Talk:Caudate nucleus

Untitled
Is this accurate info in need of wikification, or spurious nonsense? I'm afraid I know so little about cells and nuclei that I can't tell the difference. Will someone who knows science let me know? I'm happy to wikify and add stub boilerplate to a legitimate article. Jwrosenzweig 21:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The locus of trust?
Something interesting/intriguing for an enterprising Wikipedian to ponder and incorporate into the article:  deeceevoice 10:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding to WikiProject Neuroscience
The caudate nucleus and putamen have very similar structure; in fact they are really parts of the same entity, the striatum. There is topography is the organization of this structure, so some functions are more localized to the caudate part, others more to the putamen part. Even so, the sensible thing to do is to put all the important stuff into the striatum article, and make this and putamen short articles that mainly explain why striatum is the place to look. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Middlebury College Undergraduate NSCI Project
Hi Wikipedia community, we are a group of two Middlebury College undergraduates working on a project for an Intro to Neuroscience course. We will be making many modifications over the next few months. Rowettb and Ephlegar (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

First Update
We're uploading a portion of what we consider a draft of our work. We'll continue editing and adding over the following two weeks. We welcome comments! Rowettb (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Second Update
By 5 pm Eastern we'll have an updated version of our work online. We will continue responding to feedback and comments over the next couple weeks, but expect that the bulk of our contributions to be complete. In this vein, please do comment! Rowettb (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Ephlegar (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of this looks good. The most important thing missing is a proper explanation of the relationship between the caudate, putamen, and striatum.  Essentially the dorsal striatum is a single functional entity, but the fact that a large white matter tract (the internal capsule) passes through the middle of it gives it the appearance of being divided into two parts, called the caudate and putamen.  In many species, such as rodents, the internal capsule does not divide the striatum in this way, and no separate caudate and putamen are recognized.  (The terms are sometimes used anyway to indicate parts with similar functions to the primate caudate and putamen.)  The functional differences between caudate and striatum don't result from structural or physiological differences, only from a topographical dispersion of function such as occurs in the cerebral cortex. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the comment, we do appreciate the feedback. We've made changes to the "Anatomy" section that hopefully reflect this advice. Thanks again!Rowettb (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Ephlegar (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 1
You did an amazing job on this page. You managed to cover so many different aspects of how this one small part of the brain is integral to so many essential parts of life. I only really have a few very small comments to make. In the introduction you talk about "cortico-striatal loops." For those individuals who don't study neuroscience it could be useful to just say in a sentence or two what these loops are and what they do. Similarly, in the Neurochemistry section you mention the SNc and VTA. It could be useful to just say briefly what those areas are generally associated with/what they do. The last thing I would say is just make sure that you only include essential information. For instance, a few of the trials and researches projects mentioned are very interesting, but weren't all that well integrated. These are all only suggestions as you did a great job with this topic! Riahnend (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. We made some changes to the section in the introduction about loops to hopefully make it more accessible. Additionally, we augmented the "Neurochemistry" section in response to your concern, briefly adding information about the location of the VTA and SNc and their basic functions. Appreciate the help. Rowettb (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2
This article was very impressive. It presented a large amount of information in a way that was easy for the reader to understand and that was supported with multiple sources and examples of studies. The article progressed naturally from the anatomy of the caudate nucleus to its motor functions to its cognitive functions to the relevant disorders. The sub-categories under each of these larger sections made the article very thorough. One of the only negative comments I have is that some sections could use some fleshing out. Most of the information presented in this article is complete with an example to illustrate the facts to the reader. The few sections without these examples or references to specific studies seem incomplete in comparison. The images used at the end of the article provided an excellent illustration of the caudate nucleus for the reader. However, I wished that they were somehow scattered throughout the article instead of presented in a large group at the end. This would have made the information they were illustrating much more relevant to the rest of the article. Overall, you guys did fantastic job with this article. It was very difficult to think of criticism. Good job! Dtomasi11 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help here. We added information to various sections in response to others' criticisms, and hopefully the sections you may be referring to are "beefed" up a little bit. We put in a couple more sources-worth of information--the "sleep" subsection now contains more information relevant to human subjects instead of just including the study with feline caudate nuclei. Additionally, the images were uploaded by others in the Wiki community (and we would prefer not to delete others' work!). Rowettb (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 3
This is a pretty well-written article: easy to read and well-organized. However, I do think that some sections could use more information and development, for example the Neurochemistry section. Under this section, it might be helpful to mention studies on the influence of drugs on the caudate nucleus and the dopaminergic system. Other sections seem a little bit underdeveloped in information, but if there is not much else to add, then it's understandable. Under the subsection "Memory" of Cognitive Functions, it would be helpful to link dorsal-prefrontal cortex subcortical loop if there is a link. Aside from these concerns, I think you guys did a great job writing this article.--Aly.neuro (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! We put a little more time into the Neurochemistry section as per your concern- the VTA and the SNc are now described a bit more in-depth in relation to dopamine production and the caudate nucleus. Couldn't find a link for the dorsal-prefrontal subcortical loop, as it does not have its own wiki-page. Rowettb (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 4
You linked to many other Wikipedia pages, which was very helpful. The Neurochemistry section was small, so you could potentially elaborate there. I liked all of the images that you included; having visuals to accompany some of the more complicated descriptions is very helpful. The article is written very clearly and reads very fluently. Part of the introduction area was a little difficult to read towards the end when you mentioned the three loops. They aren't really mentioned later, so I would suggest taking that part out of the intro and adding a later section that describes them, or just including a paragraph within another section. I really liked the Relevant Disorders section and thought it was very thorough. Overall, the article is very well written and in depth. --Hannahgrotz (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the your thoughts! We added to that Neurochemistry section, and hopefully made the "loop" part a little more clear. Rowettb (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 5
This is a clear, straightforward article. The use of multiple subheadings makes it very easy to read and navigate through the page. It would be possible for you to add more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages from relevant terms used in the descriptions. Additionally, in the references section I see that there are multiple parts where you cite the same source many times. I believe there's a way to cite the same source without just repeating it so that it keeps getting listed as a separate source in the reference list. While you have a great foundation in each of the sections you chose to write about, it may be possible to add a little more information. There is a nice balance between general summaries and concrete evidence from studies which supports your information. Overall I enjoyed the presentation of the page, including the multiple images as well as the clarity of your writing. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauliwhitney (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these comments. We added a few links to other pages (yet decided we didn't want an overwhelming amount either...). We also think it best to have the full citation instead of using the "ibid" notation such that readers can easily go straight to the source (even without being directed to the bottom of the page. Thanks! Rowettb (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment 6
First off, lots of excellent pictures of the anatomical structure from different views which are useful for determining the peculiar 3D shape of the caudate nucleus. Considering the introductory paragraph will be the most read in the article, I would consider adding more intra-wiki links for readers to relate subjects (also very easy to add them). I really like the organizational structure of the article but did you perhaps mean “Related Disorders” instead of “Relevant Disorders”? You have a plethora of images but I don’t think all of them are as helpful as others, consider removing some from the image bank at the bottom of the article. Though you do an excellent job of siting material, when writing about new research into possible auxiliary functions perhaps you can mention the author(s) of the research by name so the reader can better reference the source. Think about changing the formatting of the paragraphs following the two images to be more visually interesting e.g. bulleting, tables, lists, more figure or images. Overall, lots of detailed, well-cited information. Nklammer (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! We added a few links, but again, tried not to have too many repeated links so as not to overwhelm the reader. And yes, both "related disorders" and "relevant disorders" work, but you're right, the former makes more sense. We'd remove some images too, but would rather not disrupt previous editors'/authors' work on the page (the images were present before our additions to the page). Thanks! Rowettb (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ephlegar (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caudate nucleus. 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/20130930042749/http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/virtualbrain/BrainStem/20Substantia.html to http://www.neuroanatomy.wisc.edu/virtualbrain/BrainStem/20Substantia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207132123/http://www.prometheus.uni-tuebingen.de/sec/vl/documents/42/bgana_normal.gif to http://www.prometheus.uni-tuebingen.de/sec/vl/documents/42/bgana_normal.gif

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) 10:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)