Talk:Basal ganglia

Untitled
This is one of my first few contributions and I would appreciate any feedback. In particuluar if I am doing anything stupid please let me know so I stop earlier rather than later.

Azad 20:56, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Maybe put in a bit on the role of dopamine in the basal ganglia. We're always glad to have another person with neuroscience interests on board. Sayeth 06:00, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've updated the page a little. In particular, there is a growing consensus that the basal ganglia has many more roles than just movement related, and I thought that should be expressed. Also added a bit on its history (lots more could be done there). I am planning to add some digital pictures of the anatomy soon, I think that should make anatomically locating them clearer. Comments/complaints welcome.

Anaru 15:08, 2005 Feb 1 (GMT)


 * Add a title to your paragraph? :) SvenAERTS (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Basal Ganglia Picture
I am going to change the picture to something more local in order to display the individual parts of the Basal Ganglia.Niubrad 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thy and where are the striatum and the hippocampus all of a sudden in the images? Can you add them somewhere in a picture? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Stratonigral projections
Lennart Heimer's neuroanatomy book says about Huntington's disease: "[...] loss of inhibitory GABA-ergic striatonigral neurons projecting to the substantia nigra, pars compacta [...]". The image with connections have no connection to the pars compacta (SNc) area - only pars reticulata... - fnielsen 12:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. In fact there are many more connections than are shown in the diagram. The diagram is of the classic model of basal ganglia function, as proposed by Albin, Young and Penney (TINS 1989 vol 12:366–375). This model used a simplification of the anatomy of the basal ganglia in order to propose the mechanisms underlying both the normal function of the basal ganglia and the changes that occur in diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. An anatomically correct diagram would not only have a STR->SNc connection, it would also need (amongst others) cortex->STN; STN->GPe; GPe->GPi; GPe->SNr; SNc->STN; and SNc->GPe. JeremyA (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Nomenclature
I thought it was basal nuclei...only because it's located in the cerebrum...Cheryl Gray c4gray@wmich.edu


 * Technically you are correct - there are not supposed to be ganglia in the CNS. But the terms are used interchangeably, and frankly I've heard "basal ganglia" more often than "basal nuclei". JFW | T@lk  13:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * JFW is right. Although there is a small group of people (myself included) who prefer the term "basal nuclei", almost no one in neuroscience refers to them as such. Technically the ganglia of the mesencephalic nucleus of V are located within the CNS, but that is an exception to the rule. semiconscious ( talk  ·  home) 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Terminologia anatomica (1998) the international authority for anatomical naming only retain "nuclei basales" (p.130) but there is a "pars basalis telencephali" p. 129 which comprises the amygdala and many basal ganglia. The term basal ganglia is certainly awkward as the term ganglion (also used for the habenula) should not be used in the central nervous system. The problem is that the delineation of the particular system made up by the GB is relatively recent. It had to be clearly differentiated from other elements such as the thalamus, the amygdala..If a better term could be found and internationally accepted this would be a great improvement. For the moment there is an active International Basal Ganglia Society IBAGS dealing with cerebral parts and systems for which there is a consensus. This comprises the striatum, pallidum (2nuclei), substantia nigra and nucleus subthalamicus, to which I add the central complex (centre median parafascicular) and probably the pedunculopontine complex. This ensemble must not be seen as a collection but as a major cerebral system. User: Gerard.percheron     perchero@ccr.jussieu.fr

Audience
I have reverted the extensice recent changes to this article because I think that they are written at too complex a level for the general audience of wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclodedia not a text book, so I think that it is important that someone unfamiliar with neuroscience is able to take something from this article. As there may be salvagable content within the content that I have removed; editors can view the diff here and restore anything that is useful. JeremyA 13:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Jeremy, but the more detailed info should also be included due to enclopedic relevance. A compromise would be to include both the general and the detailed info to cater to both the beginner and the more advanced reader in neuroscience. Brain-mapper

Complain
JeremyA systematically changes my corrections for reintroducing an old fashionned conception. An encyclopedia must present things as they are known not as they should be preached.


 * I think the problem is not with your views, I think the main problem is with the style of editing. By all means correct any factual errors, or update the articles as you see fit, however keep in mind that you are not talking to a scientific audience, so you have to be very careful to use clear wording, define any terms, and link these terms to other WP articles. Check out WP:Style for further guidelines. Thanks for your contributions. Nrets 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia must present things as they are known not as they should be preached." - An encyclopedia should present things neither as they are known or as they are preached, but as they are. "Keep in mind that you are not talking to a scientific audience" - The audience is scientific and non scientific and everywhere in between. --General Tojo 15:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just to respectuously salute the general! But in an encyclopedia thinks are not present, only what is said about them.The majority of readers is constituted by students.-- User:gerard.percheron

Wikipedia is not a textbook and its audience is not students--its audience is everyone! Someone who has never heard of the basal ganglia should be able to read and understand this article. In my opinion this article is now a mess and is worse than useless. It is hard to read and poorly cited. JeremyA 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia is not just for students. There are articles in Wikipedia on the New York Yankees, Vodka, and The Pussycat Dolls. Are there realy degree courses in these subjects ?--General Tojo 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Models
I made today important changes here. My intention is to stress the fact that models that are presented as kind of anatomical summaries are in fact systemic elaborations. I took the permission to copy the figure and of one part of tha text that were in "connections". I believe that their place there would facilitate the understanding of the whole chapter. If the users that placed their contribution ask for no change I will follow. IF they accept the new plan I would appreciate their contribution for making the currently proposed model clear.--User: Gerard.percheron

Reversion
I have moved most of the new content into a new article, Anatomical subdivisions and connections of the basal ganglia, and reverted the rest of the article to this version from April 18th. It is great to get so much new content, but because many of the new editors on this are unfamiliar with how to format, outline, and cite Wikipedia articles, we have to get the main article back to a stable state before we can move forward. I ask the anonymous editors to read Why create an account?, and to anyone adding controversial material, I ask you to read Citing sources. --Arcadian 14:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

'''I am absolutely disgusted! Whole pages have been erased without any explanation based on the content. Important data have been suppressed. Some people prefer to have an empty chapter rather than a scientifically founded account. We are only few anatomists of the basal ganglia system and are not allowed to express our knowledge!---Gerard.percheron 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)gerard.percheron '''


 * Whoa there, nothing was erased it was just moved to here. The way you had written the page had made it basically unreadable. While the information is good, it was incredibly disorganized, written completely with disregard to the manual of style, unreferenced, and full of gramatical and spelling errors. If you want a good example of a neuroanatomy article on Wikipedia, look at cerebellum which was the work of many people's painstaking efforts to trim the information to the most essential bits, in a clear, organized manner. Nrets 13:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomculture of Constituents
Im a med student, and in lectures, the basal ganglia's constituents were grouped differently to the way they are grouped in the article. Is this article correct? I was told that the basal ganglia contained five constituents - the caudate nucleus, the lentiform nucleus (globus pallidus and putamen), the substantia nigra, the subthalamic nucleus and the thalamus. The caudate nucleus and the lentiform nucleus were grouped together under the name corpus striatum, the caudate nucleus and the putamen were grouped as the striatum and the striatum and nucleus accumbens were grouped as the neostriatum. Ged3000 16:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the proof that the usual descriptions are wrong. The thalamus is an output not a part of the BG. No one today considers the lentiform nucleus or the corpus striatum or neostriatum. Wake up! User:gerard.percheron

In the wikipedia arborescence you find: striatum (caudate nucleus, putamen) (comment they are one single thing), lentiform nucleus (putamen, globus pallidus) (comment they have nothing in common), claustrum (this has never been considered as belonging to the basal ganglia), extreme capsule (even not a neuronal ensemble), amygdala (this also is not and has never been considered as belonging to the basal ganglia), nucleus accumbens( which is only a part of the striatum). In the same time there is no mention of the substantia nigra!!!!!!!! or of the subthalamic nucleus!!. With such a base there will be no satisfactory description of the basal ganglia system. User:gerard.percheron


 * Gerard, I want to thank you for all of your enthusiasm and hard work on Basal ganglia and Thalamus. However, I do want to encourage you to read No original research and Verifiability, if you haven't already. --Arcadian 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you consider that works published in the 80s are original then I think that your  encyclopedia is simply a compendium of past believes. With Malcom Carpenter and John McKenzie we founded in 1983 the International Basal Ganglia Society of which I have been the President for a three years term. Every three years there is a book on the basal ganglia system. If the scientific community (or badly educated students or clinicians) does not follow us this is a pity. This is probably partly our fault. However others should accept simple data that make clearer and simplify the description of the system. Sincerely. User:Gerard.Percheron


 * Hi Gerard, "user" Arcadian refers to that wikipedia policy that - ideally - or according to the rules of "good encyclopedia sciences", the wikipedia should be a bit "boring" in that the info it contains, should be extracted from multiple articles that talk about / bring insights from research="original knowledge" together, enfin - that the knowledge is not under discussion anymore, that there is consensus. So, yes the wikipedia like any encyclopedia will always be behind on the original research insights. But for you there's an easy workaround I think because you can always state: this is not my personal interpretation or from my own fundamental research that nobody else has ever reproduced, no this is knowledge extracted from a compendium from the "International Basal Ganglia Society" - that is where are all the nerds on the topic meet, exchange and one of the things we take up in our publications are the conclusions on the new insights gathered from "original research" done by our members. Right? PS I could find all the publications and conferences of the International Basal Ganglia Society but you/it doesn't have a website itself? Thy and all your colleagues, researchers for your work. :), SvenAERTS (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please
I would be happy to recuperate my contribution which could be separated as "functional anatomy of the primate basal ganglia". would this be possible. With many thanks. --user:gerard.percheron


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if you're asking how to start a new page, there are instructions available at Help:Starting a new page. --Arcadian 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerard, It's all still here, it got moved to this page: Anatomical subdivisions and connections of the basal ganglia. Nrets 14:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerard, thy for all your input. Doesn't anybody in the society have a picture or can make one showing where the heck the hippocampus went? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

New pages on same topic
These two articles need to be wikified. From the history of the discussion, i understand that these enw pages were created in order to manage the new inputs from other wiki users. Being an encyclopaedia i suggest that these articles be merged back to the main article with appropriate wikification Kpmiyapuram (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) apparently, they both redirect to same page, but still i think one comprehensive article would be a good idea Kpmiyapuram (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anatomical subdivisions and connections of the basal ganglia
 * Primate basal ganglia system
 * I think Primate basal ganglia system should be kept. There is too much primate-specific information on the page to merge into a page which should cover amniotes and amphibians, sub-pages like this are more common for primates (see Evolution of color vision in primates and Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates) as there is a lot of research available. Jack (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the merge template for now as no consensus was reached. I think trying to merge that 71 kb behemoth would prove difficult and is unnecessary. Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is probably worth to have a discussion on content that could be merged. A lot of information would be unreachable as nobody would search specifically for primate basal ganglia system. As mentioned in the discussion page of that article, the more specialised articles should reflect on the differences or deviations from the main article. The main article could be Basal ganglia as the generic name suggests. Kpmiyapuram (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, could you please add to the articel the blood vessels (arteries and veins) of the basal ganglia? Thx a lot! 12.28.2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalap ur (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-assessing for WikiProject Neuroscience
I've raised the importance rating for this article to Top, and dropped the quality rating to C, although I actually think Start might be more appropriate. The importance of the basal ganglia in modern behavioral neuroscience is huge, and this article hardly begins to capture the reasons why it is so important. (It should really be Top importance for neurology as well, but I don't belong to that project so I'm not going to make changes for them.) Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image size
I think the image for this article is too small to be of much use to the average wikipedia visitor. Kouban (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the image at the top, the biggest problem is that it's a GIF image, and scaling of GIFs is badly broken right now. Things would be better if the image were replaced by a PNG, or even better SVG, version, or better yet, a different image that uses the available space better.  I don't think the enlarging the infobox would be a good solution. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * O hai guyz, I was wondering if, since we're talking about images, can someone post one with a little more detail on the connections and interactions between specific cortices and the striatum? I'm specifically looking for the bits about motor function.  Cheers in advance if you can find something.Tarkaan (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

BIPOLAR DISORDER
i believe there is evidence for structural changes of basal ganglia in bipolar but not mentioned here. can someone please confirm this and change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any literature mentioning that, but I might take a look around if I have time. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stroke - "Aphasia"
I had a stroke. Meaning, the vehicle drove into my car (driver-side, front.) My left-aorta (lap seat belt) is where the blood clot was. It took three month in order to get to my left brain.

Now, the surgeon brain saw my basal ganglia fill with blood.

I know enough to comment on Broca's Area, system motor, etc.

But, couldn't there be a question as to my basal ganglia over-riding my "aphasia"?

Thank you.

97.89.158.171 (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we can't deal with people's specific medical problems. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Epilepsy and PDD-NOS
This is a helpful article. But I know people with epilepsy and PDD-NOS very close to this region. Could they be here, as well? Thank you, Musketeer41 Musketeer41(talk)
 * Thanks for asking this. I think it may be difficult to find reliable sourcing to indicate that epilepsy and PDD-NOS are particularly associated with the basal ganglia, as they appear, instead, to involve a great variety of anatomical regions within the brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

what is the main concept of basal ganglia?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.120.249.7 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 19:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

axial images with labels
Would be appreciated if anyone can find them (even links to them). Thanks!--Xris0 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy-edited lead
In response to a drive-by tagging with a lead-too-long template, I have done a substantial copy-edit to simplify the lead, and then removed the tag. I also moved one of the two extra images into the infobox, and removed the other. If there is more that needs to be done, or if I did anything wrong, let's discuss it. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Images of the BG's structural connectvity
There used to be an image of the circuitry posited by the parallel pathways model (which is still up) side by side with an image so many of the anatomical connections that we now know exist and are in tension if not contraction with the pp model (i.e. Yelnik 2002). Does anyone know why the second image was removed? Can we please get it back up? I find it very useful when teaching my students about classic and modern models of the BG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.104.80 (talk • contribs)
 * I can't find any version in the history that includes any such image. It would be very helpful if you could remember a date when the image existed -- even approximately.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Basal ganglia. 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/20050130092911/http://www.anc.ed.ac.uk:80/~anaru/research/history/ to http://www.anc.ed.ac.uk/~anaru/research/history/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220445/http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/medpix.html?mode=image_finder&action=search&srchstr=basal%20ganglia&srch_type=all to http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix/medpix.html?mode=image_finder&action=search&srchstr=basal%20ganglia&srch_type=all

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) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Anatomy
The whole section on direct and indirect pathways is unsourced. Is anyone opposed to me rewriting it with citations? Not only is it not well cited but the tone is not encyclopedic, more like a high school textbook(eg "one has to first understand the important participants in this circuit") Petergstrom (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to update it, please update it with references that actually cover the ventral striatal inputs and projections that form an analogous loop as the dorsal striatal loop that is currently covered in this article. At the moment, the article only covers the motor (i.e., dorsal striatal) portion of the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic loop.  This ref and this ref cover the connectivity of both regions of the striatum in this loop, which is illustrated in this figure from the 1st ref (simplified diagram) and in these figures from the 2nd ref: more complete diagram + simplified version of previous image. Seppi 333  (Insert 2¢) 02:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed sentence
Removed the following sentence which is unnecessary/irrelevant imo:  'It is important to note, however, that the dorsal striatum and globus pallidus may be considered anatomically distinct from the substantia nigra, nucleus accumbens, and subthalamic nucleus.'--Iztwoz (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)