Talk:Corpus callosum/Archive 1

Gender stuff
again to reiterate. the article is messy and needs cleaning up. gender something (what??) seems to be the main function of the corpus callosum if the article is anything to go by. Why so much focus on gender studies and gender relevance in this article. suggest that much of the reference to gender studies of the corpus callosum be moved to an article on "gender studies on the corpus callosum" assuming it even fits within the exceptionally controversial wikipedia notability guidelines. otherwise include it in a sub heading and be done with it. the differences may be no more relevant than the differences between musicians and non musicians, meaning that it may well be related to behaviour and neuroplacticity and not anything essentialist regarding the nature of gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.5.214 (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is too much of this gender difference stuff, and not enough about function, etc... --Saulbey 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the entire last section on "studies on the corpus callosum" has been taken from a textbook or other online source. It might be wise to replace it. --Canuck-Errant 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

what about Dreisen & Raz (1995) ?

I was hoping to see some more details about the corpus callosum role in cognition. For examples, is there a latency in communication between the hemispheres? Additional evidence in breakdown in communication if damaged (beyond a full severing)? Jeffhoy 21:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Saulbey there needs to be more on function though I don't think the gender its should be left out though they do drown out other info you shouldn't think "Corpus Callosum gender difference" You should think "Corpus Callosum *Functions of Corpus Callosum*" But mainly what I'm saying is is that it needs a little update or two. Psychonautic (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the gender stuff: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199609/palm-reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.55.177 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section on sexual dimorphism is more opinion than verifiable information. The lack of sources is a critical component to this piece. I would also say that it could use a little more elaboration.Icecreamcooper (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Multitasking
Is it generally known to be a trait more commonly found in females? It would be nice to see that verifyed by an external source. Whatcanuexpect 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No this was fallaciously inserted into the article by a feminist. Men are known (and studies show) to be better multitaskers. The thinner corpus collosum is sometimes offered as a partial explanation. Isolation in the hemispheres leads to being more focused. Communication between the hemispheres causes a lot of interference and makes multitasking difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.19.57 (talk) 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is probably no conclusive evidence either way. The explaination above is most likely garbage and is certainly conjecture. Such group difference, when they are reported are invariable too small to be of real consequence - and are swamped by the individual variability between groups. 'A difference is a difference only if it makes a difference'. Fergus

cleanup
I haven't even read, and this is first time I'm adding a cleanup tag, knowing that I should be doing the cleanup myself instead. I just don't have the willing, knowledge or even time to do it at this moment, although I am spending some time to find out how to properly use the tag. So, maybe I'll just go on the "articles needing attention" or "cleanup listing" and check off one from the list to keep my on ratio 1:1. Oh, anyway, what I meant is that definitely someone should pay attention to the obvious section needing cleanup, about the physiology. --Caue (T | C) 13:24, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section as an obvious copyvio. - ∅  ( ∅ ), 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "A psychological experiment was done by Sperry using epileptic participants that have a split brain and this proved that the two hemispheres are completly separate in these subjects i they only see things on one side of their vision field." because it was badly worded and seemed incomplete- can someone with more knowledge work this back in if it is relevant? the infamous rmx (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rostrum
The rostrum is not the most anterior part. If the corpus callosum were to be unfurled then that would be the case - but it's not. I'm making the relevant correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson61345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)