Jump to content

Talk:Central pattern generator

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RDXelectric (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 18 July 2018 (→Formatting subheadings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RDXelectric (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)==Untitled== This article requires some updating for the references which are not appropriately quoted; i.e. 27 does not exist and 26 is not the right reference. Looks like there was a shift at some point...Sebzskp (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the article in any way that seems good to you. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is jargon and jibberish. I have read it several times and I find it incomprehensible. Is there no way to describe what's happening without resorting to terms not defined? If this was dealing with any subject other than Biology, it would be cited as too technical and more explanation be required. RDXelectric (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neuromodulation

In this part, the division into three subdivisions seems not to be justified, as all of them are treating quite the same, with only different accents. --77.191.235.22 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting subheadings

Neuromechanics, with all due respect, I don't think you are familiar with the editing and formatting process of WP. Look at your latest edit and look at the current contents table. As a result of your edit, the mammalian heading is now at a higher level than the locomotion heading. I don't think this is your intention. Second, WP is NOT the place for original research WP:OR. You should be selecting references from secondary sources and summarizing their contents here. You should NOT be synthesizing information from primary sources. Please see WP:V. Many of the sources that you provided are primary sources, which may are appropriate in a peer-reviewed journal article or scholarly thesis, but not in WP. Finally, you need to resolve the copyright issue of that image that you inserted into this article. These issues must be resolved. Otherwise, the edits will be reverted. danielkueh (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my formatting error. I saw it too and corrected it, probably just as you were putting your message together. Re. primary and secondary sources, this is confusing. How do the references I've used (articles in scientific journals) differ from all the other articles in scientific journals referenced on this page? I checked out WP:V and didn't see anything there against citing such papers. Please clarify.
Re. the figure, it's based on a figure published in the American Handbook of Physiology, but it's been extensively modified from the original, including the structure of the control loop itself.
Finally, I'm unfamiliar with the mechanism for responding to editors' criticisms. Is this the way to do it? I couldn't find any instructions on how to go about this on WP. I went to your talk page, but couldn't see how to correspond with you. Thanks v much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromechanics (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neuromechanics, 1) Go to WP:OR, specifically WP:primary (this section is within WP:OR). You will find WP's policies on the use of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources can be used but only under VERY limited circumstances. Your description of locomotion in mammals is quite extensive and does involve interpretation. But you have to rely on a secondary source when providing interpretations. To keep it simple, avoid primary sources when possible. 2) For the figure, you need to respond to the blue tag on the figure's page. Otherwise, that figure will be deleted on Dec 17, 2012 by WP bots. 3) Yes, all discussions about making edits to a WP article should be made on the WP article's talk page. Correspondence that are personal or that are not germane to improving or editing a WP article should be made on a user's talk page instead. Also, please indent your responses to another editor's comments by adding colons to the first sentence of each paragraph. Also, do not forget to sign your name by adding four tildes at the end of your response. Hope this helps. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Danielkueh, thanks for the clarification and pointing me to WP:primary. I didn't realise that WP discourages references to regular scientific papers. I'll replace these with reviews that discuss the same material. It seems a bit odd, because in order to discuss author A's study, I have to refer to author B's interpretation of author A's study, which author A may not even agree with. Oh well, it is what it is. I may not get to this for a few days so please bear with me. Re. the figure, thanks for the warning, I'll respond to the blue tag. I'm assuming that this was the right place to respond to you. Regards, Neuromechanics (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neuromechanics, the easiest solution is to just avoid mentioning specific studies and just focus on basic principles. Unless of course the study is of great historical significance (e.g., Watson and Crick). Most of the time, detailed descriptions of this study and that study are overkill for a WP article. Just write it for a non-technical audience and that should be fine. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have said it before and I say it again: The rules regarding references are flawed, essentially circular logical fallacies. I can't decipher this article, as I have said, it is jargon and jibberish, so I followed the link to a reference cited here to see if it was better. And to my considerable amusement I discovered that the article states that the majority of references are wrong.
" Almost ninety years ago, Brown [1] suggested that the alternate flexion and extension of leg muscles in walking could be produced by rhythmic central circuits in which the antagonistic muscles were driven by neurons that inhibited each other. Nonetheless, the spinal reflex has dominated a century of textbooks, and many biologists labor under the misconception that rhythmic movements are produced by reflex activation, rather than by central circuits."
What is the fallacy of who said it rather than what they said? That's what the WP rules do, value that someone (anyone) has said it rather than IS IT TRUE. And another thing: I own a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica and I have had occasion to read articles in it, including one on the U.S. State of Texas. What is interesting about it is this: that article is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Yes it refers to other sources for specific statistical facts and such but the bulk of the article is one man's scholarly work. Why does WP seek to cripple itself with misguided, pedantic or half-baked rules? Isn't there something called the Bonehead Award? We have a candidate. RDXelectric (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

A useful source for updating information, freely available, may be Marder, E & Bucher, D (2001). Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movements. Current Biology, 11, R986-996. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(01)00581-4 TristramWyatt (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit antiquated but, yes, still possibly useful. Looie496 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central pattern generator. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_pattern_generator&oldid=850826871"