect the underlying brain activity to a certain extent. However, this opening paragraph says that the terms refer to the recordings of the activity, not the activity itself, which is inaccurate. This is important, because while any article on neural oscillations should mention the various methods used to observe them, as well as their benefits and drawbacks, the focus should be on neural oscillations themselves, which are brain activity.
Furthermore, the distinction between "neural oscillations" and "brain waves" makes me uneasy. "Brain waves" is the term we use to explain our work to non-specialists (i.e.: over the dinner table with family friends), and we use it to refer to measurable electrical potentials of the brain in a general sense. By "brain waves" we are usually referring to the raw EEG signal, whereas by "neural oscillations" we are usually refering to band-delimited components of the frequency spectrum of that raw signal. I have seen the term "brain waves" published in journals, but its usually in the titles for snazzy reviews, and the authors quickly switch over to using more specific terminology. In brief, I find the term "brain waves" to be highly colloquial, unspecific and inaccurate.
I have recently read a wiki article on electromagnetic theories of consciousness, and there is credible but speculative literature on the primacy of EM to mind, notably,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=penrose+hameroff
adding oscillations turns up only one result,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=oscillations+penrose+hameroff
The title of this page may make an interesting entry and indeed the "oscillation" may be thought to contain signifiant information. But of course that depends upon the details of the content which I have not taken the time to assess.
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with the above assessment and have updated the opening paragraph to incorporate the suggested changes. TjeerdB ( talk) 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The article was tagged to have multiple issues in September 2008. Since then a lot of changes have been made to this page, so it seems time to reassess this qualification. I'm not sure how that works. Can anyone remove the tag as he/she seems fit or is there some standard procedure? TjeerdB ( talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this article; it's still Start class in my opinion. There are major subtopics that aren't even mentioned -- membrane potential oscillations in single neurons and central pattern generators just to mention two. It's almost exclusively about EEG oscillations at the moment, and doesn't even deal with that topic in anything like a comprehensive way -- a look through Gyuri Buzsaki's book "Rhythms of the Brain" might give a sense of the domain this article ought to cover. Looie496 ( talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I put this article up for a reassessment last week at WikiProject Neuroscience, as the article has been updated considerably since the last assessment in December 2009. Nobody responded however. Is WikiProject Neuroscience still operational? TjeerdB ( talk) 00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reassessed the article. It has certainly become far more useful and made a lot of progress -- I'm assessing it as C class, though, mainly because of rather diffuse organization and lack of coverage of some key topics. The most important thing missing is coverage of central pattern generators and their role in motor control -- even in humans actions such as locomotion and breathing are controlled by oscillatory CPGs. The mathematical analysis section covers little other than the Kuramoto model, which presumes oscillation and only explains how it becomes synchronized, not how it arises in the first place. Circadian oscillations also probably deserve a mention. Looie496 ( talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this article deserves another reassessment. Since the last assessment in July 2011 a lot of progress has been made. The organization of the article has been updated and it covers a more extensive range of topics, including central pattern generators, additional computational models and circadian oscillations. In addition, a number of figures have been added to make it more accessible. TjeerdB ( talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the page rename from plural to singular. (I'm also not convinced that neural synchronization does not still merit a separate page.) What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, 'spontaneous activity' and 'ongoing activity' refers to the same type of activity and should be merged. What do other editors think? TjeerdB ( talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In previous discussions on this article it became apparent that the focus was mainly on large-scale oscillations as measured by EEG/MEG. The spiking patterns of individual neurons also reflect oscillatory neural activity. I tried to reorganize some of the headings so to better reflect the multiple topics this article should cover. At present, the sections of single neuron activity are very short and require further expansion. This is however not my main expertise so I hope someone would like to help generating some content on this topic. TjeerdB ( talk) 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In response to Looie496's assessment on 19:09, 21 July 2011, I propose a new organization of the content structure. At present the main division is between neuronal spiking and large-scale oscillations, which is not very clear. In addition, it includes the topics that were identified as missing. Please leave any feedback below. Otherwise, I'll carry out the reorganization on 2 August 2011. TjeerdB ( talk) 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Overview 2. Physiology 2.1. Microscopic 2.2. Mesoscopic 2.3. Macroscopic 3. Mathematical description 3.1. Single neuron model 3.2. Spiking model 3.3. Neural mass model 3.4. Kuramoto model 4. Mechanisms 4.1. Intrinsic properties 4.2. Network properties 5. Activity patterns 5.1. Ongoing activity 5.2. Frequency response 5.3. Amplitude response 5.4. Phase resetting 5.5. Additive response 6. Function 6.1. Pacemaker 6.2. Central pattern generator 6.3. Information coding 6.4. Perceptual binding 6.5. Motor binding 6.6. Memory 7. Pathology 7.1. Tremor 7.2. Epilepsy 8. Applications 8.1. Brain-computer interfaces 9. See also 10. References 11. Further reading 12. External links
I agree with Rjanag that Scholarpedia is peer-reviewed and articles are written by experts. In my opinion, most articles are of very high standard and written on a more advanced level than wikipedia. As such, they may provide valuable background information for people who would like have a more detailed understanding of some of the concepts discussed, in particular for a technical article as neuronal oscillations. I'm not an expert on WP:MOS, but this is my reason for adding those links to Scholarpedia. TjeerdB ( talk) 10:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The 'brain wave' disambiguation page has a link to this page and also a link to electroencephalography, styled 'a layman term for the electric fields measured by electroencephalography'.
It seems from the Overview here that whatever the terminology, 'brain waves' and neural oscillations are the same phenomena, or at least that the former is a class of the latter. 'Neural oscillations have been most widely studied in neural activity generated by large groups of neuron. [...] EEG signals reveal... oscillatory activity in specific frequency bands' - namely alpha, delta, beta, theta and gamma activity. As it happens, the EEG article has a section on these wave types, and each wave type has its own wikipedia entry (alpha wave, etc.).
So my point is, as a layman with (like most intelligent, well-informed non-specialists) a vague idea that there are things called brain waves divided into alpha, beta, gamma, etc., and correlated with states of consciousness/alertness, I would expect the article on what appears to be that concept, i.e. neural oscillations, to have a clearly signalled section on those wave types, and/or some sort of terminological clarification (not just a redirect), including the fact that 'brain wave' - and presumably 'alpha wave', etc. - is a laymans term, and that the term used by experts is... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.177.75 ( talk) 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I felt that the topic of episodic memory was not given full justice in the context of neural oscillations. I added in this section to provide a brief description of episodic memory because this is a type of memory that is strongly related to gamma and theta oscillations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article jumps right into the (no doubt fascinating) details of the matter, but I was expecting (and missing) a little basic information which maybe an encyclopedic article of this length and detail should have. Just as a suggestion here are two questions this article does not currently answer:
This article reads like a medical text or journal article -- it is too technical for the average Wikipedia user. Rissa -- obsessive/compulsive copy editor 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This article says delta waves are 1-4 Hz, but the delta waves article says they are 0.1-4 Hz. This discrepency should be corrected, or sources should be cited to reflect differing opinions. I'm not too familiar with this topic, though.
Piojo ( talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neural oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The following appears in the cytoskeleton topic:
unfourtunatly most of the reaserch on this topic is original and cant be added to wikipedia. idid find one source though.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/brainwaves-propagation-may-hinge-on-glial-cells/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RJJ4y7 (
talk •
contribs) 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let me add to this article (without an overlap with "brain waves"), and then let's consider merging it with brain waves. "Neural oscillations" seems actually a better term.
All the Fingelkurts references look a *lot* like self-promotion. Esp the links to reprints from 'Brain and Mind' a journal that is not indexed by PubMed. This work may well be of high quality, but it is certainly not on a par (in terms of historical relevance) with that of Gray, Laurent, &c.
I'm a scientist in an electrophysiology lab that uses scalp EEG, human intracranial recordings, and monkey intracranial multiunit recordings. In particular, we study oscillatory mechanisms of cognitive processes such as selective attention. For us, the term "neural oscillations" means oscillatory neural activity, independent of how its recorded. The data that are collected by the various methods are just numbers in a computer file, which we take to reflect the underlying brain activity to a certain extent. However, this opening paragraph says that the terms refer to the recordings of the activity, not the activity itself, which is inaccurate. This is important, because while any article on neural oscillations should mention the various methods used to observe them, as well as their benefits and drawbacks, the focus should be on neural oscillations themselves, which are brain activity.
Furthermore, the distinction between "neural oscillations" and "brain waves" makes me uneasy. "Brain waves" is the term we use to explain our work to non-specialists (i.e.: over the dinner table with family friends), and we use it to refer to measurable electrical potentials of the brain in a general sense. By "brain waves" we are usually referring to the raw EEG signal, whereas by "neural oscillations" we are usually refering to band-delimited components of the frequency spectrum of that raw signal. I have seen the term "brain waves" published in journals, but its usually in the titles for snazzy reviews, and the authors quickly switch over to using more specific terminology. In brief, I find the term "brain waves" to be highly colloquial, unspecific and inaccurate.
I have recently read a wiki article on electromagnetic theories of consciousness, and there is credible but speculative literature on the primacy of EM to mind, notably,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=penrose+hameroff
adding oscillations turns up only one result,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term=oscillations+penrose+hameroff
The title of this page may make an interesting entry and indeed the "oscillation" may be thought to contain signifiant information. But of course that depends upon the details of the content which I have not taken the time to assess.
Nerdseeksblonde (
talk) 01:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with the above assessment and have updated the opening paragraph to incorporate the suggested changes. TjeerdB ( talk) 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The article was tagged to have multiple issues in September 2008. Since then a lot of changes have been made to this page, so it seems time to reassess this qualification. I'm not sure how that works. Can anyone remove the tag as he/she seems fit or is there some standard procedure? TjeerdB ( talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this article; it's still Start class in my opinion. There are major subtopics that aren't even mentioned -- membrane potential oscillations in single neurons and central pattern generators just to mention two. It's almost exclusively about EEG oscillations at the moment, and doesn't even deal with that topic in anything like a comprehensive way -- a look through Gyuri Buzsaki's book "Rhythms of the Brain" might give a sense of the domain this article ought to cover. Looie496 ( talk) 01:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I put this article up for a reassessment last week at WikiProject Neuroscience, as the article has been updated considerably since the last assessment in December 2009. Nobody responded however. Is WikiProject Neuroscience still operational? TjeerdB ( talk) 00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reassessed the article. It has certainly become far more useful and made a lot of progress -- I'm assessing it as C class, though, mainly because of rather diffuse organization and lack of coverage of some key topics. The most important thing missing is coverage of central pattern generators and their role in motor control -- even in humans actions such as locomotion and breathing are controlled by oscillatory CPGs. The mathematical analysis section covers little other than the Kuramoto model, which presumes oscillation and only explains how it becomes synchronized, not how it arises in the first place. Circadian oscillations also probably deserve a mention. Looie496 ( talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this article deserves another reassessment. Since the last assessment in July 2011 a lot of progress has been made. The organization of the article has been updated and it covers a more extensive range of topics, including central pattern generators, additional computational models and circadian oscillations. In addition, a number of figures have been added to make it more accessible. TjeerdB ( talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the page rename from plural to singular. (I'm also not convinced that neural synchronization does not still merit a separate page.) What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, 'spontaneous activity' and 'ongoing activity' refers to the same type of activity and should be merged. What do other editors think? TjeerdB ( talk) 22:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In previous discussions on this article it became apparent that the focus was mainly on large-scale oscillations as measured by EEG/MEG. The spiking patterns of individual neurons also reflect oscillatory neural activity. I tried to reorganize some of the headings so to better reflect the multiple topics this article should cover. At present, the sections of single neuron activity are very short and require further expansion. This is however not my main expertise so I hope someone would like to help generating some content on this topic. TjeerdB ( talk) 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
In response to Looie496's assessment on 19:09, 21 July 2011, I propose a new organization of the content structure. At present the main division is between neuronal spiking and large-scale oscillations, which is not very clear. In addition, it includes the topics that were identified as missing. Please leave any feedback below. Otherwise, I'll carry out the reorganization on 2 August 2011. TjeerdB ( talk) 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Overview 2. Physiology 2.1. Microscopic 2.2. Mesoscopic 2.3. Macroscopic 3. Mathematical description 3.1. Single neuron model 3.2. Spiking model 3.3. Neural mass model 3.4. Kuramoto model 4. Mechanisms 4.1. Intrinsic properties 4.2. Network properties 5. Activity patterns 5.1. Ongoing activity 5.2. Frequency response 5.3. Amplitude response 5.4. Phase resetting 5.5. Additive response 6. Function 6.1. Pacemaker 6.2. Central pattern generator 6.3. Information coding 6.4. Perceptual binding 6.5. Motor binding 6.6. Memory 7. Pathology 7.1. Tremor 7.2. Epilepsy 8. Applications 8.1. Brain-computer interfaces 9. See also 10. References 11. Further reading 12. External links
I agree with Rjanag that Scholarpedia is peer-reviewed and articles are written by experts. In my opinion, most articles are of very high standard and written on a more advanced level than wikipedia. As such, they may provide valuable background information for people who would like have a more detailed understanding of some of the concepts discussed, in particular for a technical article as neuronal oscillations. I'm not an expert on WP:MOS, but this is my reason for adding those links to Scholarpedia. TjeerdB ( talk) 10:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The 'brain wave' disambiguation page has a link to this page and also a link to electroencephalography, styled 'a layman term for the electric fields measured by electroencephalography'.
It seems from the Overview here that whatever the terminology, 'brain waves' and neural oscillations are the same phenomena, or at least that the former is a class of the latter. 'Neural oscillations have been most widely studied in neural activity generated by large groups of neuron. [...] EEG signals reveal... oscillatory activity in specific frequency bands' - namely alpha, delta, beta, theta and gamma activity. As it happens, the EEG article has a section on these wave types, and each wave type has its own wikipedia entry (alpha wave, etc.).
So my point is, as a layman with (like most intelligent, well-informed non-specialists) a vague idea that there are things called brain waves divided into alpha, beta, gamma, etc., and correlated with states of consciousness/alertness, I would expect the article on what appears to be that concept, i.e. neural oscillations, to have a clearly signalled section on those wave types, and/or some sort of terminological clarification (not just a redirect), including the fact that 'brain wave' - and presumably 'alpha wave', etc. - is a laymans term, and that the term used by experts is... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.177.75 ( talk) 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I felt that the topic of episodic memory was not given full justice in the context of neural oscillations. I added in this section to provide a brief description of episodic memory because this is a type of memory that is strongly related to gamma and theta oscillations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article jumps right into the (no doubt fascinating) details of the matter, but I was expecting (and missing) a little basic information which maybe an encyclopedic article of this length and detail should have. Just as a suggestion here are two questions this article does not currently answer:
This article reads like a medical text or journal article -- it is too technical for the average Wikipedia user. Rissa -- obsessive/compulsive copy editor 21:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This article says delta waves are 1-4 Hz, but the delta waves article says they are 0.1-4 Hz. This discrepency should be corrected, or sources should be cited to reflect differing opinions. I'm not too familiar with this topic, though.
Piojo ( talk) 16:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neural oscillation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The following appears in the cytoskeleton topic:
unfourtunatly most of the reaserch on this topic is original and cant be added to wikipedia. idid find one source though.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/brainwaves-propagation-may-hinge-on-glial-cells/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RJJ4y7 (
talk •
contribs) 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)