Talk:Nonsynaptic plasticity

Untitled

This page is being worked on for a neuroscience Wikipedia improvement project for the class BI481 at Boston College. The group members for this project are Katina Pangakis, Elaine Martin, Cameron King, and Lucas Shin. Any input or suggestions to our additions would be greatly appreciated.

Non-peer review

Hey guys, great job so far--it looks like you are almost done. My only suggestion at this point would be to look at how you organize the information. It's great that you used the outlining feature of wikipedia to organize, but I think it gets a little excessive when you get to 1.1.3.3.1 (short term and long term effects). Try to format your article so that the sections are divided when it is necessary, but so that you avoid excessive divisions. Instead, just add more text that explains what you would have divided into a separate section. Does this make sense? Let me know.
Good luck! 136.167.123.243 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• We removed the subheading status of short term and long term effects and made it part of the larger subheading, "high frequency stimulation." We also used this advice to condense the subheadings under "classical conditioning". Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article does a nice job mentioning related concepts and offering a thorough explanation of them so that any reader can have a greater sense of understanding the content. Is it possible to link some of the concepts you mention in the introduction to their respective Wikipedia pages (if they exist)? If so, it may be a little easier to follow for readers that are not well-versed in neuroscience.

I noticed that many articles and experiments are referenced by saying that “article/experiment X showed that…” Perhaps it these sentences could be rephrased in a way that makes a statement about the findings with just a simple citation at the end of the sentence. It sounds somewhat awkward to say that an experiment “showed” certain results. Maybe you could rephrase these sentences to say something like “the findings of X demonstrate the concept of Y”?

I noticed one potential formatting error as well. In the nonsynaptic versus synaptic plasticity section, there are two spaces following the first paragraph, while all of the others under that heading are separated by only one space. Could be intentional, just wanted to give you a heads up!

Great article; very thorough and easy to follow! Campanelli514 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. We linked some of the neuroscience terms to their respective Wikipedia pages as you suggested. We also took your suggestion and changed our references to demonstrate concepts, rather than to show them. Lastly, thanks for informing us about the formatting error. It has since been fixed! LukestarrrR (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for your feedback. We fixed the spacing in the nonsynaptic vs. synaptic plasticity section. Martaak (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, looks great so far just thought of a few things that might help. After reading through one thing I noticed was the "current and future research section." It might be helpful to throw in the associated resources that informed you about the current research just so those who are curious can see which of your sources are associated with the specific research. Also, perhaps a little more explanation in regards to the current/future research to show the potential benefits (although I do like the idea of the bullet points as it makes it more concise). Finally, one wiki user informed us that only the first words of each heading need to be capitalized so you might want to use lower case accordingly (just view any other wiki article and you'll see) Mtportman (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, I just de-capitalized all the headings. Still working on the other suggestions. Cameron —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC).
• We added a citation to the current and future research section. The ideas were all obtained from the same source. Thank you for your suggestions! Katina —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC).
• Since the body of the article contents detailed information, we chose to keep the current and future research section concise to get the main ideas across to readers. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-peer Review

Nice start. I would suggest that the first thing after the lead ought to be a description of the types of non-synaptic plasticity that have been discovered or hypothesized. At the moment it looks like the only type you describe is a change in global excitability. If that's the only type known you should probably say so explicitly, otherwise you should describe the other types. Looie496 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. We switched the location of that section. However, we are still actively researching the various types of nonsynaptic plasticity, so new information is going to be added as we come across it. Cameron —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Another type of plasticity that you might consider is alterations in gene expression produced by neural activity -- there is quite a bit of evidence for such things. Looie496 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• After researching the topic, we were unable to find a lot of relevant information specific to nonsynaptic plasticity and its effects on alternations in gene expression. As a result, we have decided to include this topic in the current and future research section. We did find one research article that was published in May 2011, but its results are still under scientific peer review. We will link to it so others can read about this topic. Thanks for you continual support and help! LukestarrrR (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Nice work so far guys, you have a lot of good writing here explaining what nonsynaptic plasticity is. However, I have a few suggestions that I believe would make it better. If you included more internal links to other pages on the Wikipedia website it would give the reader better access to things they do not understand fully. Also, if you included a couple more pictures then the reader could get a better grasp of the mechanisms involved. Another thing I noticed is that in your introduction paragraph you have synaptic plasticity capitalized when it shouldn’t be. Other than that, it was a good article and I thought it flowed nicely.Solomojk (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Solomojk

• Thanks a lot, I'm working on adding more links, trying to find pictures that are available for wikipedia use, and I changed the capitalization error. Good Eye! Camtreez (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • More links and images have been added to the article. Thanks! Kpangakis (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Nice start guys! I like the structure of the content--by breaking it up into headings and sub-headings it makes it much easier to understand and follow. The article is also long and very thorough.

I also had few observations. First, in the title of the article it says "Non-synaptic plasticity"; however in the body of the article, "Nonsynaptic plasticity" is used. Which one is correct? Either way, it should probably be consistent. Also, I observed a few sentence structure and stylistic points throughout. For example, in the first paragraph, you might want to change the wording of "mechanisms of neurons at the neuronal level." It seems repetitive and necessary. "Short term" should be hyphenated to "short-term." Moreover, the phrase “Nonsynaptic plasticity can emerge in during learning...” in the "learning" section under "Higher brain function involved with nonsynaptic plasticity" should read “Nonsynaptic plasticity can emerge during learning...” Also, the first three references need to be revised and formatted correctly to include PMID's and Doi's. In general, if you wanted to expand a few sections, you could use a few additional sources. I would also take the time to go through and hyperlink as many words as you can, not only in your article but also others that may use your term. That way, users will be able to find additional information from your page, and they will be able to get to your page as well. Finally, you may want to include a brief second paragraph in the opening describing the difference between synaptic plasticity and nonsynaptic plasticity since people may be more familiar with synaptic plasticity. Maybe you could just summarize the section "Nonsynaptic vs synaptic plasticity?" Hope this helps! JaFlick (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• We've changed the article title to reflect the most common spelling in most of the research literature, so it is now consistent as nonsynaptic plasticity. Your other suggestions have also been implemented as well, e.g., all "short term" have been hyphenated, additional sources used, etc. We are currently considering the reorganization of this page, but if this change is not implemented, we will also consider your suggestion of summarizing the nonsynaptic vs synaptic plasticity section in the introduction. Thanks for the comment! LukestarrrR (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We have further expanded our article to include new sections and references, and hyperlinked keywords throughout our article. We have also linked nonsynapatic plasticity to other pages. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• We moved the location of Nonsynaptic vs. synaptic plasticity to be right under the introduction since, as you suggested, people may be more familiar with synaptic plasticity. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Very thorough article! It's structured very well and easy to follow. I really liked that you guys included experimental information. Also it's well-written with very few, if any, spelling or grammatical errors (although I think there are a couple inconsistencies in hyphenation as the person above me pointed out).

I have a few small suggestions. The article uses a lot of neuroscience vocabulary which could be linked to other internal wikipedia articles, it would help clarify the meaning of certain words and concepts (especially in the introduction), since someone not familiar with synaptic plasticity might have a hard time understanding what's going on. Also there seems to be large chunks of information without any citations. I would also suggest moving the "synaptic vs. nonsynaptic plasticity" section to right after the introduction, since it seems to cover a lot of basic information that the other sections build on. Lastly, maybe you could add some information on the biological mechanisms underlying the types of nonsynaptic plasticity, although that isn't necessary since you guys cover a lot of information, but if you are looking to add more. Hope this helps! patelbq (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions! We are discussing moving the "synaptic vs. nonsynaptic plasticity" section to the beginning of the article. We also added a lot more links and citations within the article, so hopefully that clears up some of the technical information. martaak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC).
• We moved the "Nonsynaptic vs. synaptic plasticity" section to the beginning of the article. Martaak (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article gives great insight on the topic, thoroughly getting into necessary details. I do see some capitalization errors; for example you capitalized "Synaptic plasticity" in the introductory paragraph, and I am pretty sure it should be lowered. On "Current and future research", you guys give bullet points on basic ideas but perhaps adding a little more explanation for each point would help the readers understand more easily. Moreover, if you could link some of the terms mentioned in your writing, it would help those who are not familiar with them. By linking the terms, the readers can be directed to corresponding pages. Lastly, for "Nonsynaptic vs synaptic plasticity", you guys talk briefly about both synaptic plasticity, nonsynaptic plasticity, and then back synaptic and nonsynaptic with more detail. I personally think it'd be better if you put all the information on synaptic together, and then all the information on nonsynaptic after, instead of jumping back and forth on those two. You should also decide whether you want to use "non-synaptic" or "nonsynaptic" and keep one for the entire page. Parkcr (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. We did fix the erroneous capitalization and we also expanded the "Current and future research" section. I also changed around the nonsynaptic vs. synaptic plasticity section a lot-- now you will see that there are still two general introductory paragraphs but then also a breakdown of specific linkages between the two. Lastly, we got our request to have the page title changed, so now everything should be referred to as "nonsynaptic" plasticity. Martaak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC).
• Since the body of our article contains detailed information, we chose to keep the "current and future research" section concise to easily get the main point across to readers. Kpangakis (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great article guys, I really thought the length was appropriate in size. I know other people have commented to the same effect, but the lack of inner-links kind of jumped out at me, I would recommend you guys add links for the more "neuro-intense" words like 'cerebral giant cells', 'EPSP', 'IPSP', etc. As for pictures, I think a great one to add would be some sort of visual for the "Spike Generation" section, that way people can get a better sense of what you're describing. I'm definitely a fan of the "Current Research" section, I thought that it was a great way to close the article. Is there any chance you guys could find links to articles or centers that are currently performing research on the topics you suggested? I think that would be a great way for readers to gain more information on the topic. All in all though, great job on the article! Heyjorge102 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comments! We've added a lot of inner-links, so hopefully these additions will suffice the average user. As for the pictures, we've been unable to find an appropriate picture, but will do so if we can find one. In its stead, we've added other pictures that will hopefully help make the page more user-friendly. Unfortunately though, we have no way of know who might currently be performing research on such topics. Most researchers do not publish their research until after it is completed, so until they do so, we have no way of knowing if anyone is doing research on these suggested topics. LukestarrrR (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Non-synaptic plasticity → Nonsynaptic plasticity – While expanding this article my group members and I noticed that most of the research literature we have found has referred to this topic as 'nonsynaptic plasticity' without a hyphen. We have been expanding this stub article for our neuroscience class and I want the title to reflect the most common spelling of the topic . Camtreez (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy rename, seems completely noncontroversial. Be bold and do it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the approval, it feels good to be bold.Camtreez (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peer Review 10

Overall the article was really well done. I just have a few points that I believe can be improved:

1. I like that there is a picture right off the bat, but the caption is a little confusing, if you could just clarify it a little I think it would be more valuable to the article.

2. I like that you have a future research section, but can you update it with whether any of those are currently being researched or if they are just suggestions for future research.

3. Explain what the I of the ions are in the spike generation section, or maybe link to the page explaining it.

4. I would like to see Nonsynaptic vs synaptic plasticity its own 2 subsections because it has a nice overview paragraph, then the differences between them in the two paragraphs below.

5. Make the content headings a little shorter so they don't stretch the page. I believe they are just supposed to be general terms and then in the actual article you can get more specific (if you believe the words in the headings are not 100% correct).

6. I see that high frequency effects there are, but are there none for low frequency? I think it'd be interesting to discuss those (if there are any).

I hope these help, good luck editing. Let me know if you have any questions for me!

--Liepa (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. We will look into changing the picture caption to better relate to the article and making the content headings more concise. I just divided the Nonsynaptic vs. synaptic plasticity section into smaller sections as well. We will look into the low frequency effects and let you know if we find any evidence on that.

--martaak (talk)

• In reference to your suggestion about the "current and future research" section, we are unable to comment on whether or not the topics are currently being investigated as researchers usually only publish their results after completing their work. In the spike generation section, we have defined "I" as current to clear up confusion. The content headings have been shortened. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Low frequency stimulation research has been added. Camtreez (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 11

First of all, great job thus far. You have clearly demonstrated that you have researched the topic thoroughly and scientifically understand the principles behind it all. It's a great contribution to Wikipedia. A few points of suggestions (some of these have been mentioned above, but even with edits made, I think there is still room for improvement). There are several dense paragraphs of neuroscience terminology. As someone that struggles a bit in the understanding of plasticity, I'm constantly looking terms and ideas up. It would be helpful to 1) have more links within the paragraphs and 2) fully spell words out, rather than constantly using abbreviations and acronyms. Additionally, for the discussion of membrane potentials and electrical activity, you mind find it beneficial to include some graphs to tie your explanations together (such as in the section "Regulation of Synaptic Plasticity"). Finally, the formatting of the article varies from top to bottom. In terms of consistency, it would help to use the same bullet or sub-heading setup in each section. The contents of the article at one point has 3 or 4 sub-headings within one heading. It can get confusing understanding what one is reading in relation to the whole article. As I said, these are just some suggestions. Fantastic job thus far! Fahertch (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• We've linked a lot of the terms to help users conveniently find information on topics they might not understand. A few of the terms however had no relavent pages to link, so we've left them as is. As for the abbreviations and acronyms, we've reduced their usage, and always made sure to mention them with the fully spelt words. We're also currently addressing the organization of the page, and will hopefully have a conveniently simple format soon. LukestarrrR (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We have edited the format of the article to be consistent throughout. Kpangakis (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• An image of action potential progagation has been added to the "Regulation of Synaptic Plasticity" section. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 12

This is indeed a very well written and informative article. It was organized quite well by breaking down the types of Nonsynaptic plasticity and then corroborating the information with experimental evidence. One thing that could greatly bolster this page however would be great emphasis on biological mechanisms for how each type of plasticity of occurs. Furthermore, if diagrams were included in this mechanical explantation, it would give a greater visual representation to the reader and thus make it easier to understand. Otherwise, excellent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisCS13 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. We have looking into finding more visual representations and evidence associated with nonsynaptic plasticity, but unfortunately there do not seem to be many on WikiCommons, as research on nonsynaptic plasticity is fairly new and is not yet widely publicized. However, we will continue to look for images to support our article and will update you if we find anything! martaak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC).
  • We have added an image under the "Regulation of synaptic plasticity" section to give more mechanical explanation. Thank you! Kpangakis (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Nonsynaptic and synaptic changes-interaction between pre-, post-synaptic neuron.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nonsynaptic and synaptic changes-interaction between pre-, post-synaptic neuron.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)