Talk:Auditory system

Most of Auditory_system is word-for-word identical to [https://books.google.com/books?id=sRa-AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA36&ots=NFzc7-pNCU&dq=%22a%20deceptively%20simple%20tube%22&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=active%20sonar&f=false Chapter 4 of ''The 4S Handbook. Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome.'']. There's also sections which are very similar to Page 95 in Human Physiology. It's clear that somebody has been copying from somebody else, but I can't tell if we're the violators, or the source for those books. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That 4S book appears to be copied from here. It is self-publishing and was published in 2012, while the text here was in the article at least as far back as 2008. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Human Physiology text is by a non-legit publisher and isn't carried by any libraries, and our text dates back to 2005. I'm 99% sure that was copied from here into a garbage book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting out some of the content
The content here is very useful, but I think it would be helpful to split out some of the details onto the pages for the specific anatomical structures. Would anybody object if I did that? --Arcadian 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the information is certainly repeated on subpages and should likely be split out. There is simply too much detail about the "Neural Audition Circuit"  (whatever that is supposed to be).


 * I noticed the rootpage concept and started thinking about using that kind of organization for the Auditory System topics. Of course, a similar organization exists in the Auditory System category box at the bottom of the page.


 * I was going to make some replacement figures, but then realized that I'd have to make a whole new outline for this topic. Figures would be most helpful on the inner hair cell and cochlea pages.  I have started reading different treatments of the auditory system, and hope to have something new "soon".  Meanwhile I could start hacking away at the grammatical problems.  Neurogeek 17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved the content in the "Neural audition circuit" section to the subpages, and moved the associated references (just copy and paste for now - no renumbering). The content still needs a lot of work, but it should be easier to maintain when it's broken down into smaller pieces. --Arcadian 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

yes it would be useful for persons who need a general information about the structure of ear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.103.239 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What?!
This page has sections which are ungrammatical, innacurate and contain references to figures that don't seem to exist... what's going on?!


 * Stuff in progress, apparently; feel free to help. Dicklyon 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ear canal amplifies?
The just-changed statement about the ear canal amplifying a range of frequencies needs a reference. I'm going to revert the change pending a citation. Also, it should be rephrased to indicate what is meant by "amplifies" here; probaby it's a pressure increase, not a power increase; a reference should clarify. Dicklyon 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Auditory brain center
Auditory brain center is a nearly-linkless article, which may have some contents worth merging in here. Seems like a no-brainer, but please comment if you support or oppose merging it. Dicklyon 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) ĻĻĹĹÓÓ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.131.130 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

work in progress for easy to understand table for Auditory system
to Dicklyon: yep, will do. Will clean up the other sensory systems first.

Regarding these proposed tables, editors might like to follow the discussion here Famousdog (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead, and recent deletion
I deleted the recent additions to the lead for a few reasons.


 * There were many formatting errors
 * There were grammatical errors and typos
 * It was not well-sourced
 * Much of it did not make sense; the terminology was inconsistent with the rest of the article
 * The architecture described in the picture is inconsistent with the rest of the article, and was not sourced. It was also wrong in a couple places, such as labeling the MGN part of the mesencephalon (it is part of the thalamus, which is part of the diencephalon), and labeling the "temporal lobe" as part of the diencephalon (it is mostly neocortex, and therefore part of the telencephalon)

But I do think the lead should be expanded, and maybe a better and more complete diagram would be in order. Does anyone have any ideas?


 * I am going to undo the edits by Steamboat Jim again, for the same reasons. A non-peer-reviewed website is not a source. I agree that the article is incomplete. But this content is original research, not encyclopedia content.

Eflatmajor7th (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Eflatmajor 7th and I may have many differences of opinion concerning detailed anatomy, depending on our previous investigations and the terminology of the groups we come from. Some of the tissue involved is very near the junction of the temporal lobe and the MGN. As far as peer-review, the material I loaded was presented at an International Conference at Keele, Great Britain a few years ago and published in the record of that conference, "Concepts and Challenges in The Biophysics of Hearing" by Cooper & Kemp, 2009. I had added several citations to the work after your first deletion and they were the only citations to the whole Wiki except for a figure from Meddean (which was from an "unpublished" web site) and a 12 year old, but otherwise good, fourth edition of an introductory textbook by Kandel designed for undergraduates and medical students.

The citations I introduced were from my published book, Hearing: A 21st Century Paradigm, 2008, Bloomington, IN: Trafford

There is so much more information available in the published literature related to the system aspects of the Auditory system than the rather elementary material in this Wiki, it is a shame if must remain so elementary. I do not have the time to play at that level. Steamboat Jim (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When it comes to adding your own POV, supported by your own published and unpublished sources, it's better to make a proposal on the talk page and let other editors decide whether it's suitable for addition to the article. Otherwise you may be in a WP:COI situation, motivated by promoting your own POV.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Images
I think the present lead image would serve much better as an image for the auditory periphery section. A more comprehensive image is more desirable for the lead. Does anyone have anything that would be a good comprehensive image of the auditory system? I found this image which I thought was pretty good:

http://emcap.iua.upf.edu/BasicsAuditorySystem.jpg

But I think it is under copyright, Netter Images. Are we able to use this image at all, or do we need to make one ourselves, or find one in the public domain? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that a better image would be nice, but when I looked around for one some time ago, I was unable to find anything with a suitable copyright status. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have proposed to merge Neuronal encoding of sound here. Rationale: Both articles cover the same subject. Neuronal encoding of sound has some problems. It reads like a seminar paper and contains information that should not go into an encyclopedic article (e.g. preliminary remarks on acoustics). The content is somewhat problematic, too. Instead of a rewrite it would make much sense to integrate the useful parts that are not redundant into Auditory system (which can easily be seen as the more general term that also covers more obviously the non-neural encoding aspects like outer, middle, inner ear mechanics etc.). Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It certainly is problematic (see Talk:Neuronal encoding of sound). It's bascially the one WP contribution of User:Nzachariah3, who is probably a student of this stuff, with a narrow viewpoint.  On the other hand, it is potentially an important distinction in topic from Auditory system, which is more about anatomy and gross functional organization.  An article on how neurons encode sound could be good, but this is not a great start.  And I don't have time to write it, as I'm trying to write my own book that overlaps this area and don't want to get too tangled up with WP on this material.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you impression, Dicklyon. I can see that an article on the particulars of neural encoding would be nice, and true, this one is not it. So what is your position on the proposed merge? Kind regards! 㓟 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the rationale "Both articles cover the same subject." Therefore, I don't agree that the merge would be helpful, except maybe as a way to make a bunch of flaky material disappear.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

other auditory systems
The page is called "auditory system" but it is only about the human auditory system, not any others. I propose it be renamed "human auditory system" and "auditory system" be for animal auditory systems generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.167 (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if such an article existed. Until at least a sketch of an article is written by somebody, it wouldn't accomplish anything. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

a seperate article for simple outlook of the general structure of ear.
it would be useful if a seperate article for simple outlook of the general structure of ear is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.103.239 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New section System overview
Have placed this at the end of the page before Clinical significance. This section was recently added by a new editor who clearly hadn't looked into the Wiki guidelines. The references provided are not entered up correctly and some may not even be suitable; there is a repetition of certain bits of information; there is a lot of content completely uncited. Have placed this section further down, still keeping the heading but treating it more as a summary. The section is in real need of attention. No links at all are provided and it is quite badly written up. But there may be useful content to retrieve. Let's see if it can be made good. Or it may be felt that it should be removed for improvement first.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Auditory system. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827123148/http://www.iurc.montp.inserm.fr:80/cric/audition/english/start_gb.htm to http://www.iurc.montp.inserm.fr/cric/audition/english/start_gb.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations?
Most of Auditory_system is word-for-word identical to [https://books.google.com/books?id=sRa-AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA36&ots=NFzc7-pNCU&dq=%22a%20deceptively%20simple%20tube%22&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=active%20sonar&f=false Chapter 4 of ''The 4S Handbook. Selective Sound Sensitivity Syndrome.'']. There's also sections which are very similar to Page 95 in Human Physiology. It's clear that somebody has been copying from somebody else, but I can't tell if we're the violators, or the source for those books. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That 4S book appears to be copied from here. It is self-publishing and was published in 2012, while the text here was in the article at least as far back as 2008. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Human Physiology text is by a non-legit publisher and isn't carried by any libraries, and our text dates back to 2005. I'm 99% sure that was copied from here into a garbage book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auditory system. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iurc.montp.inserm.fr/cric/audition/english/start_gb.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205085803/http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/audvest.html to http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/audvest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Auditory transduction
Male 110.235.236.188 (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive
Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you!  Rema goxer  (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)