Talk:Corpus callosum

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

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

Physiology Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Mammals Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flync1. Peer reviewers: Flync1.

Above undated message substituted from

again to reiterate. the article is messy and needs cleaning up. gender something (what??) seems to be the main function of the corpus callosum if the article is anything to go by. Why so much focus on gender studies and gender relevance in this article. suggest that much of the reference to gender studies of the corpus callosum be moved to an article on "gender studies on the corpus callosum" assuming it even fits within the exceptionally controversial wikipedia notability guidelines. otherwise include it in a sub heading and be done with it. the differences may be no more relevant than the differences between musicians and non musicians, meaning that it may well be related to behaviour and neuroplacticity and not anything essentialist regarding the nature of gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.5.214 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much of this gender difference stuff, and not enough about function, etc... --Saulbey 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the entire last section on "studies on the corpus callosum" has been taken from a textbook or other online source. It might be wise to replace it. --Canuck-Errant 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about Dreisen & Raz (1995) ?

I was hoping to see some more details about the corpus callosum role in cognition. For examples, is there a latency in communication between the hemispheres? Additional evidence in breakdown in communication if damaged (beyond a full severing)?

  Jeffhoy 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Saulbey there needs to be more on function though I don't think the gender its should be left out though they do drown out other info you shouldn't think "Corpus Callosum gender difference" You should think "Corpus Callosum *Functions of Corpus Callosum*" But mainly what I'm saying is is that it needs a little update or two. Psychonautic (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be added to the gender stuff: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199609/palm-reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.55.177 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section on sexual dimorphism is more opinion than verifiable information. The lack of sources is a critical component to this piece. I would also say that it could use a little more elaboration.Icecreamcooper (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it generally known to be a trait more commonly found in females? It would be nice to see that verifyed by an external source. Whatcanuexpect 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No this was fallaciously inserted into the article by a feminist. Men are known (and studies show) to be better multitaskers. The thinner corpus collosum is sometimes offered as a partial explanation. Isolation in the hemispheres leads to being more focused. Communication between the hemispheres causes a lot of interference and makes multitasking difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.19.57 (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably no conclusive evidence either way. The explaination above is most likely garbage and is certainly conjecture. Such group difference, when they are reported are invariable too small to be of real consequence - and are swamped by the individual variability between groups. 'A difference is a difference only if it makes a difference'. Fergus

I haven't even read, and this is first time I'm adding a cleanup tag, knowing that I should be doing the cleanup myself instead. I just don't have the willing, knowledge or even time to do it at this moment, although I am spending some time to find out how to properly use the tag. So, maybe I'll just go on the "articles needing attention" or "cleanup listing" and check off one from the list to keep my on ratio 1:1. Oh, anyway, what I meant is that definitely someone should pay attention to the obvious section needing cleanup, about the physiology. --

I've removed the section as an obvious

copyvio. - ∅ (∅), 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed "A psychological experiment was done by Sperry using epileptic participants that have a split brain and this proved that the two hemispheres are completly separate in these subjects i they only see things on one side of their vision field." because it was badly worded and seemed incomplete- can someone with more knowledge work this back in if it is relevant? the infamous rmx (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rostrum is not the most anterior part. If the corpus callosum were to be unfurled then that would be the case - but it's not. I'm making the relevant correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson61345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=== The choice of wording for the section detailing the anatomy of the corpus callosum could use some additional clarification. Remember that many users who will read this page may not have a medical background, although it is always important to use proper terminology it is also very important to make sure that what is written is easily understood by people without a medical background. What I mean is perhaps clarify specifically what each descriptor word means, instead of just linking the word to another page. The introduction section could also use some elaboration, it reads like it was directly copied from a textbook. ===

Icecreamcooper (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight on TED.com could be an interesting link as it talks about some important aspects of the corpus collosum http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html. 122.166.135.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Taylor's talk is full of much confabulation and outright bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.45.151 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, organized, fixed English, corrected inaccuracies. Chantoke (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous title simply said "Birth disorder" and the short paragraph that followed did not actually identify a specific disorder, but reported a link between "corpus callosum birth disorder" and autism. The cited reference did not link to an actually study, but to the BrightBeacon.org homepage (main page).

I renamed the title to "Birth Disorders" and included information about ACC (Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum), which I feel is more specific. I cited an article from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) which appears in RightDiagnosis.com

I also added a line at the end regarding a possible link to autism and cited a different article regarding this link, since the one previously cited did not work.

- Screaming Monkey - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.188.38 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? "Colossal" is not formed from the same word as "callosum". "Callosum" means tough, as the article correctly points out; "colossal" means "colossus-like", i.e., very large. The claim is uncited and was inserted by an anonymous user in September 2010 with no explanation. All the Google hits, at least, for "colossal commissure" seem to be copy/pastes of this article. "Callosal commissure", however, has hits in genuine, independent articles or books: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5366527,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3372749,
http://books.google.com/books?id=uCpYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA558&lpg=PA558&dq=%22callosal+commissure%22&source=bl&ots=aRoO__jznM&sig=r9Hq0CPtECXxfl1PNe8cDkzGyN8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mTlMVLWJMofGgwT_5YKgCg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22callosal%20commissure%22&f=false

I'm changing it to "callosal". 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are no references for the section "Brain split procedure". Is that because it links to a 'main article'? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the Yokota study is quoted and referenced, there is no neutral or opposing point of view presented. The following study suggests the entire opposite. As I'm coming into this article for the first time, I wanted to post this for consensus before including this citation into the article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1953331

"Previous postmortem anatomical studies have demonstrated differences between male and female in the size and shape of the splenium of the corpus callosum. The current study using the magnetic resonance imager compares the corpus callosum in 20 transsexuals and 40 controls to determine if the anatomic variance is related to anatomic sex or gender identity. No statistical differences were found in the cross-sectional areas of the entire corpus callosum, regardless of genetic sex or gender."

Awolnetdiva (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out

talk) 07:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Tom. (By the way, Tom, the colon at the beginning of your comment was not a standard colon, for whatever reason, and Wikipedia's system did not understand it as a syntax command. I changed it to a standard colon.) Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost two months, so I'm personally prepared to remove the section given Tom's arguments. Objections? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up again. I went ahead and removed that section. Looie496 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Yokota study is the most recent scientific study done on gender disphoria and brain structure/chemistry. The Emory et.al study was done in 1991, while the Yokota study was done in 2005. This still needs a lot more support to be any "medical claim" but the studies being done are worth noting. I think a few sentences (perhaps consolidated into the section on gender) on what the past and most recent science done on the topic is important. Geene69 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 03:33, 21 February 2016‎ 134.29.82.20 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily fragmented approach, confusing for poor readers, lets information be centralised and displays it with more context

The initial paragraph says the corpus callosum is about 10 cm in length (which may be true for humans) but before the end of the sentence is referring to all placental mammals. Removing the bogus '10 cm'; if it is replaced, it should be with a cite and with much better wording. Claudia (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the citation needed is quite recent on that point. I'll leave it a week or so before deleting. Claudia (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 'Structure' section, first paragraph, last sentence is said, "A sagittal section of the brain shows that the posterior end of the corpus callosum is acutely bent forward, the upper and lower parts being applied to each other.", but the accompanying medial sagittal section picture doesn't seem to show any acute bend forward at the posterior end, and I don't understand what 'upper and lower parts being applied to each other.' even means. Can anyone explain, and/or reword that sentence? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, classic Gray's Anatomy 1918 edition, we are probably celebrating the centenary of that wording this year. I've tried my hand at simplifying it, hopefully it's somewhat more understandable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Much better, thanks! I get the impression that the original text, upper and lower parts being applied to each other., might have (erroneously?!) meant that the two ends contacted each other? And now I do wonder what the new text 'free border' relating to the splenium means; I suspect it may mean the the bottom end of the splenium actually protrudes from the basal surface of the brain? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to me changing the 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph in Structure section from, "The corpus callosum has four main parts; individual nerve tracts that connect different parts of the hemispheres." to 'The corpus callosum has four main parts, which are sections through which individual nerve tracts pass to connect different parts of the two hemispheres.' I'm not sure my change is very much better, but I'm pretty sure the semi-colon doesn't belong in the original at all, and I wish nerve tracts weren't called nerve tracts, as they aren't nerves at all, but I suppose it's sort of common parlance, so I won't suggest changing that, but will rather just link to nerve tract. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]