Talk:Claustrum

The seat of the conciousness

Through the Swedish science-paper "Illustrerad Vetenskap" i have learned that it is theorised that the Claustrum could be the seat of the conciousness (nr 16/2008). Could maybe someone verify this information and potentially make a valuable addition to the article? Note that the paper is very well-regarded in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.10.212 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true ? 156.43.65.1 (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's the journal abstract, via IO9 (the New Scientist article didn't include the journal reference). Unfortunately the full journal article is paywalled. Possibly a sentence like "Electrical stimulation in one patient during pre-epilepsy surgery exploration reproducibly turned consciousness off and back on," together with both references, could be added to the section hypothesizing a role in consciousness.65.121.27.85 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Where?

Could we have a little plainer english in the opening paragraph involving the word 'brain'. After reading it I still had no idea where this thing was. IceDragon64 (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citations

There are no citations in the entire "Function" section. That is a serious problem, especially the way those sections are presented as factual information. I have added CN templates to each of the major paragraphs in the section, and I would recommend that we consider removing those paragraphs entirely unless they can be supported with evidence from the scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.140.127.133 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This should be added, I think: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505014002017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.110.64 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed both, for these reasons: the are still not cited, 5 years after being tagged; they are opinions i.e. original research; and they are not verifiable. Please follow Wikipedia policies and do not put them back without a citation to a reliable source. Thanks

Nick Beeson (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent

Please avoid using words such as "recent" when editing Wikipedia. I found this sentence fragment today, "...a recent study in primates has shown...", but the study is over 6 years old as I type this, and no one in this field considers that "recent". It will only get worse. In 10 years that "recent" will refer to a 16 year old article! Please use "...a November 2010 study in primates has shown...". This version never ages, and it allows the reader to decide for themselves if it is "recent" or "old". Nick Beeson (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claustrum. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130704135614/https://www.neuinfo.org/mynif/search.php?q=Claustrum&t=data&s=cover&b=0&r=20 to https://www.neuinfo.org/mynif/search.php?q=Claustrum&t=data&s=cover&b=0&r=20

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

See also section pointing to Kappa Opioid receptors

If anyone is feeling frisky be sure to add a link to the k-opioid receptor page which is a goldmine on the claustrum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Κ-opioid_receptor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.199.211 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)