Talk:Wilder Penfield

Untitled
This article fails to mention the infamous burnt toast PSA. Also, watching an episode of the animated television show Home Movies, a character "dying" screams out something about burnt toast. I wonder if there are other mentions of him in popular culture.
 * Haha! I've never heard of this before. Here's the PSA. S  e  miconscious  •  talk  04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A Wilder Penfield brain map can be found at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. I think the chart would make an excellent addition to this article. SkewsMe.com

Why no mention of the Penfield homunculus? N^O^el 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of his novel No Other Gods and his autobiography No man alone : a neurosurgeon's life  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.41.90.141 (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The human soul
I think this topic deserves its own section here, as this is something Penfield was interested in. Of course, this reaches outside the scope of neurosurgery. In particular, I beleive the statement made in this article that the idea that a being makes exact recordings of its experiences though these are not available to conscious recall is a "common misconception" is inappropriate in this context. The topic of the human soul quickly takes us outside the world of conventional science, and in that world it might just as easily be claimed that the idea that the human soul does not exist or cannot be measured is a "common misconception" of science! I hope all see my point. There are quite large bodies of data on the nature of the human "soul" or "spirit", its abilities and its relationship to the mind. They lie outside the boundaries of science, but partly because science has chosen its own boundaries. Though much of this work would not meet the standards of science, and perhaps is not intended to, there is a considerable body of work in this area which could be taken seriously if science chose to do so. Though I am mostly familiar with the work of L. Ron Hubbard, which is widely available and easy to get one's hands on, that does not mean it is the only "serious" work done in this area. That its findings might be a bit surprising should, it seems to me, be seen a par for the course. But within this broader body of work, the data regarding human memory (mentioned above) is quite clear: Not only is "photographic memory" a factual ability that some people have, it can, at least to a degree, be rehabilitated in anyone. This would include the ability to recall through any of the normal human senses, and might include perceptions considered unusual in humans. Even for those who cannot reconcile such findings with their own knowledge or training, the literature on these subjects is fascinating reading (or listening - as some of it exists only in lecture form). And to the extent that this subject might include basic truths about life, it could point a way through some of the current paradoxes of science into new technologies that, in the right hands, would be very useful to society. L e cox (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here wanting to learn about Penfields explorations on this topic and was disappointed to see it missing. Hard to say if this is because of the anti religious mob filters that run WP. 24.171.185.110 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project that includes as many Christian zealots as it does anti-religious editors. Please feel free to add a section on Penfield's investigations of the soul - but do keep the tone neutral, rather than favouring religion.Newzild (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would love to see a little more on this topic, but I have no idea what documentation exists. The footnote supporting it is to a PBS page which doesn't go into any more detail (nor provide additional grounding) than the one sentence in the intro paragraph here. I'm more than half inclined (but not going to do it) to remove the one sentence from the intro just because it's not so much information as a teaser. --Haruo (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Interpretive Cortex
One way this article can be improved is adding information regarding Penfields discoveries and research with the homunculus. In there the map of the brain generated by Penfield could be incorporated.

Another topic that should be talked about is hallucinations. Penfield did a lot of work with this topic and i think i should have some focus in the article.

HRThomas15 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Improvement Suggestions
One item that the Talk section of Wikipedia mentioned the article needed is Penfield's homunculus. Our group could add that section to the article and add an image(s) to go along with the information provided. Also adding information about the interpretive cortex into the Neural Stimulation section will help the article.

Alaynakrantz (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on Interpretive Cortex
I think that the homunculus is very interesting. There is also a page on this topic linked to this article. I think that yes, we should include a picture in the Wilder Penfield article. I think that including a topic about hallucinations in the neural stimulation section would be a great addition as recommended. I also think that we could include the topics: deja vu, flashbacks, illusions, and synesthesia.Cristina4459 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To Do List
1. Add information to the article regarding Penfield's Homunculus. With this, we should add an image or images to that section.

2. Major sections under the interpretive cortex - some sections we could add under the interpretive cortex would include hallucinations, illusions, deja vu, flashbacks, synesthesia, and any other major sections that belong under the interpretive cortex section. Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the Homunculus is a great addition to the article. Also, with the interpretive cortex adding the hallucinations, illusions, deja vu, etc. will help add content and depth to the research Penfield did in the field of psychology. That will help highlight his importance to the field. HRThomas15 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article also mentions certain techniques developed by Penfield. We should see if he developed enough techniques to add a new section or paragraph. Cristina4459 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to re-write the section on deja-vu, as this is terrible at the moment. It reads like a high school essay on deja vu in general, rather than explaining Penfield's contributions.Newzild (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Outline
Wilder Penfield - intro

Biography

Neural Stimulation (**New) - Penfield's Homunculu - Interpretive Cortex - Major sections (hallucinations, illusions, deja vu, flashbacks, synesthesia, etc.)

Legacy

In Popular Culture Notes

References

Selected Books & Publications External Links

Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The only change i would make is does it seem to make more sense to talk about the Homunculus before the interpretive cortex? Otherwise, this looks to be a great outline. HRThomas15 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I will change the outline accordingly. Alaynakrantz (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What about the text that is already under Neural stimulation? Should we blend our new research with the previous information? Maybe move some to our new subsections, leave some about the subsections, and add a transition leading to the subsections? I think that might blend the entire section better. Cristina4459 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

New References
"The Role of the Temporal Cortex in Certain Psychical Phenomena"

HRThomas15 (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Penfield, W. (1959). The interpretive cortex. Science, 129(3365), 1719-1725.

Schott, G. D. (1993). Penfield's homunculus: a note on cerebral cartography. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 56(4), 329.

Shephard, D. A. (1977). The vision of Wilder Penfield. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 116(12), 1335.

Alaynakrantz (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Divided Tasks
Unless we can think of any other major sections to go under our interpretive cortex information, it looks like we have about 6 new items that we are thinking about adding to the article. I was thinking about splitting up those topics and have two for each of us. I could work on the information for Penfield's homunculus, and whichever other topic is left after Cristina and Haley pick their topics. I'll put in information that I find in my research, and possibly any image or images that are relevant. Alaynakrantz (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I can take the part about Hallucinations and illusions. I am not picky If someone feels strongly about wanting to do one of these topics they can sure research them. I think that these two topics fit together nicely when researching a few articles I have found talk about both in them so I just felt it was easier to do both of those together that way. I plan on research exactly what Penfield's contributions were to these topics and how he went about finding them. I was also going to add any relevant information needed to explain these two phenomena further HRThomas15 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I will take research flashbacks and synesthesia if that is okay. So..

Alayna: homunculus & deja vu

Haley: hallucinations & illusions

Cristina: flashbacks & synesthesia Sound good? Otherwise I am definitely open to other options too. Cristina4459 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Alaynakrantz (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice start!
Nice job, group. There already quite a bit of content in this article, but there are still lots of ways you can improve it. Time to start reading the articles you've found so you can add to the article. However, the better you organize your work at the early stages, the easier it will be to add on later. Remember the rules - encyclopedic style, no original research WP:NOR, etc.
 * Regarding the homunculus - this is an iconic image for Penfield's work. Good idea to address it. However, there is already an article on Cortical homunculus. You mainly just need to link to it. J.R. Council (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note - because you formatted your references as a reference list, they will always pop to the bottom of this page.J.R. Council (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

hallucinations & Illusions
Penfield's findings go past somatosensory and motor cortices. Penfield's work also consisted of charting the functions of the parietal and temporal lobes. When electrodes were placed in those ares Penfield found that it would elicit patients dreams, smells, visual and auditory hallucinations, and even out of body experiences.  HRThomas15 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Penfield found that stimulation of the temporal lobe caused a combination of hallucinations, dreams, and memories. He found that these three phenomena could not be separated therefore they all rely on the same neural mechanisms in the temporal lobe.  HRThomas15 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

During procedures of his 520 patients, 40 of which reported having hallucinations when the area of the temporal lobe was stimulated. Many of which were reported as reoccurrence of previous memorized events.  HRThomas15 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Penfield found that hallucination events were dependent of the location of the stimulus on the sensory cortex. These hallucinations only lasted as long as the stimulus was presented on the cortex.  HRThomas15 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In some cases when patience experienced hallucinatory experienced that evoked certain smells, sensations of seeing a flash of light, stroking the back of their hand, and many others. While other stimulations had patience experiencing deja vu, fear, loneliness, and strangeness  HRThomas15 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In Penfield's studies certain ares of patients' temporal lobes were stimulated with an electrode in order to stimulate records of the past to be recalled. Penfield called these perceptual illusions (physical hallucinations) interpretive responses. According to Penfield one the lobe was stimulated there were two types of perceptions experienced by patients: 1. Experential experience- where the patient recording hearing a song, or seeing a flash of light. 2. Strip experience- The recall seems familiar to patient and comes from the patients past. Even though the patient may not be able to pinpoint the exact occasion, but could resigns the emotion tied to the experience. Penfield stressed that the "things that have been recorded are the things in which once came within the spot-light of attention." HRThomas15 (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Penfield had over 25 years of research using electrical stimulation to produce experiential hallucinations. His conclusions show that participants experiences a range of hallucinations from simple to complex.  HRThomas15 (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Penfield considered the sensory cerebral cortex the area of the brain in charge of perceiving and storing sensory input signals. When this area is stimulated with an electrical probe this causes the vivid hallucinations of memories stored in this area of the brain.  HRThomas15 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Illusions tend to occur in the sensory cortex like hallucination, but unlike hallucinations lack contextual information from the environment.  HRThomas15 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Most illusions are caused by a false perception that comes from a real sensory stimulus. Visual Illusions- Auditory Illusions- Affective Illusions-Cause the most distress HRThomas15 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cortical Homunculus and Deja Vu
One of Penfield's contributions to psychology was the Cortical Homunculus which explained how different portions of the brain control specific parts of the body by sensory or motor cortex stimulation .Alaynakrantz (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two types of the cortical homunculus - the motor cortex and the somatosensory cortex. They both are very similar in that they are ordered in an inverted style from the toes to the mouth, and they are both controlled by regions of the cortex that overlap slightly. The motor cortex mainly focuses on movement precision, and the somatosensory cortex mainly focuses on stimulation sensitivity .Alaynakrantz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Penfield experimented on patients that suffered from epilepsy, and would stimulate different regions of their brain to figure out what parts of the brain control differnt body function and feelings. From these results he developed his cortical homunculus map, which is how the brain sees the body from an inside perspective .Alaynakrantz (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the major topics of the interpretive cortex is the concept of déjà vu, or the sensation that an experience an individual is presently experiencing has previously been experienced .Alaynakrantz (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Déjà vu is typically experienced by individuals between the ages of 15 to 25, and only affects approximately 60-70% of individuals. Déjà vu is thought to be a mismatch of the sensory input individuals receive and the system in which the brain recalls memory. Another thought on the cause déjà vu is that there is a malfunction in the brain's short- and long-term memory systems where memories become stored in incorrect systems .Alaynakrantz (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways one can recognize familiar experiences - by mentally retrieving memories of a previous experience, or by having a feeling that an experience has occurred when it actually has not. Déjà vu is having that feeling of familiarity in a situation that is completely new. Memory is good at being familiar with objects, however it does not do well with the configuration or organization of objects. Déjà vu is an extreme reaction to the mind telling an individual that they are having a familiar experience .Alaynakrantz (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Déjà vu is thought to be a consistent phenomenon. However, it has been associated with multiple psychiatric disorders such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, and anxiety, but there has not been a clear, frequent diagnostic correlation between déjà vu and psychiatric disorders, except with patients that have a possibility of being epileptic .Alaynakrantz (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Temporal lobe epilepsy affects the hippocampus, and patients that suffer from this medical diagnosis are said to have a misfiring of the brain's neurons. The neurons transmit at random which results in the false sense of experiencing a familiar situation that had previously been experienced .Alaynakrantz (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Different types of déjà vu are difficult to pin point because researchers who have studied déjà vu have developed their own categories and differentiations. On a broad perspective of research that is available, déjà vu can be divided into two categories - associative déjà vu and biological déjà vu. Associative déjà vu is typically experienced by normal, healthy individuals who experience things with the senses that can be associated to other experiences or past events. Biological déjà vu occurs in individuals who suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy. Their experience of déjà vu occurs usually just before they experience a seizure .Alaynakrantz (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent research is looking at the new occurrence of what is being termed chronic déjà vu. Chronic déjà vu is when an individual is experiencing a constant state of déjà vu. Failure of the temporal lobe is thought to be the cause of this phenomenon because the circuits that connect to memories get stuck in an active state, and create memories that never happened .Alaynakrantz (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for Assignment 9
General comment: You have not made any additions to the main article, but have continued to list ideas/information on the Talk page. That is okay, but for Assignment 9, you need to start adding to the article according to your additions to the talk page. I agree with your assessment of what needs to be done – so time to get started!
 * See the brochure, Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology, 2nd page, Organizing your article/An article on a psychologist.

After reading the main article, here are my comments on the sections: 1. Intro 2. Biography 3. Neural stimulation
 * You could add a few sentences related to the contributions you will be adding in.
 * This seems very complete. No need for additional detail.
 * I think you should start a new main section titled “Scientific contributions”, with neural stim as a subsection. Then add in additional sections for information you’ve reviewed on the Talk page.
 * Remember that there is already a Wikipedia article on the cortical homunculus that you can link this article to.

J.R. Council (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

SafeAssign feedback
When I ran the article information through SafeAssign on Blackboard, it came back that none of the information we contributed as a group was plagarized and added to the article. The information was found to be consistent with what we put on Wikipedia but did not match up with other sources besides that. If we do need to change anything, we sure can.Alaynakrantz (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I got the same results as Alayna. I feel what we have is a good addition to the article if need be we could add more content. HRThomas15 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Deja vu section
Hi,

Just reading now and thought the deja vu section to be a bit random: there's one sentence at the start mentioning that Penfield was interested in it, and then the rest of the paragraph is just a description of what deja vu is - with nothing about Penfield's work or theories on the subject. It is also poorly written (sorry)(very jerky, little awkward sentences throughout). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.95.213 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree - I came to the talk page to make this very point. Someone needs to re-write the section completely. It reads like a high school essay on deja vu in general, rather than explaining Penfield's contributions.Newzild (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The reference cited makes no mention of "contemplation of whether there was any scientific basis for the existence of the human ear."PurpleChez (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Place of Birth between Biography: Early life and Bio card
I was reading through this article in light of today's Google Doodle celebrating Mr. Penfield's birthday, and I noticed that the Place of Birth is Spokane, WA in the "Biography: Early life and education" section, but it's listed as Potlatch, ID in the Bio card on the right-hand side. After looking these up, it's a little unclear as to why; they're both cities near the WA-ID border, but they're approximately 70 miles away from one another, and there are several municipalities dividing them. Is one the current-day municipality, and the other just a closest-major-city inscription from a birth certificate or from self-styling (ie. being born in Cheektowaga or Niagara Falls but having Buffalo listed as city of birth)? Is there a recommended way to resolve this discrepancy? It just seems unprofessional. — 65.31.128.180 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection
I sense protection is needed based off the vandalism, the last 2 Google images for the people were protected. 47.208.17.115 (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2018
There were multiple spelling errors Bogaric (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Meters (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nationality
If Penfield's "nationality" should be included in the infobox at all, it should be cleared up first what exactly it was. If this can't be done definitively, then it should be left out of the infobox.

Here's a source that touches on it. there is the quote:


 * ... it was not until this moment that Wilder could say without regret, "I am no longer an American."

But the source does not make it clear whether this is a literal quote of Penfield's or whether it's the author assuming Penfield's voice (an as if situation). Wikipedia doesn't get to choose a favoured or "likely" interpretation—it requires verification. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)