Talk:Sensory nervous system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

What about page in the hierarchy of Wikipedia

unify the articles "Sense" & "Sensory system"?

I believe this is a very poor idea. These are two totally separate subjects. Sensory system should be annotated as to applying to that physiological portion of the neural system in animals, and sense needs to be disambiguated before it is discussed in one of possibly multiple contexts on its own. I have recently expanded the introduction to reflect this reasoning Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the content of this page

what about the sensory pathways? spinothalamic, dorsal columns? 193.1.229.15 28 November 2006

I believe the sensory pathways should be discussed on an individual modality basis since the pathways differ markedly. Most of the primary sensory modalities do not employ the spinal chord prior to its reaching the "lower" or "primitive" brain. Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the schematic of the visual sensory modality included in the the box at upper right on the page and mis-labeled Sensory System" to its proper place under the Visual system wiki. The caption is totally erroneous. This is not the "Classic Gray's Figure 722" from the "classic original of 1901." It comes from a later time period and is now obsolete. Area V1 is no longer considered the primary visual cortex, only one significant portion of the visual cortex devoted to vision. Does anyone object to this action? Steamboat Jim (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the figure is indeed traced from Gray's, though of course that book is from 1918.Dranorter (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human centric

Since lots of animals including invertebrates link here we should maybe organize the article into human and nonhuman section. Someone who gets here from Antenna (biology) will be confused by the olfactory bulbs. I tried to link tactile sense from an arthropod and couldn't find any page that had clearly defined relevant information. (e.g. do invertebrates have a Somatosensory system? I somehow suspect they don't.) Please either reorganize and add relevant info or create an additional page and clean up the links. Thanks. (Lisa4edit) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever held a sea slug in your hand? They undeniably react if you touch it with your finger. Sounds like a somatosensory reaction to me! --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the sea slug's response is an electro-mechanical reflex similar to the nictation reflex in your eye. Such primative sense-response reflexes should not be equated to mammalian sensory perception. Greensburger (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Sensation (psychology)

Although the title of

Sensation (psychology) indicates a psychological point of view, its content is described mainly in biochemical and neurological terms, and therefore rather belongs to the scope of this article. The psychological aspect is rather a matter of Perception, on which there already is an article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support: there's an unnecessary profusion of articles on senses and perception, and the sensation article in particular has content that I'd expect to see in other articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per rationale of proposer. Morton Shumway—talk 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support sounds like a sensible plan. --MTHarden (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comment -- Otr500 (talk)
Comment: Does someone actually plan on expanding on the "psychology" aspect after the merge? If not then I actually support one of two options; 1)- Merge and delete of title. My lengthy comment is because this option includes, "Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge." A new editor may make such a vote without understanding the licensing requirements; this can be safely read as a merge vote. An advanced editor who wishes to argue for a merge and delete should make clear why the redirect would be unacceptable." Another option would be to; 2)- Merge and move to another title and redirect. I would assume the last option to be the best if possible.
Reasoning; The title of the article is "Sensation (psychology)" and the lead includes;
  • In psychology, sensation and perception are stages of processing of the senses in human and animal systems, such as vision, auditory, vestibular, and pain senses. These topics are considered part of psychology, and not anatomy or physiology, because processes in the brain so greatly affect the perception of a stimulus. Included in this topic is the study of illusions such as motion aftereffect, color constancy, auditory illusions, and depth perception.
  • Gestalt theorists believe that with the two together a person experiences a personal reality that is greater than the parts.
As far as I can see (psychological sensory perception?) these are the only indications concerning "psychology" in the article, with nothing in the body, so the article is certainly not correctly named. I read the article Gestalt psychology and did notice that, "The Gestalt effect is the form-generating capability of our senses,...". but other than that I could not even tie these two together. The only aspect concerning psychology that I could find did involve perception, covered in the article Evolutionary psychology, but perception is not in the title or the body of the article. Absent one of the above two options merging would require a redirect. The contents of the article apparently can be merged to "Sensory system" but, as per Mikael's observation, there is no actual correlation between the article contents and the title so a title redirect would be inappropriate without relevant expansion.
Conclusion; The contents should be merged but the title redirected to Gestalt psychology, another psychology article (Evolutionary psychology etc...), or just deleted. Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Sensation (psychology) article is about sensory

Sensory system article is also about sensory physiology, the Sensation (psychology) article should be deleted, after being merged into Sensory system. Greensburger (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Article could explain more information about the sensory system. --KellyCary26 01:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyCary26 (talk • contribs)

The title of the page, Sensory Systems, is self-explanatory as it stands and should not be merged with the psychological elements associated with it. I would be happy to expand on the neurological aspects of the sensory system of the overall neural system, and show how it is subdivided into the auditory modality, the visual modality, the gustation modality, and the olfactory modality if that would help. Each of these modalities is treated quite differently in the psychological and behavioral laboratories. I think I will go ahead and do this in order to get something done. Steamboat Jim (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know that I did merge the two articles in a greek translation some months ago and, with a little bit of added text, the result is rather satisfying. Regards - Badseed (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partially merged the articles. I'm not certain that the sensory loss section from

WP:PSYCH task page, in case anyone can salvage the article. The first paragraph is good and makes sense. --Iamozy (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I transferred the sensory loss information to a new article, and wil now remove the merge tag. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC).

Recent deletions and lead

I deleted the recent additions because they are ill-referenced, and not consistent with the rest of the article, or with any approach in neuroscience that is at all obvious. In fact the citations are to a website that is of course not peer-reviewed, and is likely the website of the editor, Steamboat Jim

I do, however, think the lead for this article could be improved. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to re-undo the edits I recently made because the main citation, someone's website, is not peer-reviewed, and is not a
Original research
is suspected.

Eflatmajor7th (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merger proposal

This request has been open for several months (and has no support other than the nominator). The result is don't merge. (non admin close) -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My proposal is not related to the above "Sensory nervous system" proposal, which needs to be considered separately (if at all). However, I am proposing and strongly advocating that Sense be merged here. That article has mulitple issues, including a fair amount of controversy on the talk page over what is meant by "five senses" etc. LaurentianShield (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't merge I'd like to voice disagreement with the proposed merge. SteamboatJim (above, first section of this talk page) also states some reasons not to merge. The "sensory system" article is written in a much more technical fashion than the "sense" article, yet has less content. In particular the "modality" section, which for some bizarre reason is labeled with brain regions like S1 or O1, is very limited and doesn't strike me as accurate. This article has the same inherent "traditional five senses" controversy as the Sense article, even citing Gautama Buddha at one point. This article also suffers from an incomplete attempt to separate human-specific information into a separate Human sensory system section. I don't think controversy in the talk page is a good reason for a merge, and I don't think that seven sections in a talk page constitute much controversy. If the Sensory System article has real merit, it needs to be on the grounds of discussing what a sensory system is, and what sensory systems exist in nature. Currently the focus seems to be on nerve tissue and cortex. Sense, in contrast, is a broader term and its article correspondingly discusses things like history of thought on the idea and the external reality that senses detect (ie, sound waves, light, etc.) Ultimately neither concept is sharply scientifically defined, which is probably why there are so many articles (at a glance,
    Sensory system, Sensory processing, Sensorium, Stimulus modality, Perception).Dranorter (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Sense as its own article – It's pretty sensible as is, and not about the nervous system. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory system → Sensory nervous system – I'm proposing to move this page (and eventually the Category:Sensory systems as well) to "Sensory nervous system": first of all it's clearer, more correct and what is used in the lede (see the bold text). My main concern here is that there are also other types of sensory systems - technological/synthetic ones (maybe not that elaborate/mature as of now) and ones that overly nervous system senses: remote sensing (a specific example for the latter would be the conductive shirt worn next to the skin that uses electrical impulses to convert loads of data collected from technical sensors to the wearer from the Daemon novels -- see Suarez, Daniel. Daemon
. Retrieved 21 January 2016.).

--Fixuture (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree with the proposed move. "Sensory nervous system" is more specific and it's what is being used in the article intro. It appears to be what the article is actually about. However, I have not looked at which other pages are linking to
    Sensory system and why.Dranorter (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Dranorter (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support per nom's rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What should the Modality section be for?

The Modality section used to be labeled strangely with O1, V1, A1, G1, and S1, as if each of the "five senses" had a dedicated cortex with a single alphanumeric name. Some reference to Jeff Hawkins made it sound like this was a deliberately oversimplified model of the human sensorium created for his Memory-prediction framework. I removed the paragraph about Hawkins and mostly removed the strange labels — it seems that S1 is perhaps a real thing.

But once these things have been removed, what exactly is the "Modality" section for? It used to be an inaccurate list of cortical areas. But it's directly preceded by the more accurate section Sensory Cortex.

I was going to ask for ideas, but I guess I've talked myself into deleting the section entirely. It's possible the article needs more top-level sections, but there's nothing worth preserving in this one. Dranorter (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, modality section deleted. The only thing I don't really see a place for is the entirely un-cited description of eyes:

Vision

The human eye is the first element of a sensory system: in this case, vision, for the visual system.

The sense of sight or vision enables us to see our external environment. It provides the richest and most detailed source of sensory information. It tells us the things that are around us; gives their locations; and provides three-dimensional images of them (in color and motion). The stimulus that provides all this information is light (the part of the electromagnetic spectrum with wavelength in the range of 400 to 700nm). In mammals, the visual stimulus is detected by photoreceptors in specialized sense organ called eyes. Many have a pair of eyes located anteriorly in the head. They are like television camera producing continuous, ever-changing images of what they see.

Eye

Each eye is a spherical organ known as the eyeball. It is located in a socket in the skull. Only a small portion of the front part of the eyeball can be seen. This part is protected by an upper and lower eyelid. Tear glands under the upper eyelid produce a saline tear fluid (made up of sodium chloride and hydrogen carbonate). We blink automatically every two to ten seconds. This action spreads tear fluid over the eye surfaces cleaning and keeping them moist. Tear fluid also contains a lysozyme which attacks germs. This fluid drains from the surface of the eyes into the nasal cavity via tear ducts.

Structure

Each eyeball is attached to the eye sockets by six sets of muscles. These muscles enable the eye to move in many directions, thus widening the field of vision. Among these muscles is a single thick nerve, the optic nerve, which connects the eye to the brain. The inside of the eyeball is a fluid-filled hollow structure. Functionally, it is most important structures are the lens and retina The wall of the eyeball consist of three layers:

  • The outermost sclera,
  • The middle choroid, and
  • The innermost retina.

The sclera is a white tough layer of connective tissue which protects and maintains the shape of the eyeball. It bulges out in front to form the transparent cornea. At the back, it is perforated by the optic nerve. A thin transparent membrane, the conjunctiva, lines the inside of the eyelids and covers the cornea protectively. The choroid consist of black pigmented cells, and has a rich supply of blood capillaries. In front, it forms the muscular ciliary body and the iris. Suspensory ligaments from the ciliary body hold the lens in place. The lens is a transparent, biconvex structure which is flexible. The space in front of the lens is filled with water aqueous humor. The much bigger space behind is filled with jelly-like vitreous humor, which helps to maintain the spherical shape of the eyeball. The iris is the colored opaque disc of muscular tissue that lies in front of the lens. The hole in the center of the iris is called pupil. Light enters the eye through the pupil. The retina is the light-sensitive inside layer at the back of the eyeball. It gets it nourishment from the capillaries in the choroid. It contains numerous photoreceptors which are of two types:

The rods which are extremely sensitive to light and are responsible for black and white vision (and night vision); and

The cones which are responsible for color vision.

These sensory cells are partly embedded in the pigmented cells of the choroid. They synapse with bipolar neurons which synapse with sensory neurons that are part of the optic nerve

Comments on disagreeing with Page move

Just to note that I think the page move would have been better for Sensory nervous system to move to Sensory system. Firstly : there is no such distinction in the subdivisions of the Nervous system. A sensory system as described on the page refers to, for example the visual system the vestibular system which all state on their pages that they are a sensory system. It would make no sense at all to refer to them as a sensory nervous system. Secondly: Comparing the two terms - on nGrams sensory nervous system hardly registers whilst sensory system has a high reading. Google search gives 105K hits for Sensory nervous system, and nearly 1.4 million for Sensory system. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sensory_nervous_system&oldid=1212471055"