Talk:Cerebellum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re: Police snipers in hostage situation aim for the cerebellum, to kill the target without allowing movement that could harm the hostage.

In theory this is about right, but there are several vital structures in the area that can be targeted, so this doesn't do much to describe the cerebellum. O_\./O

confusing

i find the information included about the cerebellum quite confusing! I am a secondary school student and i have found researching it quite difficult, the terms and phrases used, although technical and correct, are offputting for someone of my age! I was wondering if you had any other less compliacted information, sorry to be a pain but i am quite confused by everything included in the article! just thought i should give you some feedback, thanks anyway, graciegirl@hotmail.com

i want to know about the role of the cerebellum in coordenation

Nominate for featured article?

I was thinking of nominating Cerebellum for featured article. Before I do, however, I think this needs a few things: 1) Sources 2) Better picture of the cerebellum 3) Diagram showing cerebellar lobes

I'll work on adding these items in the next few days, but if anyone wants to help out, please do. Nrets 14:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nrets, you read my mind. After my last major edit I looked at the page and thought, "with a little cleanup, some better images, and source citation this may be a good featured article". I'm in it with you on this one. But then, you probably already knew that. Once we clean it up we can send it to peer-review. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I added a few general sources that should cover everything in the article. If you have anything more specific or other general ones it would be good. I'm also thinking of changing the section "Computational Theories" to "Function". It could be expanded, but then it's hard to know when to stop, so I think it's OK as is, just a new heading would be better. What do you think? Also, I'll try and make some general diagrams of the main divisions of the cerebellum. Nrets 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this edit. "Computational Theories" could be a whole other, complicated section. But I'm not going to write it (yet). Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Two new diagrams

Nrets, what do you think of the two new diagrams I've added? They look good to me, but I just threw them together this afternoon. If you can think of any more useful information to add to them--or if you'd like to make any changes--I've still got the Photoshop PSD versions of the files where each layer is still seperated. Easy to edit. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I also wrote a quick little article for spinocerebellar tract to fix a red link. If anyone wants to add to it, feel free. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Semiconscious, Not as pretty as Cajal's... just joking, actually they are really good. I just have one question, what is the "tonsil"? Is that another name for the nodulus? It's not mentioned in the article (and I've never heard of it either), so maybe we should re-label it in the diagram. I was working on one showing a view from underneath, so that you can see the hemispheres, the vermis and the flocculus/nodulus. I'll add it when it's done. Nrets 01:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• The tonsil is the portion colored pink, labeled "tonsil" :). Actually this is something I learned more from clinical work. Herniation of the brain will often cause the tonsils (located at the midline there) to swell through the foramen magnum, which will press against the medulla and can cause fatal respitory failure. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thing,how does one go about generating a stub category? It would be nice to have a "neuroscience stub" for all those litte articles. Nrets 01:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good question... that would be better than the "anatomy-stub" I often use instead. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Yes I did notice you using the anatomy stub. I also noticed you had a severe episode of "Wikirrhea" yesterday - about 1 edit every 2 minutes! :) I'll look into the stub thing, I think one has to nominate it and demonstrate aneed for it. There's definitely a need for it, I think. Nrets 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

SC - I added another schematic diagram with the major subdivisions not covered in your diagram. Nrets 14:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good! I added a little orientation info to the image legend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Other useful facts

Instead of sticking these in the article, I figured it'd be easier to put these here for others to use as they like:

• the human brain has around 15e6 purkinje cells (and, incidentally, purkinje cells were one of the earliest neurons identified, and that dendrites have active electrical properties as opposed to being passive cables was first shown in purkinje cell dendrites)
• there are around 6 times as many basket cells as purkinje cells, and 16 times as many small stellate cells
• LTD has been shown onto purkinje cells from both mossy fibers and parallel fibers, but there's no consensus as to the functional role of this LTD
• finally, to quote a chapter by llinas, walton, and lang: "The Purkinje cells thus demonstrate the following set of voltage-dependent ionic conductances... 1. a rapid, inactivating Hodgkin-Huxley sodium current that generates a fast spike; 2. a fast voltage-activated potassium current that generates the afterhyperpolarization following a fast spike, 3. a calcium-activated potassium conductance, and 4. a noninactivating, voltage-activated sodium conductance capable of generating reptitive firing of the Purkinje cell following prolonged depolarization." (this might be too much information, and it ought to be reworded, I expect)

actually, all that information came from that chapter, as I'm more a medial temporal lobe person than a motor person, but still wanted to help out Digfarenough 23:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info, there is actually an article on Purkinje cells, you might like to add some of the info there. BTW, mossy fibers don't go to Purkinje cells, I assume you meant climbing fibers (where both LTP and LTD have been shown). Nrets 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• oh, you're right, climbing fibers.. I'll take a look at the purkinje article and make the additions if I can fit them in nicely (I didn't do that here because I wasn't sure where to add the purkinje cell count so I just didn't try with the others)Digfarenough 00:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like all these facts fit in the Purkinje article. Where did you get the 15,000,000 Purkinje cell figure from? This is the only fact I can't readily verify. Also, what year is the Llinás article from? I think that PC have quite a few more intrinsic currents than those 4. Nrets 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

the cell count is from Purkinje (1837) as cited in Llinas et al (2004).. the four currents as above are from the same 2004 chapter without any specific sources for them, though it looks like they come from two Llinas and Sugimori papers from 1980.. Llinas seems to prefer citing the original papers instead of more recent ones, so I can't say offhand how accurate the claims are in light of recent data, but I can't imagine them being too far off Digfarenough 14:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

What's the plan of attack? Where do we go from here. We've got pretty pictures, we've got some consensus on the accuracy of what we've written. What else do we need to add? If you all feel we're set, then I'd like to put this article up for peer-review tomorrow or Friday. I've read and reread this thing, taken it apart and rewritten entire sections, and I think we've got a pretty thorough, well-written article here. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it! Nrets 01:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• We've gone to the peer-review page. Keep an eye out. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Horizontal lines?

What happened to the horizontal lines? I think they made the subsections easier to follow. Nrets 16:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• I left a note to Alex.tan regarding just that:

"I noticed you did some cleaning up on this article; thanks! Is it common wikipedia style to have section titles with only the first word capitalized and the rest lowercase? If so I shall be sure to follow that in the future. Also, I notice you removed my horizontal lines from the article. I thought those helped section the article a bit, as it looked a bit crowded with all the anatomy subsections. I'd like to hear why you disagree with their use. Cheers! Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"

"Hi. Regarding my changes in cerebellum - yes, capitalization in headings is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), so according to that, only the first word and proper names should be capitalised. As for the horizontal lines, I removed those because the current formatting is due to how the software is formatting the various levels of headers. My policy is to leave the headers as is and don't try to impose manual formatting as this will likely change when someone changes the global template for headers - as will surely happen someday... Alex.tan 17:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)"

• So what do you think? I liked them, too. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I say put 'em back. Even if the global template changes, the lines are still useful, and it would still look OK. Nrets 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cortical Layers

Semiconscious- I like the reorganization you did. I added a little introductory section to the cortical layers, hopefully this clarifies the diagram and the general scheme of things. Let me know what you think. Nrets 15:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Your addition looks good. I couldn't think of a clean way to tie this section together last night. Thanks for writing this. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Micrograph picture

Great article (wish my undergraduate training had used it). The micrograph picture is currently level with Peduncles, should it not be 2 sections higher up against 'Purkinje layer description ? --David Ruben^talk 15:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad you like the article. I've moved some of the pics around. Those two pics are more intended as just neat images of the cerebellum mainly, rather than to be associated with any specific section. We don't really have any peduncle images! I've swapped two of them to try and make that more clear. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• I actually liked the Cajal picture first, it gave the article a historical kind of feel. We could put the confocal image before the peduncle section, stilll in the layers section? Nrets 00:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

New Intro Pic

What do you all think of using this pic instead of the pic that is currently at the top of this article? Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Cerebellum (in blue) of the human brain

Cerebellum_sagpurp.jpg

I don't like the old picture either, however this one looks a little funny. Why does the whole brain look, well, kind of squished? But it is better than the old one. Nrets 00:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Doh! It's squshed because I uploaded the image before I corrected for pixel/voxel size. It's properly sized, now. I've also tried another image reorder using your suggestions. I agree that the Cajal pic gave a nicer feel at the top. It would be nice to have an MRI of a cerebellar lesion down at the bottom of the page, but I don't have access to any except for ones on film. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article?

So we should make this page a FAC after a week or so. I'm going to leave it up on peer-review to see if we get more feedback, but late next week I'm going to make it a FAC. I think we've got a really strong article here now. Next up: basal ganglia! That one needs a lot of work, and I'm much more knowledgeable about that system than I am on the cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as basal ganlgia, I really don't know too much about them, but when you get to Visual cortex I can definitely help out with that. cheers, Nrets 15:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Heading over to FAC. Good work everyone! Thanks Nrets; let's see what happens... Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

A few things to fix

It's a really good article (or it will be), but it requires urgent work.

• I'll get to all your points later this weekend if I have time... I really, really appreicate your work as you've made some great edits and contributions. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What is 'most & segment'?

• This one I had time to fix this morning as it was easy: I'm not sure what happened, but in your edits you changed the word "caudal" to "&". I've changed it back, but if you still had a question about this and changed it simply to bring my attention to it, I'll get back to you on an explanation later. Semiconscious (talk · home) 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The function of 'yet' in the following sentence is unclear: 'Given its alar plate origins, the cerebellum should be devoted primarily to sensory functions, yet its motor functions are very well known.'

'Most forward' and 'farthest back' are unclear as contrastives: 'the flocculonodular lobe is the most forward and the posterior lobe the farthest back'. 'Furthest forward'? Even then, it's unclear. 'Located ....

Readers will not like 'that will not be discussed here'—it's not a journal article of doctoral dissertation. Can it be reworded?

'which are more structures important for the maintenance of balance'—please fix.

'These fibers carry duplicate the information'—remove 'carry'?

The article appears to be oversegmented; some subsections and some paragraphs are very short.

Can someone number the figures, and refer the reader to them at various points during the main text. You really need to walk the reader through this lexically complicated text more kindly. Who, I wonder, is your target audience?

Tony 07:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Tony: I think I've managed to address most of the inconsistencies that you mention, and have added direct citations to the figures in the text. Thanks for you excellent input and edits. If you see any other things that could be improved please let us know. Nrets 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• ...and now that I'm back from my day-long teaching seminar, I find Nrets has addressed all your concerns! Nice job Nrets, thanks. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments (I'm used to rudeness or indifference). A few more things in the second half:

'These fibers make excitatory synapses with the granule cells'—Is there a better word than 'make'? ('produce' or 'generate'? or perhaps everyone does use 'make' in the literature ...)

• Changed to "form". Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'Golgi cells provide inhibitory feedback to granule cells, forming a synapse with them and projecting an axon into the molecular layer.' I changed 'sending' to 'projecting', as more colorful—is it OK?

• Yes! Color is always good in technical articles such as this; it's still correct. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'Both stellate and basket cells form GABAergic—or inhibitory—synapses onto Purkinje dendrites.'—Do you mean 'either GABAergic or inhibitory synapses', or 'GABAergic—i.e., inhibitory—synapses'?

• Cleared up an earlier instance of the term "GABAergic" and removed a redundant explanation in this instance. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'Mossy fibers originate either from pontine nuclei originating within the pons'—can either 'originate' or the two 'originatings' in the sentence be substituted to avoid the repetition? Possibly 'Mossy fibers arise from/start from'?

• I think I've cleaned this up; thanks for the good advice. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'The majority of the efferent pathway sends fibers from ...'—I'm confused; are you referring to components that constitute this pathway?

• I've cleaned this up as well. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'The middle cerebellar peduncle only carries afferent fibers originating at the pontine nuclei into the cerebellum.'—Syntax is crucial here; 'ony' needs to be relocated, but where? Possibly before 'afferent': 'The middle cerebellar peduncle carries into the cerebellum only afferent fibers originating at the pontine nuclei.' Please check.

Done! Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'Obstruction of the AICA can cause facial paresis, paralysis, loss of sensation, and hearing impairment.' This is currently floating at the end of the PICA section; should it be in the AICA section, and can it be tacked onto the end of a paragraph?

• Dang, what's that doing there? I moved it. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'An obstruction of the posterior inferior cerebellar artery (known as 'PICA syndrome') can cause a wide range of characteristic effects, including a loss of sensation in the contralateral limbs because of the inferior cerebellar peduncle'—because of [obstruction of?] the ICP? Something is missing.

• Wow... that one needed some work, but I think it's better now. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Check my replacement of the comma with a colon in: 'The Marr-Albus model mostly attributes motor learning to a single plasticity mechanism: the long-term depression of parallel fiber synapses.'

• Correct. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'neuroimaging'—surely it's hyphenated to avoid 'oi'; but sadly, I see many google entries as a single word. Some US entries are, however, hyphenated.

• It's become a word. There's a peer-reviewed journal called "NeuroImage" out there now. Scientists aren't the greatest at inventing new terms. :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'such as positron emission tomography in the 1970s and fMRI in the 1990s'—fMRI is never spelt out, and PET is never abbreviated. At this level, I wonder why PET needs to be spelt out ... even I know what it is.

• It is only common courtesy to define abbreviations on first use; as I'm sure there are people out there who do not know what PET is. I've also written out the full name for fMRI. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'numerous diverse functions are now at least partially attributed to the cerebellum'—is my change OK?

• Good. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'despite the importance of this region and the heterogeneous role it plays in function'—the last word needs qualification: 'motor'?

• "motor and sensory" was a good addition. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PS Sorry about 'caudal' and '&'! I look forward to seeing this article promoted to feature status; it might set the standard for biological entries in Wikipedia. Needs daughter articles too, at a later stage.

• Meh. I was just confused as to what you were getting at. :) I truly appreciate your hard work on this, as well as your approval of this article. As someone who is interested in writing (free, wiki-based) textbooks, and someone who wishes to become a teaching and research professor, this kind of feedback and editing is extremely useful. In the future I plan on reworking the basal ganglia article just as thoroughly as I did cerebellum. Semiconscious (talk · home) 01:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony 00:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Then buzz me when basla ganglia is ready for an edit, i.e., 95% of the way through the task. If I have a window of free time, I'll happily assist. There's still a bit to do here, though. PS You'll automatize most of this process yourself during the writing of your doctoral thesis, although a fresh pair of eyes usually has the advantage.  :-) Tony 13:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Second time through ...

Sorry to be a pain, but I'm going through the article once again from top to bottom, more slowly.

In the opening paragraph, this doesn't make sense: 'The numerous loops within and through the cerebellum with the motor cortex and spinocerebellar tracts'. Do you mean: 'The numerous loops within the cerebellum, and that link it with the motor cortex and spinocerebellar tracts,'?

It would lift the article if the broad view of advances in our knowledge and imaging of the cerebellum over the last 40 years (in the very last paragraph of the article), were tacked onto this opening paragraph. It would give a sense of excitement at the dynamic nature of this field and its existing and potential power to improve people's lives.

Tony 00:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The second sentence is still unclear, so I've changed it as above to prompt the authors to consider the meaning. Is 'function' alone clear enough? Tony 23:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it in US or BrEng? There appear to be inconsistencies. Tony 23:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• US English, as most of the writing in its current form was done by Nrets and me. If you find inconsistencies, please switch them to US English if you would. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I've changed "grey" to "gray" throughout. That's about the limit of my knowledge of American vs. British English differences. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

General features, end of first para: I've used 'contains' twice, instead of 'receives' and 'comprises'; they should be the same, but is it the right word?

• Changed wording to "composed of" in the optic fibers segment. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is yet another of many of the great ironies of the “little brain”.—Why call it the little brain just here? The reason for restating it at this location is unclear. I've changed 'yet another' to 'one', since you haven't yet mentioned any of these ironies.

• Good call. I have no idea why I called it "little brain" here... I've rewritten it. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'The external granular layer ceases to exist in the mature cerebellum, leaving only granule cells in the internal granule layer.'—Is it worth saying why, briefly?

• Given that this section is on the development of the cerebellum, this is important information as it explains how cells develop within the cerebellar cortex. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'The cerebellum is of archipalliar phylogenetic origin, meaning that it is one of the most evolutionarily primitive brain regions.'—(1) The logical connection either side of the comma relies on the reader's knowing what 'archpalliar' means; I don't. (2) The last clause was stated in the first section, I think.

• Wow, I can see how difficult that is. Check my rewrite for clarity. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'The intermediate zone receives input from the corticopontocerebellar fibers, originating from the motor cortex. ' Please check my inserted comma; still unsure whether you mean that the fibers or the input or both originate from the mc.

• Fixed. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'these nuclei constitute the sole output of the cerebellum'—Shouldn't this be cast in informational terms? Perhaps: 'these nuclei produce/are responsible for the sole output of the cerebellum'.

• Changed! Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'form GABAergic (i.e., inhibitory) synapses onto Purkinje cell dendrites'—Elsewhere, it's 'forms with'; please check that 'onto' is OK here.

• "Synapse onto" in this case is more correct, because these specific cells send their axons to the different parts of the Purk. cells, synapsing "onto" those parts. It's fairly synonymous with "synapse with". Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

'originate within' --> 'in'; please check my rewording to accommodate the repetition of origin...

• This section was rewritten.

'Obstruction of the AICA can cause paresis, paralysis, and loss of sensation in the face, and hearing impairment.' I've reworded to try to clarify the application of 'facial'.

• It's awkward, I agree. I've tried changing it, but I'm still not happy. Suggestions? Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In the section 'Lesions to the cerebellum', the second para about alchohol abuse doesn't explicitly relate to lesions. PS I've taken the liberty of messing with this para.

• I've rewritten this again to make it more accurate. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Double spaces between sentences are creeping back in. (These are undesirable because they can result in 'rivers of white' in the text.)

• I've searched and replaced for double-spaces to ensure they're gone. Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony 00:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by PZFUN

I'm not entirely partial to the edits made by PZFUN. The images were bigger before so people could actually read the descriptive text embedded within the figures without having to open the figures in a different window. Because of that limitation, the images needed to be laid out as they were. You've also removed the horizontal lines which have already been discussed on this talk page: they break up the article more cleanly and make it less intimidating. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• However, the layout is kind of nice. I'm torn. I'm not going to revert any edits; I'm going to wait to get feedback from others. If people think it looks/feels better, then I'm happy to keep the changes. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, was away for a few days. I think the old layout with larger figures was better, you can hardly read the text in the images this way. I say revert them! Nrets 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Briefcase example of cerebellar function

I wrote a short, real-world example of what it is the cerebellum does exactly. It was removed. I think it may be useful for someone who is unaware of what "feedback deficits" and all that actually mean. Maybe it should go somewhere else in the article? What are others' thoughts? Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Bradley, sorry, I acted unilaterally there; maybe retain the example, but somewhere else? I thought it didn't add anything, particularly at the top of the article, which is pretty good as is, in my view. In view of the demands made on the reader generally throughout this text, it's too simplistic! Tony 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be in the introduction. --WS 00:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Okay--we'll leave it out! Thanks :) Semiconscious (talk · home) 03:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

ikkyu2's comments

Sorry if the heading "ikkyu2's comments" seems vain; I am writing them as I read and I don't see that they're going to have any other common thread. For clarity, each new point begins with a unordered list item marker.

• This article is very wonderful. I have already learned much from reading it. If it stayed exactly as it is I think that I could not find a serious criticism to levy against it.

• Please pardon my Purkinje-centric view of the cerebellum. As the big neuron it gets the most attention from casual students.

• Each Purkinje cell receives excitatory input from 100,000 to 200,000 parallel fibers. Parallel fibers are said to be responsible for the simple spiking of the Purkinje cell.

I don't understand this. I understand that parallel fibers smack the Purkinje's dendrites with EPSP's and eventually these sum to threshold and the PC fires off an AP - and I assume that's what you mean by 'simple spiking', though that could be better worded, as 'spike' is an electrophysiologic term used out of context here. I don't understand how or why a PC can or should integrate 200,000 inputs, though. But I've never understood this, so I'm not sure why you should be able to explain it. On the other hand you're doing pretty well so far :)

Thanks for your comments Ikkyu. I'll try and address the ones that I can. In essence that is correct, EPSPs from parallel fibers are simply integrated until the PC fires a simple action potential, in contrast to climbiing fibers where the action potential has a complex waveform and consists of various voltage-gated currents. Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

So in general I'd say: reword 'spiking' and, if you know why these facts should be true, try to explain it?

• I love figure 5. It is the heart of the kind of understanding of the cerebellum I'd like my students to have. Is it out of K&S, or did you make it yourself?

Thanks! I actually drew a version of it for my PhD thesis many years ago.Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Purkinje cells' output is 100% inhibitory and goes 100% to the deep nuclei. This is something that confuses the beginning student of the CBLM; nowhere do you contradict it, but it could probably stand to be stated more explicitly somewhere, ideally in the section on Purkinje cells or the Purkinje layer. As a beginner one thinks of those Purkinje giant axons plowing out the brachium pontis to synapse in the brainstem, and one would be very incorrect and get points off on the anatomy exam for this.

The Purkinje axons (although the PC dendrites are extensive, the axons are not particularly giant) really don't leave the cerebellum at all (save the ones going to the vestibular nuclei, which are analogous to the DCN). It is correct to say that the DCN carry information out of the cerebellum into the brainstem.Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I learned 'Don't Eat Greasy Food' too, but the mnemonic I actually remembered was 'Don't Ever Get Ffff...fastigial.' I do not think there is a proper way to incorporate this and preserve your academic tone, even though neuroscientists know you have to get the limbic system involved for real mnemonic effect :)

• You should either omit completely the brief description of the AICA vascular syndrome or include all the pertinent vascular syndromes. Since a properly careful description of each one of them would run to several thousand words - and since most of the effects of their occlusion are due to death of non-cerebellar brain tissue - I strongly suggest omitting all of them. Not to suggest they shouldn't have their own page(s); slap a dead link to 'AICA syndrome' on there and I or another neurologist will eventually get around to it.

In a way the fact that the cerebellar arteries are so named is an accident of history; they deserve names more appropriate to the functions of all the tissue they supply.

• Under Peduncles, the first sentence says, Similarly, the cerebellum follows the trend of “threes”, with three major input and output peduncles (fiber bundles). Probably owing to insertion of text through various edits, this sentence is now far enough away from Cortical layers that the reader has plumb forgotten that anything ever came in threes; also, under Cortical layers no "trend of threes" is mentioned, further confusing the picture. Rather than omitting the rule of threes, which is a good mnemonic aid to understanding, I would suggest explaining it a bit more explicitly in both places.

• For example, they show “intention tremors”—a tremor occurring during movement rather than at rest, as seen in Parkinson’s Disease.

The strict grammatical sense of this sentence is opposite to that intended. Consider deleting the ref to PD or else clarifying that PD has REST tremors whereas cerebellar dysfunction causes ACTION tremors. (I hate the term 'intention' tremor and will keep hating it until someone accurately localizes intention, but this may be a somewhat personal or idiosyncratic bias.)

• To avoid suspicion by the police of public drunkenness, American patients who suffer archicerebellar lesions carry identification cards written by their physicians, indicating their medical condition.

This seems like a good idea to me, but I doubt its factual accuracy. I have treated many dozens of such patients and never encountered, been asked for, created, or even heard of such a card.

You need to ask Semiconscious about this, he works with a neurologist who apparently does this routinely, see his talk page for a question I had for him about this. Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Alcohol abuse is also a common cause of cerebellar lesions. Alcohol abuse can lead to thiamine deficiency, which in the cerebellum will cause degeneration of the anterior lobe. This degeneration leads to a wide, staggering gait but does not affect arm movement or speech(Sereni & Degos 1990).

I am concerned that two separate entities have been conflated here:

1. Wernicke syndrome of acute thiamine deficiency, with ophthalmoparesis, ataxia, and encephalopathy, associated with hereditary transketolase deficiencies;

and

2. Vermian atrophy of chronic alcoholics, resulting in the classic staggering, flailing gait ataxia with limited non-gait appendicular ataxia and no eye findings.

Both deserve mention, but they are completely separate and I don't think anyone is now seriously contending that chronic thiamine deficiency is responsible for vermian atrophy? A more authoritative reference than my old tired brain might be of help here.

• Whoops, here's PICA syndrome, out of order under ischaemia and thrombosis. Again, I recommend omitting these or, better, moving them into their own stubs and linking to them. PICA syndrome is often caused by vertebral dissection and discussion of that is too far afield for this lovely article.

• A 1996 or 1997 article in Brain, out of France I believe, looked at findings pertaining to regulation of emotional states in about 40 patients with cerebellar lesions and found strong evidence that it was impaired; most by lesions in the intermediate zone near the midline, if I recall correctly. That might be fun to include, as nowhere else do you mention CBLM's role in emotion. It will certainly be fun to look up and see how badly the 9 intervening years have mangled my memory of it.

• May I make a small plea, as an amateur historian of cerebellology, to include the now somewhat forgotten nomenclature of the lobes of the cerebellum? According to my precious, somewhat moldering copy of Friesner and Braun's 1916 Cerebellar Abscess, published by Paul B. Hoeber Publishing Co., New York, they are:

Vermis, upper half: From top to bottom, back to front: lingula, lobus centralis, culmen, clivus, folium cacuminis

Hemispheres, upper half: frenula, alae lobi centralis, anterior crescentic lobes, posterior crescentic lobes, postero-superior lobes.

Vermis, lower half: tuber valvulae, pyramid, uvula, nodulus

Hemispheres, lower half: postero-inferior lobes, biventral lobes, tonsils, flocculi.

Please feel free to make these additions to the anatomy section! Nrets 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, dear old Friesner and Braun; they show you how to localize lesions to each of these 27 places.

Again, I wish to stress that I found your article very wonderful and perfect to go as-is! Please accept the length of my comments as a compliment to your thoroughness and excellence. If my overpedantic ramblings are of any use in the final work, I will consider myself honored. --Ikkyu2 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of locations

Raul: The link to anatomical terms of location is not for disambiguation purposes, rather is to help the uninitiated reader have a reference when terms like, rostral, caudal, saggital etc. are used in the text. While most of these are explained throughout, it is still helpful to have that link. I'm going to put it back, if you still think it is unecessary I cann remove iit. Nrets 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

New pic

The pic of the brain at the top is good, but it's not of a real brain, is it? Can the caption specify that it's a model? Tony 10:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It IS a real brain! The reason it looks strange is a result of being perfused with some type of fixative, probably paraformaldehyde. This gets rid of all the blood, giving it the strange color. Nrets 11:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

congrats!

Well done, Semiconscious and Nrets. Your hard work has paid off! Tony 05:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks! And thanks for all your suggestions. I think having someone, who edits scientific texts and research grants for a living, really helped bridge the gap between scientists and the general public -- maybe I should send you some of my grants! :) I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Now, how do we get this featured in the main page? Nrets 20:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is fantastic! Excellent job everyone! I'm sorry I had to leave before we could finish, but I had big plans for labor day weekend. Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on Eyelid conditioning and the work of Dick Thompson?

It seems funny that there is nothing on the work of Dick Thompson on the role of the cerebellum in learning and memory. His research was some of the pioneering work on the biological substrates of learning and memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.41.146 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

The edits by 169.229.158.2 made today were mine. I forgot to log in. If there's anything wrong, you know who to blame now. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Human-oriented

Since the majority of this article is focused on the human cerebellum and biology, I feel we should indicate this somehow. Should each section start with the phrase, "In humans..." or something similar, or should we simply put some sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the article? It's implied that this is mainly about human physiology, but not every section applies solely to humans, so I feel we should directly state it somewhere. Ideas? semiconscious (talk · home) 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hey there. I think that most things in here apply to cerebella of other species, except maybe the details of the gross anatomy. But the function, microcircuitry, major divisions, inputs and outputs and even function are all applicable to other species. Maybe we can indicate "in humans" where appropriate and, if we're up for it, compare and contrast how it differs from other species. Fortunately the cerebellum is one of the most conserved regions, so we won't need to do this too often. Nrets 16:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree... for example, many of the papers cited at the bottom of the article are about mice, rabbits, and monkeys. Since cerebella have some features in common from fish to human, it would be great to indicate when a feature is conserved or when it is species-specific. Cyberied 16:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Percent cerebellum by total brain volume

A new user added a comment saying that the granule cells compose approximately 70% of the total cells in the CNS. We wrote earlier that the cerebellum in its entirety constitutes approximately 50% of the cells in the brain. Obviously there is a contradiction here. We need someone to bring in citations. I'll try and dig up mine... Semiconscious 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the granule cell article, they account for nearly half of the neurons in the central nervous system. --WS 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, yes. But I wrote that article, so it's a bit biased! Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I think you can find both estimates in the literature, although 70% seems high. It might also vary from species to species. Nrets 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• True, but if this person has a great new reference, then I'd be willing to accept that over the 50% comment any day (though 70% seems way too high to me, too). Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Problem is, is that it is an anonymous user who's only made that one edit, so we can't ask him! Nrets 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• I found a source and made a slight change in the text - before looking at this discussion. PS Anonymous users can also be female. Lova Falk 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tensor Theory

Someone added a bunch of refs to something called a Tensor Network Theory of Cerebellar Function, but really did not take the trouble to explain how any of this is relevant or what it even is. My inclination was to delete the additions, but I decided to just make them fit into WP format, and give the editor a chance to perhaps amplify in simple terms the significance of these edits. Does anyone have any suggestions whether to remove them or keep them? Nrets 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ridiculous number of references given for this one theory, and all by one author (Pellionisz). To be fair Pellionisz has written about others in the field and PubMed came up with 14 refences not all by him. Still, I agree, someone with specialist knowlegde needs proof read the theory section.
• The mix of in-text and referenced citation style was confusing, so I've ported them all over to cite:ref style (picking up a broken link in process) and added to the details on some of the citations given. Hopes this helps :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks! Now, we still need to figure out what exactly this sentence means: " "Tensor Network Theory" provides a mathematical model of transformation of sensory (covariant) space-time coordinates into motor (contravariant) coordinates by cerebellar neuronal networks." Also, the modelling section that follows the theory section seems like it could be merged with it. Is anyone familiar enough with cerebellar models to sort this out? Nrets 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Tensor network theory essentially is a theory to explain how the cerebellum might act as a timing device. I can explain it crudely by analogy I guess; think of a graph that plots distance against time - a point on this graph represents a space-time co-ordinate. Now a straight line represents travel in time at a uniform speed - and different slopes correspond to travel at different speeds. Now imagine that the plane of the graph corresponds to an array of neurons in the cerebellum, and the line corresponds to active neurons in this array - the line will correspond to a movement and the speed of that movement. However, I don't really think that this needs inclusion, and the references and mention of it can be merged with the theory of cerebellum as a timing device. If anyone has the energy the theory might be worth a separate article, but I don'tGleng 10:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location

The idividule terms should be linked from the article. There is no reason why the first sentance of an article on the cerebellum should be a redirect to something that is only tangentially related. Every anatomical article would need this link at the top if we follow Nrets' reasoning on this. --Selket ^Talk 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right and many neuroanatomy articles do contain this, I agree it should be standard for all anatomy articles. Nrets 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some do, but many don't. It's distracting and there is no reason why anatomical terms of direction/location should be treated any differently than other jargon terms. In orchid, when they get to stamen they just link to the stamen page. They do not have a For part of a flower see... at the top of the article. --Selket ^Talk 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe then, do you think it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Brain" infobox that accompanies many Neuroanatomy articles? Nrets 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Omission

It seems to me that this article doesn't cover much function. Specifically, what about the role of the olivocerebellar tract and dentato-rubrothalamocortical firbres on error correction? Also, it seems to suggest that the anterior lobe and the paleocerebellum are synonymous. Where on earth did that come from? I'm new to wikipedia but I'm really suprised that this is a featured article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk • contribs)

You're quite right. The part about anatomical divisions was indeed wrong, but confusing the gross anatomical divisions with the phylogenetic / functional divisions is a common mistake. (You'd be surprised how common.) I've amended that, and also tried incorporating the tracts you mention. --Nehwyn 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be mention of lateralization in the cerebellum; is enervation contralateral or ipsilateral? At least if this information is present it is not obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brhebert (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainly contralateral -- I'll look for a good place to add that info, and for sources. Thanks for pointing this out. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Hello there.

Did you realize, that the first external link "Worldwide list of laboratories that do research on the cerebellum" doesn`t function? It would be great if the one who posted that link could fix it. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.167.115.203 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed some text

I removed, "It also stimulates the main function of the penis." from the first paragraph of "General Features." It seemed out of character with the rest of the article.

If true (I'm certainly no SME), I'd like to see the information better integrated into the article. A citation would also be useful.

++ (not same editor as above) ++

Paragraph removed: "The neural tube is organized so that the alar plate typically gives rise to structures involved in sensory functions; the basal (ventral, or lower) plate gives rise to motor functioning structures. Given its alar plate origins, the cerebellum would be expected to be devoted primarily to sensory functions. Despite its embryological origin, one of the many ironies of the cerebellum is that it functions primarily to modulate motor function."

Reason: poor analysis. The cerebellum does NOT contain neurons that directly project to visceral or somatic muscle (nor ANS ganglion, for that matter). Therefore, the best functional analogy is not to ventral motor neurons but rather is to interneurons which process sensory input and influence motor output.

About technicalities

It seems difficult for me to understand the roles of the different parts of the cerebellum, especially regarding its newly-discovered cognitive functions; do the deep nuclei perform any cognitive functions, or are they involved mainly with the coordination of movement? Also need a clearer explanation of figure #4 please. 69.140.152.251 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. What is it particularly about figure #4 that you'd like to see explained? --Nehwyn 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the flocculonodular lobe actually located? 69.140.152.251 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm... it's exactly where figure 4 shows it. Do you mean that you can't find it in figure 3? As for the deep nuclei, they are currently considered relay stations. Cognitive functions are being attributed by recent research to the cerebellar cortex. --Nehwyn 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive functions of the cerebellum are not newly discovered, rather they are newly attended to. Read any review by Schmahmann for examples. Also, the deep nuclei are really the cerebellum's output structures, and so their involvement cerebellar-related cognitive function is sort-of necessary. Generally speaking, the lateral cerebellum is thought be involved in higher cognitive function (because it doesn't exist in sub-primate animals), and these cortical regions project to lateral nuclear regions (dentate), so that would be where you start. --Dentate 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does 'Granular layer' redirect to Cerebellum?

It probably should not, but since I'm no expert (yet :) ), I'll leave the final editing to someone who is. EelkeSpaak 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert either (and will probably never be), but I've asked your question in our reference desk Lova Falk 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about a reference desk. Since granular layers also occur in the cerebral cortex, I think the redirect is inappropriate. EelkeSpaak 15:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, granular layer should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. --Nehwyn 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cerebellar circuit diagram

The recently uploaded diagram of the cerebellar microcircuitry is an exact copy of the diagram from this paper. While it was redrawn, and does cite the source, it is basically an exact reproduction, down to the lines, layout, style, colors, shapes, etc. Also, this diagram is unnecessarily complicated for this article and lists many cell types and brain regions that are not even touched upon. Thus, I've reverted the diagram to the original version for now. If someone wants to redo the diagram from the paper in a way that it is not such an obvious copy, that should probably be OK. Nrets 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

False explanation for its name due to censorship

> cerebellum (Latin: "little brain")

This is a false explanation. The name actually comes from "bellum", which is latin for WAR, e.g. para-bellum = prepare for war). The name comes from the ancient romans observation about warriors, whose cerebellum area of the head was crushed in battle and they dropped totally dead immediately, without the slightest delay.

Even today, police snipers are trained to aim at the cerebellum (the triangular facial area between the two corners of mouth and the lowest point of the nose) to immediately and 100% reliably eliminate a dangerous criminal, e.g. one who is holding a gun to the hostage's head.

During the Moscow theatre hostage crisis, russian spec-ops troops shoot the opium-gas incapacitatd female jihadists in the cerebellum, to prevent them from involuntarily setting off their explosive vests in their sleep.

None of these is mentioned in the article, possibly because of wikipedia censorship forced by Uncle Sam. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that police snipers are trained to aim more at the brainstem than the cerebellum. The midbrain, pons and medulla are responsible for such things as regulation or heartrate, respiration and wakefulness (via the reticular activating system) that police would probably be more interested in interrupting so as to kill a person. The cerebellum is actually more responsible for smoothing and coordinating motions. Jamestttgrays (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides all that, perhaps you would be more inclined to believe the Perseus collection at Tufts University? Their Latin dictionary is, by and large, a transcription of one available from amazon (should you be interested in buying it), which was originally written in 1879. They also believe that cerebellum means "little brain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestttgrays (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Police snipers are probably just trained to aim for the center of the head because it's the best way to correct for any deviation in the bullet. That being said, Doctors can even get the rod of Asclepius right, so, who knows? Honestly, they probably have better things to do than argue over etymology. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood supply

The section on cerebellar blood supply could mistakenly be interpreted as stating that there is only one PICA whereas they are, in fact, paired. Perhaps it should be slightly reworked?

Jamestttgrays (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging of all deep cerebellar nuclei into cerebellum

I was reading on the Dentate nucleus page that there is a discussion on merging it into the cerebellum page. I know that the dentate nucleus is part of the cerebellum, but I think that it is important enough to deserve its own page. I think the dentate nucleus article needs to be expanded, and I don't have the expertise to do that, but I think merging all of the deep cerebellar nuclei pages into the cerebellum page would be a mistake. (D.c.camero (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I also think that the dentate nucleus is important enough to deserve its own page. — fnielsen (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Archipalliar?

The article currently says that the cerebellum is part of the archipallium, without giving a source. I don't think this is correct. The cerebellum is part of the hindbrain, but to my understanding the pallium, in all its variants, belongs to the forebrain. I propose to remove these statements, but wonder whether anybody would like to comment first. looie496 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a longer cerbellum increase strength and mobility?

My subject line speaks for itself. Alex Bieser (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

By "longer" do you mean larger? If so: strength, no. Mobility, in the sense of coordination, maybe. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How many neurons does the cerebellum have?

Up top in General Features, this article says the cerebellum has 50% of all the brain's neurons. The section on the granular layer says that the cerebellum has 60-80 billion granular cells, making up 70% of all the brain's neurons. Which is correct? I think the first statistic is closer to 90%. Quantumelfmage (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures I learned are about 40 billion cerebellar granule cells and about 10 billion neurons in the rest of the brain, but there is probably more recent research that updates those numbers. Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

As a 2005 featured article, this article has huge chunks of uncited text, and should be cited or submitted to WP:FAR. Also, please see WP:MEDRS regarding primary sources vs. secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually irrespective of sources this article is well short of giving an accurate and comprehensive picture of current understanding of the cerebellum -- it really shouldn't be an FA without major work. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to nom it at FAR, or should I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you're at work on it; should I hold off on FAR? I've done all I can, but I find the jargon dense and inpenetrable :) Are you able to cite and correct the dense jargon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've gotten started, I'd like to work on the content some, and an ongoing FAR would only get in the way, so holding off for a little while would be good. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll unwatch for now; ping me when I should take another look, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cerebellar Peduncles

There is nothing on this page about the cerebellar peduncles, despite the fact that pages for the superior, middle and inferior cerebellar peduncles exist. Furthermore, searching for cerebellar peduncles redirects to this article rather than the other three. I would fix this myself, but I'm already procrastinating too much as it is and I don't know how to fix redirects (I think it would be more appropriate if a search for cerebellar peduncles redirected to one of the actual articles, and I think there's an argument for merging those three articles). Seasunsky (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I'm adding a link to the cerebellar peduncles until the information can be better integrated here.--Xris0 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Motor Function vs. Cognitive Effects of the Cerebellum

The page only have a few citations of cognitive function of the Cerebellum, and I haven't run across this view very often. Since this isn't commonly referred to in the physiological literature I have, I was wondering if this still represents a minority or fringe viewpoint or if it has become definitive? Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say for certain, especially since I haven't tracked the details of the cerebellar literature for the last few years. However, the journal Cerebellum devoted a special issue to this topic in 2007 -- PMID 17786810 gives an overview. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted my Edit? (Evolution Section)

Hi Looie496 -- I noticed that you reverted my edit to the evolution section. Could you tell me why please? The information wasn't already included in the article, and it was well referenced with links to scholarly journals and a reference book.

For reference, I added in the following:

"The cerebellum first evolved as a small outgrowth from the vestibular nuclei of the medulla, which is involved in balance."

"It has been suggested that the evolution of the cerebellum was originally an adaptation to predation, enabling precise attacking movements to be coordinated."

I think the information was relevant, maybe you reverted it because you disagree? Reidlophile (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me first point out that you weren't logged in when you made those edits, and your IP address was clearly not fixed (because you made similar edits to the pons article from a different address), so I had no way of contacting you to discuss the issue. What I immediately perceived was that all your edits are referencing the Haycock book, which seems to be self-published and in any case would not be an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy (as outlined at WP:RS). My perception was that those edits were probably a form of disguised spam, which we see a lot of. The two statements that you added are speculative, and the sources given (even disregarding the Haycock book) are not authoritative enough to justify having them here. Note that in the pons article I left your added material in place, and only removed the Haycock book from the list of sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I reread my post and it came across as a bit snarky, which I didn't intend. I just thought the information was worth including, and felt a bit miffed when it was reverted as spam. The Haycock book is my main source - it has quite an extensive section on the evolution of the brain, and I was going to go through the various brain regions and add in sections about their evolution. Will this be considered spam? Why isn't it a valid source? Reidlophile (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Normally a book is considered an acceptable source if (a) the author has established a strong reputation by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals or mainstream media, or (b) the publisher has a strong reputation for fact-checking books that it publishes. I can't see that the Haycock book meets either of those criteria -- in fact I could hardly find out anything at all about it, beyond seeing it in Google Books (with a really garish cover). Regarding the added sentences, the first one is probably in part correct, except that the cerebellum clearly evolved in fish and fish-like creatures resembling the lamprey, which do not balance. Also, a teaching manual for neurologic exams is not a good source for a statement like that -- much better ones are available. The second statement is pure speculation -- it is just as likely that the cerebellum evolved to serve the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)