Talk:Default mode network

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sagarrat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Default network

The consensus on Wikiproject Neuroscience[1] was to name this article Default mode network. It had previously been titled Default network. See that page to view the page history. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Declined history merge proposal

It has been proposed that the history of the article Default network should be merged into the history of this article. I have declined the proposal, for the following reasons.

1. This edit merged content of the one article into the other. A complete history merge would obscure the history up to that point, as it would appear that an editor had made a change from one version to another, where in fact what was being shown would be a switch from a version of one article to a version of the other article. If the content of one article had been simply copied wholesale to the other article, this problem could have been avoided by simply deleting from the history the versions of the article which were overwritten, but that is not possible in a case such as this, where contents of both articles were merged together.
2. The fact that the content was merged is documented in the editing history, so there is no need for a history merge for attribution purposes. While it would certainly be more convenient for all the editing history to be listed under one article, that is not essential, since the editing history does document the merge on 23 January 2009 and the subsequent copy-paste on 27 July 2013‎. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Psychedelics and the DMN

Dr Robin Carhart-Harris has been doing research on the effect of psychedelics (specifically Psilocybin) on the brain and has found that the effects of these drugs strongly correlate with diminished activity in the DNM. I'm not an expert in the field, but it seems like it could be interesting and/or important information for someone (more knowledgeable than myself) to integrate into this article

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT5dZDnJ6J4
• http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/17/1119598109.abstract

— 209.169.244.29 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned in: Pollan, Michael (2015-02-09). "The Trip Treatment". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2015-02-28. I suppose that a "Psychedelics" entry could be added to the "Modulation" section. —Jerome Potts (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Which way is which?

The triple view of the brain and the interactions of the regions (File:Default Mode Network Connectivity.png) is not labeled for aspect / direction of view. It may be obvious to neurologists and others familiar with views of the brain, but it isn't to everyone. Also, how is the reader to interpret "xyz -> rgb" in the caption? I think that, top to bottom, the viewpoint is from the right, from above, and from the front; but I'm no neurologist.

The second image, File:Default-network-graph-maturation.jpeg, is even more confusing, because the views aren't brain-shaped. From "In children ... the frontal regions are highlighted in light blue" I gather that this is a view from the left, opposite to the first view in the first graphic.

Would somebody knowledgeable please add the information to the captions, preferably on Commons?

--Thnidu (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Update graph at end

would be great if someone could. It's 2014...

Lead Paragraph

I noticed that the lead paragraph contains very little on the "History", "Modulation", and "Criticism" sections. Should it be updated? MarKelly94 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent work on DMN as source of key element of human thought

A key piece of work: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb000c/t/5e16c95d81ab92511eb96c99/1578551647035/Frankland-Greene-Concepts-Compositionality-LoT-AnnRevPsy20.pdf

This identifies the DMN as closely associated with the key human thought capability of compositionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.114.23 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The fallacy of a "task-negative" network

I do not understand why you are so vehement on reverting my edit on default mode network based on a peer-reviewed review article from an established journal that is often cited in the field. The title already states that the term "task-negative" is misleading (see wikt:fallacy), but I even quoted a relevant line from the source in the edit summary: Although this generic statement characterizes many findings in cognitive neuroscience, these network labels are imprecise at best, and also transmit a profound misconception about the functional role of the default network in cognition.

References

p.s. Also, if you do not agree with an edit for whatever reason, please discuss with the editor instead of repeatedly reverting. See WP:WAR. Aqua3993 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aqua3993: you present the argument of one publication as "this nomenclature is now considered misleading because" implying that this is the generally accepted point of view, or a broad development, whereas it is the argument of the author(s) of one publication. Where do the authors state or conclude that this is the general accepted pov? They don't; it's your conclusion. Now please discuss further at the talkpage of DMN. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I suppose I was not clear enough for those who are not active functional neuroimaging researchers that this is a generally accepted view. Spreng et al. is commonly cited (268 citations according to Google) by various groups. To give a few recent examples:

• This unfortunate “task-negative” nomenclature has obscured the active role of the medial frontoparietal default network in numerous forms of cognition. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that this network is involved in memory processes, such as recollection, as well as social reasoning.
• Importantly, although these regions fell within the DMN (88.07% of voxels within the conjunction mask fell within the DMN as defined by Yeo et al., 2011), their response profile indicated greater responding during a demanding condition (i.e. Object 1-back) ruling out a task-negative interpretation of these results.
• The default mode network, which was previously thought of as a “task negative” or “task irrelevant” network, has recently been reconceived as a network that plays a more complex role in supporting sustained attention, specifically, and cognition generally.
• Although the DN was traditionally referred to as the ‘task-negative network’ because of its common deactivation during externally-directed tasks, recent analyses show that the DN is best characterized not by its opposition to a task, but by the self-generated mental content that it supports.
• However, this is misleading as increased DMN activity is observed in many situations where attention is internally directed, such as episodic memory retrieval, planning for the future, and daydreaming

I will add some of these references to back my edit. Aqua3993 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm not a specialist indeed; my interest in the DMN stems from my interest in Buddhist meditation. Adding a number of citations is a good idea; that supports the 'general view' you intend to describe. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Neural network optimization?

Doesn't DMN activity shows neural network optimization by our brain? Improved semantic distance or proximity, retrieval, stability of engrams, flow in thoughts or when listening and being able to understand or when answering and participating in a discussion, emergence of memory? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems with Anatomy section

An anonymous editor placed a note inline in the section text directing editors to the History page, which is not quite right. I'm adding an Expert needed tag and copying the anonymous editor's note here:

• There appear to be major problems with the Anatomy section. First, there are three major systems shown: 1. Functional hubs 2. Dorsal medial subsystem 3. Medial temporal subsystem. Generally, the first anatomical subsystem in the default mode network is considered to be the “Core DMN subsystem” (Smallwood, J., Bernhardt, B. C., Leech, R., Bzdok, D., Jefferies, E., & Margulies, D. S. (2021). The default mode network in cognition: a topographical perspective. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 22(8), 5
  
• All three subsections—“Functional hubs” (sic), “Dorsal medial subsystem” and “Medial temporal subsystem” have listed as their functional hubs “PCC, mPFC, and angular gyrus.” This can’t possibly be true.

These are not my notes and I am not an expert; I'm just cleaning up the section in hopes that an expert can more easily weigh in.
Paul Daniel Ash (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Link to 'modulation'

In the Modulation section, the link for the word 'modulation' links to the electrical/signal processing page. This doesn't seem right, looking at the disambiguation page for modulation, was this supposed to be Neuromodulation? Willthamic (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)