Talk:Connectome

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Medicine Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Just found this article, relevant to the parcellation problem of a macro-level connectome. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.010 - Using software that automatically labels 74 sulci/gyri per hemisphere. New standard, perhaps? Maybe someone who can read more than just the abstract can decide if it should be included in an update :)

hi team, i wish and want that info will be in Hebrew I'm willing to help how can we do it

ברכות Explain pls (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple problems, and reads more like a sales brochure than a critical exposition of the relevent scientific concepts. Nevertheless the article is valuable and well grounded in the relevent literature. I suggest creating a new section entitled "Criticisms". Perhaps the main difficulties are the pervasive but somewhat misleading analogy between the genome and the connectome, and the confusion between detailed 3D structure and connectivity. To a large extent the human genome is a fixed well-defined concept, and to a first approximation one can ignore small differences between individual genomes (eg Watson versus Venter). Also, we already understood, prior to genome sequencing, the basic mechanisms that establish and read-out the genome, in terms of the 3 fundamental and intertwined processes of Darwinian evolution, genetics and molecular biology. Detailed genome sequencing has not enormously revised these basic concepts, although it is extending and refining them.

The comparable fundamental neurosciences are, roughly, learning theory, neural networks/theoretical neuroscience, and synapse/ neuron physiology. These have not yet coalesced into a coherent and generally accepted explanation of the brain. Indeed, the proponents of connectomics argue that it is precisely because we do not have a comprehensive account of connectivity in any nervous system more complex than Coenorhabditis that we do not understand the brain. But surely no-one could argue that the advent of Darwinism, genetics and molecular biology, and her combination in the modern synthesis, would have to await the brute-force sequencing of human (or even mouse) DNA!

And the approach the connectome enthusiasts approach is far more "brute-force" than genome sequencing without evolution/genetics/molecular biology: they are essentially arguing that not only should one sequence genomes, but actually determine the 3D disposition of all the macromolecules in a cell. This is because the actual approach they advocate is not determining whether cell type A connects to B or C, but to determine the 3D disposition, at EM resolution, of all the relevent axons, dendrites and synapses. Unless the actual twists and turns of axons, and the exact placement of synapses, is physiologically relevent (which seems unlikely), the proposed massive 3D reconstruction approach seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut (albeit a very tasty one).

Finally, the article hints at the possibility than in at least some brain regions (and perhaps the largest, most important and interesting ones, such as the neocortex), the between-individual variation might be far greater than that seen in the genome case. This would essentially invalidate, or make impossible, the whole exercise. Even more relevently, the massive investment in connectomics, which inevitably subtracts from investment in other areas of neuroscience, may reveal only the least interesting aspects of neuroscience. Paulhummerman (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brain mapping is a research area that has received massively escalating funding. (see $100 million dollar project funded by Paul Allen (Microsoft)

I envision the specific "project" articles will cover project management aspects (politics, funding, lead personalities, schedules, major milestones, broadly covered general news events, etc.) while the actual scientific details will be covered in singular (vs. plural) noun-topic-titled articles (encyclopedia style). Actually, after searching I was surprised how deep the coverage actually was already on Wikipedia. To create links to those I originated

. More details are included on the talk page. Please feel free to comment or edit.

I'm also pondering what "frequently asked questions" might be out there on the general topic of brain mapping? I started a very preliminary "guess" list. It really applies across all four major projects. see:

page out to them. Again, feel free to add, edit or comment.
Rick (talk)