Talk:Thalamocortical radiations

The

The term loop is topologically inexact. A loop is an arc whose root (point of departure) is also the tip. The correct term here is circuit. The cortico-thalamo-cortical circuits are 2-circuits (with two arcs or segments or connections): the cortico-thalamic connection and the thalamo-cortical connection. They have not necessarily exactly the same points of departure (the root) and of ending (a tip)in which case they are no more close and no more a circuit. They may have a combinatory, when for instance the thalamo-cortical has branches for several cortical targets that do not send axons exactly in a reciprocal manner. There are two kinds of corticothalmic axons (see thalamus) [[-user: gerard.percheron ]]

loops vs radiations

More than half of this article is about loops, but what about radiations. More of this article should be about things like the internal capsule and sensory modulation by the thalamus on its way to the cortexDrchazz (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

vanity wikilink

Jytdog, please explain what is a vanity wikilink and why it is not useful to have it in wikipedia. After that, please explain why the wikilink to Ward belongs to this category. I see only minor positive and no negative effect of my edit.WikiHannibal (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The key thing is that wikilinks are meant to be used to help the reader understand the topic better -- to lead to significantly helpful information. There is no benefit to the reader to linking to a random author on one source. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking_and_underlinking. On top of that: a) it is incredibly random to provide a wikilink to one author on one of 25 sources used in this article; b) if we linked to all authors on all sources the references section would become monstrous - this is not a great direction to go; c) on Wikipedia we care about the quality of the publication, not the author so much; d) i could see maybe linking to the author if he or she were some giant in the field but in this case the investigator is not especially notable - the article that you linked to is a mere stub. All that adds up to this being a vanity wikilink to me - an instance of overlinking. What is your reasoning for doing it? Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, reverting a reversion is NOT the way to go. Bad form. See WP:BRD Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Inscrutable abbreviation VPN in the "Somatosensory areas" subsection

The meaning of the abbreviation VPN in the somatosensory areas section is too difficult for me to guess. I have consulted the two referenced articles, and they do not contain this abbreviation. If the abbreviation is intended to mean Ventral Posterior Nucleus, then the abbreviation would be VP. However, that doesn't fix the problem either.

The Vlaene article only talks about the VPM, and it does not mention any "posterior medial nucleus", which does not seem to exist. If "ventral posterior medial nucleus" is meant, then this would be a duplication of the abbreviation VPM. So that might not be correct.

The second instance of "VPN" in this subsection is also problematic. The Liang article says:

"both S1 and S2 receive direct projections from multiple thalamic nuclei such as the ventral posterior nucleus (VP) (including ventral posterior lateral and ventral posterior medial nuclei), the ventral posterior inferior nucleus (VPI), and the centrolateral nucleus (CL)"

Maybe the second instance of "VPN" should mean "ventral posterior nucleus". But neither of the two cited articles mention any gyrus. The meaning of VPN could be different in the two instances.

Hopefully someone can figure out what VPN means, and then rewrite this subsection. Alan U. Kennington (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Efferent fibers from the thalamus to the cerebral cortex?

I don't understand why the first sentence says:

"In neuroanatomy, thalamocortical radiations, also known as thalamocortical fibers, are the efferent fibers that project from the thalamus to distinct areas of the cerebral cortex."

This seems to be round the wrong way. The cited article does not mention "efferent", but it does say "afferent". The Per Brodal CNS book page 443 also says "afferent".

So this is a little perplexing that the article seems to start with the reverse of the truth! In the first sentence!! If it is false, why has no one noticed and corrected it? Alan U. Kennington (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)