This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MPTP is formed during MPP and/or meperidine formation right? why credit that to heroin - Cocoapunk
I do not know any experimental protocole using sex as a reward, restricted in monkeys to food and drink -- Gerard.percheron 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)gerard.percheron
Images at bottom, first row, fourth image with subtitle "Coronal section through mid-brain.": isn't that transverse? I just compared with the following image which is similar and said to be transverse. Could please someone check who has experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.123.135 ( talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if the pars compacta and pars reticulata articles be merged into this Kpmiyapuram ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I would advise against this. They may be anatomically related but within the circuitry of the basal ganglia (and generally) they serve very different functions. One (SNpc) provides a dopaminergic projections to the striatum (and limbic areas), whereas the other acts in the role of an output nuclei within the basal ganglia, similar to the globus pallidus internus. So, in the interests of clarity and ease of understanding then surely keep them apart! Joel 21:16, 25 May 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.12.195 ( talk)
No, as they are two very distinctive brain regions and separation of articles only emphasizes that. As it has been 2 years since last statement in the discussion, I have removed the merge statement. -- TamCaP ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is tremendously improved. I would say it is C class at the moment, with a pretty straightforward route to B class, and strong potential for GA (but that's a separate process).
Problems and suggestions:
I'm sure there are other things, but these are the main suggestions I have at the moment. I'll also try to help out with this article to the extent that I can. Once again, it's already a very useful article, and a tremendous advance on what came before it. (Maybe I should explain that I sort of "stepped in" at WikiProject Neuroscience a couple of months ago because nobody else was doing anything there, and there isn't really anything "official" about this assessment or the feedback I'm giving -- wouldn't want to operate under false pretenses.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the Substantia nigra plays a role in the pseudoscience of Melanin theory. Should that be addressed here? --Pstanton 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor has just made a large edit to the article apparently in a serious effort to improve it, but left it in an incoherent state. I'm going to revert the edit, but I'm not hostile to these sorts of changes -- please feel free to revert back if you're going to continue to work on the article. Also please use edit summaries for your edits, especially when making large changes to an article. Looie496 ( talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm an ordinary person with Parkinson's Disease. In my reading, I get the impression that the statement is considered simplistic and slightly erroneous; dopamine affects motivation rather than reward. I daren't edit the article, so it would be nice if that statement could be reviewed just in case. Someone talked about this here, but 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.132.82 ( talk) 12:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"The pars compacta serves mainly as a projection to the basal ganglia circuit, supplying the striatum with dopamine."
This is a bugbear I have had for 10 years now, ever since I started my psychology degree. When sources talk about "supplying [X brain area] with dopamine", what do they actually mean? Do they mean that the neurons in the substantia nigra generate loads of dopamine and somehow transfer it to neurons in, e.g. the striatum, so that they can release it from *their* terminal boutons, or do they simply mean that the communication from the substantia nigra to the striatum is dopaminergic? I ask because I suspect it is the latter, but the image that this phrase conjures up in my mind is of the former, so if this is the case, I would propose changing the phrasing to something a bit clearer, despite being aware that this phrasing is standard and commonplace. Anditres ( talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MPTP is formed during MPP and/or meperidine formation right? why credit that to heroin - Cocoapunk
I do not know any experimental protocole using sex as a reward, restricted in monkeys to food and drink -- Gerard.percheron 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)gerard.percheron
Images at bottom, first row, fourth image with subtitle "Coronal section through mid-brain.": isn't that transverse? I just compared with the following image which is similar and said to be transverse. Could please someone check who has experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.123.135 ( talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if the pars compacta and pars reticulata articles be merged into this Kpmiyapuram ( talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I would advise against this. They may be anatomically related but within the circuitry of the basal ganglia (and generally) they serve very different functions. One (SNpc) provides a dopaminergic projections to the striatum (and limbic areas), whereas the other acts in the role of an output nuclei within the basal ganglia, similar to the globus pallidus internus. So, in the interests of clarity and ease of understanding then surely keep them apart! Joel 21:16, 25 May 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.12.195 ( talk)
No, as they are two very distinctive brain regions and separation of articles only emphasizes that. As it has been 2 years since last statement in the discussion, I have removed the merge statement. -- TamCaP ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is tremendously improved. I would say it is C class at the moment, with a pretty straightforward route to B class, and strong potential for GA (but that's a separate process).
Problems and suggestions:
I'm sure there are other things, but these are the main suggestions I have at the moment. I'll also try to help out with this article to the extent that I can. Once again, it's already a very useful article, and a tremendous advance on what came before it. (Maybe I should explain that I sort of "stepped in" at WikiProject Neuroscience a couple of months ago because nobody else was doing anything there, and there isn't really anything "official" about this assessment or the feedback I'm giving -- wouldn't want to operate under false pretenses.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that the Substantia nigra plays a role in the pseudoscience of Melanin theory. Should that be addressed here? --Pstanton 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
An IP editor has just made a large edit to the article apparently in a serious effort to improve it, but left it in an incoherent state. I'm going to revert the edit, but I'm not hostile to these sorts of changes -- please feel free to revert back if you're going to continue to work on the article. Also please use edit summaries for your edits, especially when making large changes to an article. Looie496 ( talk) 16:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm an ordinary person with Parkinson's Disease. In my reading, I get the impression that the statement is considered simplistic and slightly erroneous; dopamine affects motivation rather than reward. I daren't edit the article, so it would be nice if that statement could be reviewed just in case. Someone talked about this here, but 10 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.132.82 ( talk) 12:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"The pars compacta serves mainly as a projection to the basal ganglia circuit, supplying the striatum with dopamine."
This is a bugbear I have had for 10 years now, ever since I started my psychology degree. When sources talk about "supplying [X brain area] with dopamine", what do they actually mean? Do they mean that the neurons in the substantia nigra generate loads of dopamine and somehow transfer it to neurons in, e.g. the striatum, so that they can release it from *their* terminal boutons, or do they simply mean that the communication from the substantia nigra to the striatum is dopaminergic? I ask because I suspect it is the latter, but the image that this phrase conjures up in my mind is of the former, so if this is the case, I would propose changing the phrasing to something a bit clearer, despite being aware that this phrasing is standard and commonplace. Anditres ( talk) 23:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)