Talk:Axon reflex

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Riesgraf.emily, Bradleyjude1313, G.T.L.Neuro, 0272thinkap.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

2008-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter%27s_Response is this related? 166.70.114.125 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential Secondary Sources
"The Axon Reflex: An Outdated Idea or a Valid Hypothesis?"

Linsey, S. J. W., and L. A. M. Bharali. "The Axon Reflex: An Outdated Idea or a Valid Hypothesis?" News in Physiological Sciences 4 (1989): n. pag. Web.

"The Axon Reflex"

Yaprak, Mevlut, Dr. "The Axon Reflex." Brief Review The Axon Reflex(2008): 17-19. Neuroanatomy. 11 Mar. 2008. Web.

"Neural Mechanisms and Axon Reflexes in Asthma"

Verleden, Geert M. "Neural Mechanisms and Axon Reflexes in Asthma." Biochemical Pharmacology51.10 (1996): 1247-257. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Secondary Review: I learned a lot from this article! I had no idea that the axon reflex was involved in asthma and vasodilation. It would be interesting to know more about the details for methods for observing the axon reflex. Hmarie18 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review 1
There are good illustrations included in the article with relevant captions. The only problem I had was with the first illustration's caption. It was a little bit confusing. Maybe include a picture of the axon reflex arc instead (if you can find one).

The article is fine in three criteria of a "good article": it is a good overview of the axon reflex with relevant sub-sections, it is neutral with no biases and it is stable.

Overall, this is a pretty well-written article there are just a few clarifying things to point out and also a couple grammatical errors and organizational things that came to my attention.

Opening paragraph
Some of the terminology could be further expanded upon in this section in order to make things more clear for the general population. I would maybe expand on more on what a reflex is and what bifurcated axon means.

Also, there is a piece of information in the very first paragraph of the article that is repeated almost verbatim in the first paragraph under "Research and discovery" (that the reflex starts in the middle of the axon and skips over integration center and chemical synapse). I would suggest to choose one place you think this information would be most relevant and leave it in that section, but remove it from the other, unless you feel it is important enough to be in the article twice.

Research and Discovery
Include full names of the scientists initially, and then use last names when mentioning them later on in the article. Include a brief definition of extravasation in addition to the link, just to make it more convenient for the reader.

Physiology
"One" should be "on" in the first sentence, and remove the comma. The first sentence is also a little unclear, maybe find a way to make it two sentences. "Air contents" should be changed to "air content." The sentence beginning with "When these sensory receptors increase, the result is..." has confusing wording. I would maybe change it to: "When these sensory receptors increase, the axon becomes stimulated which is responsible for many necessary inflammatory chemicals, since inflammation alters the chemistry..." I would also maybe change the title of the sub-header since you talk about vasodilation as well as itching and inflammatory responses and fasciculation. Another sentence that could be reworded for clarification purposes is: "...controls the vasodilation in response to stimuli, and can thus control..." which I would change to "...controls the vasodilation in response to stimuli, thus controlling the temperature and circulation."

Asthma
Separating the first sentence into two sentences would be helpful. Remove "on a person." In order to make this section more clear, explain what symptoms of asthma and allergies the axon reflex induces in a person. Maybe make the QSART test a different section or rename the section. Also regarding the QSART test, what kind of autonomic nervous disorders does this test detect?

Sweat response
Change "outside" to "environment" in the first paragraph. There should also be a comma after neuron in the sentence beginning with "At the soma of the..." Expand on what it means to be "peripherally amplified," by maybe adding a brief definition at the end of the sentence or after. Also, "However with nerve damage" should maybe be changed to "Even with nerve damage."

Mechanisms
There should be a comma after "cutaneous receptors" and after "sensory receptors." Maybe "mechanisms" can be included as sub-headings under each specific response (sweat and vasodilation) and include information about the more general mechanisms for axon reflex under this heading.

Article review
I verified the fifth cited source: "The axon reflex" by Melvut Yaprak. The information included in the article aligned with information included in the secondary source for citations 5B and 5C. However, for the sentence that is cited under 5A, you should include the citation where you got the information for intact sensory nerve supply since that wasn't included in the source.

-Theresa Santos TSantos (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you very much for your feedback Theresa! I included all the grammar changes and expanded upon the few points you mentioned as confusing/incomplete in explanation. Further, to the 'duplicate' sentence, we have kept that because it is a very strong summary and important to repeat in both the overall introduction and the mechanism description. In terms of organization, it's best to not make more sub-sections to describe the specific mechanism of each part in the physiology section, as this would make the article a bit cluttered and only a few sentences would be in each category.

I added in MS as the ANS disorder for the QSART test, thanks for that. Lastly, for the source, it doesn't mentioned that terminology, but the sentence is appropriately cited as it derives information from his work about an axon being in-tact and thus being able to contribute to the reflex. Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The introduction paragraph was very informative about what Axon Reflux is, and it was a good idea formatting how it was discovered right after it. I have always been curious about respiration; so reading how axon reflux plays a role in asthma was very interesting to me. The use of figures was really helpful as well, as they give a very good visual of the reflux arc and vasodilatation/vasoconstriction. — Preceding AKon10 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)unsigned comment added by AKon10 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your feedback mate, very much appreciated! Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reading it over. We can look into elaborating on the asthma subtopic and including a picture if readers are more interested in that subsection. Riesgraf.emily (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I really liked the way you guys formatted your Wiki page. It is extremely easy to follow and understand the direction you guys were taking in order to explain axon reflex. Overall, I believe everything was well written and there isn't too much to worry about. A few things I would like to recommend is to do some revising when it comes to grammar and sentence structure. Some sentences could've been worded a little better to limit confusion, and I would make sure that every word in your title headings are all capitalized as well. Also, if you can, I would try to insert the actual degrees Celsius symbol, instead of just using a capital C. Overall, Very well-written and informative page on axon reflex, well done! Skakos18 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for the feedback! We're doing our best to revise the grammar, the first re-draft from all the comments seems to be a lot stronger in sentence structure and clarity. We also adjusted the headings as you mentioned, good call. Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as Bradley said, when we transferred the content into the wiki page and added in citations some words got left out and repeated and will read it over to ensure proper flow. Riesgraf.emily (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I thought the article page was very well written and organized. There were a few grammar and spelling errors, so I would recommend just re-reading through the article to correct those. When reading I wondered what other sophisticated methods have been developed to directly observe the effects of the axon reflex. I would recommend maybe adding a sentence or two that informs the reader of what these methods are. If there is an image available that displays the axon reflex instead of the spinal cord reflex arc, I would recommend adding this as it would be more efficient and informative. Overall, great job! Dassowsd (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your feedback. As others (and we) have mentioned, the grammar, flow, and organization needs to be looked at again. Thank you for the suggestion to look into other methods to observe the axon reflex, in adding information about discovery and observation I feel our page will become more reputable and believable. We will sketch an image of an axon reflex arc and add it next to the spinal reflex arc for comparison sake and clarity. Riesgraf.emily (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Other Reply
I switched the spinal cord reflex with that flow diagram that was in mechanism section. This should introduce more clarity in the beginning. It also makes sense to retain the spinal cord reflex picture because it is very relevant to the specific function and discovery of the axon reflex. Thank you! Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Axon Reflux Primary Review
Overall, your article was very well written and easy to understand. There were few minor typos though that would have been easy enough miss, so hopefully they've all been pointed out by now!

Research and discovery
I think it might be good to include the first names of the Russian scientists and to link their biographical pages if either of them have them. Include when they made this discovery to give readers a better idea of the timeline.

Physiology
In the first sentence you have “heat stimulation one one branch of a nerve…” Did you mean to say “on one branch” instead?

Vasodilation
In the last sentence of this section, you have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis written twice as well, with one of them linked. I would keep the linked one.

Mechanisms
The first sentence says “sensory receptors on the skin detect changes temperatures and pain.” Did you mean to write “changes in temperature and pain” or did you mean that the receptors change the temperature? I like the flow diagram you created. It works in the physiology section, but have you thought about including it in the mechanisms section instead? Either way, it is a helpful diagram! Also in the mechanisms, could you give an example of a chemical agent that would cause the blood vessels to dilate and leak? It might be nice to include a brief bit of what happens when ACh is not allowed to be released at the junction during vasodilation. Because acetylcholine is such an important neurotransmitter, I think it would be good to include a link to its page when you first mention Ach in the “Sweat response” section. Your mechanism section is clear and I like that you included the mechanism that is more specific for the sweat response. However, I think you could expand on the general mechanism that is common for all reactions due to axon reflex and make this section a little broader, but still keep the more specific mechanisms as well.

Article Review
I read and verified your 11th source, “Sweat testing to evaluate autonomic function.” The pieces of evidence you have cited in your article match up with information given in the review article. Because the article has so much information on different methods of testing the sweat response, it might be interesting to include a small blurb in this section about how the information was gathered.

EKallsen (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your review. All grammar changes were incorporated. Thank you for the feedback on the image as well, it's helpful to know where it would benefit the reader. Unfortunately we do not have the names of the scientists to include. Concerning chemical agents, the chemical agents are only known for the Asthma, and I went on and included those ones. I do not have any for the sweat response unfortunately. Regarding more information about the QSART test, I'm unsure that would be appropriate in this article since the sweat response is just one of many physiological reflexes, whereas a more in-depth discussion would be better suited for an article that fully details the sweat response instead of highlighting it, but we will look into doing what we can so it's more clear! Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Everything in this article was extremely informative to me. The topic was very interesting because I know nothing about axon reflex. I think that it is well-written, and easy to understand. There are some grammar mistakes that need to be corrected, but none of them were major grammar mistakes. That would be what I would recommend improving before the final deadline. I think that for the image of axon reflex that is in the introduction should be taken out. I think that there should be an image, but it should be of an axon reflex pathway, if there is none I am sure that the group can make a simple one. 2974hurtadm (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for the suggestion. From a readers perspective, I can see how including an image of the "spinal reflex arc" in the introduction of a Wikepedia page on "axon reflex" is confusing. We will sketch out our best representation of an axon reflex arc and use text to compare it to the spinal reflex arc rather than displaying an image of the spinal reflex arc. Riesgraf.emily (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Good article criteria
Well written- Overall I thought the article was very well written, it was organized and I was able to follow the entire article. Verifiable- Didn’t see any original research so nice job. Broad- I thought you covered a lot of information yet still keeping it tied to the axon reflex. Neutral- Good job. Illustrated- I liked the pictures in the physiology section. I thought they had good captions and really added to the article. I was confused on the first picture, maybe a different caption would help explain the picture better. I wasn’t sure if the picture was a axon reflex arc or a spinal cord reflex arc. I also don’t understand what bypassing the interneuron means/has to do with the picture. I think the picture could be really beneficial to the article if it was explained a little better.

Source Review
I looked at source 10 “Autonomic dysfunction in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis”. The information you had in the article aligned with the information from the source and it was not plagiarized. I just want to make sure you guys know it is a primary source. The experiment done was performed by the authors.

Overall feedback
Overall, I thought it was a very organized and well written article. There were some typos but other then that I thought it was very easy to read. My suggestions would be to look at the first picture caption and give a little more detail, double check that using the primary source is ok and proofreading the article a few more times. MecciaC0410 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your review and feedback! We edited the pictures around and put them in what we think is a better order that hopefully makes it easier to understand. As far as they typos and whatnot go, those have mostly, if not all been fixed. As far as the source goes, we acquired it from pubmed, so it should be alright. A couple last times of proof reading will be done before it is finally submitted to make sure we've caught everything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.T.L.Neuro (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary review
This article is very informative. I just have a couple things to mention that you should fix before the final deadline. There are a couple grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. If you haven't done so already, copy & paste the entire document into Microsoft Word to help you figure out where to make those changes. Also, some of the text in the images is tiny, try enlarging those images so that they are legible without having to click on them. Finally, try adding more hyperlinks into your article, as there are some scientific terms that non-science people may not understand. Overall, great work! Sarapardej (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your feedback. We've gone over the grammar and things are much clearer now. I've increased the size of the images and hope that helps. I don't want to make the images too large though so that takes away from the article, so hopefully we've hit a good middle-ground. Lastly, more hyperlinks have been added and/or the referenced scientific terms were briefly explained better within this article. Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall I thought it was very easy to read and it was very informative. Each heading followed an order and it was easy to follow. The pictures went well with what was being discussed. I also liked how whenever you guys talked about a scientific topic, you gave a brief description of what it was so others can follow. The only tiny error I saw was in the second paragraph when mentioning the research. When first talking about the scientists, use their full first and last name, then after that just refer to them by their last name. In the last paragraph of that section you mentioned two names that didn't look like they were previously mentioned, so it was hard to distinguish what researcher did what. TEckert412 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your feedback! I can understand your confusion of names being mentioned without clarification of who they are and what they did, so that has been fixed where it could be. Unfortunately not all of the scientists who were mentioned in our sources were given full names. This specifically refers to the scientists mentioned initially in the research and development section of our article. I don't want to wrongly cite someone who isn't related to the axon reflex at all, so unless there is a better solution, I have to leave it like it is. Hopefully now it makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.T.L.Neuro (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Overall, I believe you explain axon reflex quite well. I like how in the introduction, you introduce the differences between a normal reflex arc and the axon reflex arc immediately instead of waiting to introduce these differences in the body of your article. This makes it easier for readers who just want to understand the gist of the axon reflex, thus they don’t need to go searching through your article because they can find these key points in your introduction. I also think it was both appropriate and interesting to discuss the history and discovery of the axon reflex. I do have a few suggestions as you continue to edit your article. First, you may want to link the word “itching” in your vasodilation section to the Wikipedia article on “itch” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itch). The reason for this is all of your other subheadings under physiology have a link in the first sentences, thus you stay consistent with this pattern if you apply the link. Additionally, since you are talking about physiology, readers may want to know more about the physiology of itching (which is described on its Wikipedia page) when reading about how axon reflex mediated mechanisms cause itching. Also, you may want to add a sentence or two about the severity of the autonomic nervous disorders and their connection with axon reflexes. How much of an axon reflex is expected in a severe vs. a non-severe nervous disorder? In total, your article is well written, informative, and clear. Please reach out to me if you have any questions.ADRUCK22 (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply
Added the wikilink, thank you. I added a better description for the ANS disorders and provided an example of a disorder linked to the axon reflex. Good stuff. Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)