Talk:Temporal coding

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Neuroscience Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are a few phrases in here that take the form of "should be considered" or "it ought to be kept in mind." (Note that even the use of words like "notably" or "interestingly" may be considered editorializing.) Furthermore, the first section comes off as a bit rate coding vs. temporal coding, which is both a breach of neutrality and an oversimplification of the issue. (In fact, both occur quite frequently!) I would also double check for "peacock words" - possibly the first sentence of Evidence fits this category? ("Studying neural coding is a complex process.") I would also recommend specifically proofing the second paragraph of "Implications" for neutrality. Some of applications of the theory get a bit wrapped up in praise of temporal coding in general, and phrases like "researchers must not" are almost didactic in tone. -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "A candidate for the neural code" could be condensed and given a tighter organization. Since there's already a page on Neural coding, I would suggest making this first section a very brief introduction to the idea of neural coding, and moving some of the other content to sections in which it is more directly relevant. The sentence about the possible implications of the stochasticity of the neural code might be moved to the "Evidence" Section. (Incidentally, that sentence seemed a little vague - the existence of stochastic behavior isn't usually seen as evidence for information storage, which is kind of what I got from the sentence. A citation might be useful here.) Also, some of these statements seem like they may be (unintentional) overgeneralizations/oversimplifications: for instance, isn't there some degree of noise in every neural circuit? Temporal variation may not be completely arbitrary, but doesn't the stochasticity may imply that it still is somewhat arbitrary? I would also suggest deleting the last sentence of this section, as it doesn't seem to add very much information and isn't well-supported. (An article from 1995, no matter how thorough, will necessarily fail to recognize any changes in consensus that have occurred over the past fifteen years.) -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you should start talking about temporal coding earlier. You talk a lot about rate coding before you even start talking about temporal coding. Good example with the binary symbols. It seems like this section talks more about why rate coding is not a good candidate for neural coding than why temporal coding is. Maybe this section would be stronger after explaining the mechanisms of temporal coding? Also evolution doesn't develop something-things are a product of evolution, so I recommend rewording this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaugh55 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Cbaugh55 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend changing the title of this section. "The" neural code seems like a bit of an oversimplification - isn't the general consensus that there are multiple kinds of coding at play in the brain/nervous system? (A section name change would make even more sense if the content is adjusted somewhat, as suggested above.) -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deleting the first sentence. There's also some repetitive sentence structure (e.g. two sentences next to each other each beginning with "however"). -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider changing the title to evidence of temporal coding. I agree with Frank about deleting the first sentence. I think changing neurologists to neuroscientists would be more correct. What system is this being studied in? I think it would be really helpful to explain what is actually going on in the soma/hillock while this is happening. Why isn't one spike enough? This is really critical information that should be presented early and thoroughly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaugh55 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Cbaugh55 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC) It would also be helpful to explain why it only works in such a short period of timeCbaugh55 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would some more links to other wiki pages be useful here? Also, what does it mean that "the timing of the first spike relative to the start of the stimulus was found to be 'more important' than the interval between spikes" in macaques? "More important" could mean a lot of different things here. -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to move some of the optogenetic information to "Evidence"? Also, why is 2009 the year given? Optogenetic technology has been around for longer than that. -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be split into two separate sections - References and Further reading. -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting/useful to see some quantitative information about temporal coding one here. -Frankmic (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fairly thorough! I propose the stub classification be removed. -Frankmic (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, once the problems you identify above are addressed, it may well end up back as a stub. Also, please see Talk:Neural coding#Merger possibilities, which remains on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it isn't too early in the article to talk about the actual range of time of the coding instead of simply stating a millisecond scale. Another thing yo might want to add is the specific place within the neuron this is happening (the axon hillock I believe). I know you say a summation of spikes after you mention action potentials but I think most of this is occurring in a single neuron coming from dendrites. I think the majority of dendrites don't have action potentials so maybe consider changing or adding post synaptic potentials instead of action potentials. I think the second sentence is an oversimplification. Just from class we have talked about combinatorial coding and adaptive coding so maybe modify this definition and its comparison to other types of coding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaugh55 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest criticism is that there is a lack of explanation of what is actually going on in the synapse during temporal coding. I think this needs to be explained right away because it is vital for understanding what is really going on.Cbaugh55 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]