Talk:Parasol cell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

We are currently undergoing a major edit of this page. Please refrain from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stromdabomb (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

User:Kshow14 - the ref PMID 25800172 does not discuss parasol cells or any specific ganglion cells in the retina. The focus of the article is the LGN and beyond. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

In all, the information discussed is well incorporated and elaborated upon. There is one awkward sentence that ends with ", for example" in the primates and other model systems section that I think could be removed to improve syntax. Also, I would recommend that the first time you say "M pathway" that you write out Magnocellul Pathway" to reduce confusion of what M pathway means. Additionally, I would recommend hyperlinking dyslexia and schizophrenia at the end of your article to point readers in the direction of elaborated descriptions of these topics. Overall though, I think you guys did a really nice job compiling the necessary information for a great article on Parasol cells! Ehartmann01 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

More images could be added, maybe of the actual cell and not just a diagram. Explain the M pathway briefly or add a link to a page that does, especially since it is mentioned so much! Magnocellular cells can be linked as well. Touch upon Schizophrenia even if just to say there isn’t enough information about it. 9230isaact (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

For the lead paragraph, it is unclear what the M Pathway is. The lead paragraph is very informative about parasol cells in general and gives a good overview. It may help readers to have a brief statement on what midget cells are or what they do. The chart of the comparison is very useful, but when midget cells are first brought up a sentence or so would be beneficial. It is very interesting that the cells collect information from receptive fields of both rods and cones but only send achromatic information. Very well done and very thorough! Braun4135 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Braun4135

Secondary Review

Very informative and well written. The article seemed straightforward and reader friendly. A few suggestions for improvement would be to look over when you write "for example" which popped up a few times and didn't seem like it was necessary. Also, some may seem like they should be moved to a different part of the sentence. Another suggestion would be to spell out the abbreviations that you use once for each section. By this I mean that even though the abbreviation comes up in multiple sections, it would keep the reader from having to scroll throughout the article to remember what it stood for. If it is spelled out once within each section, the reader won't have to scroll in case they forget.pootsonewts (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Student- secondary review

Generally, this article is well written and includes thorough, direct information about parasol cells. There is good sentence transitioning and the sentences flow together well. However, I suggest you include a nice image of a parasol cell and it's anatomy right at the beginning. A good visual will help readers better or more easily comprehend the information and what parasol cells are. Also, when comparing to midget cells, the table is great, however, I feel it would be even better to include a sentence or two in the preceding paragraph directly pertaining to midget cells and what they are. Other than that, keep up the great work!→Batmed 095 (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Batmed095

Student Primary Review

Well written Overall the article was well written and interesting. An aspect of the article that could be improved is its citation placement. It was distracting to see a citation mid sentence,it tended to interrupt sentence flow. For example, "They have large bodies[4][6] that have extensive, overlapping branched dendrites,[3][7] and thick, heavily myelinated axons." I would suggest placing all citations after the period of a sentence.

The first paragraph offers interesting information regarding Parasol cells. Although there are hyperlinks added for words a reader may not be familiar with, it would be helpful to offer a quick and short description of what you are talking about. For example"...is one type of retinal ganglion cell located in the ganglion cell layer of the retina." Even though ganglion cell is hyperlinked, let your reader know what that is, it will help get your idea across, and the reader will not have not have to do extra work in order to understand what you are talking about.

"Achromatic"- in the Structure section should be hyperlinked.

Great job explaining how parasol cells actually have no function in detecting color, but are actually involved in other things relating to vision such motion and depth perception. The function section and the Research and Experimentation sections were overall well written.

Verifiable All sources seem to follow laytout style guidelines. I picked source 16, ""Efficiently Measuring Magnocellular and Parvocellular Function in Human Clinical Studies"" did discuss temporal information. Maybe more information regarding this source could be used in the Research and Experimentation in the discussion of light sensitivity.

Overall, all the other sources appear to be secondary sources.

Broad in its coverage Overall, the article seemed to be broad in coverage. "Parasol Ganglion Cells in the M Pathway" section can be added to the function section section. This does not need to be its own section.

Neutral Article was neutral, no apparent bias.

Illustrated Possibly add images of parasol cells, to help the reader get a visual representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LettuceEdit (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much for your feedback! We will be leaving the mid-sentence footnotes after the commas, because APA format rules dictate that when different sources are used for different clauses of a sentence, the sources should be indicated after the mid-sentence punctuation. We have also decided not to elaborate more on ganglion cells in the first sentence, because it "is" linked, and we feel that elaboration would be both clunky and unnecessary in that sentence. It is also assumed that somebody researching parasol ganglion cells would likely be familiar with ganglion cells already, as it is a fairly specific topic. We similarly did not link 'achromatic', as the only page for it on wikipedia is a disambiguation, and it is once again a fairly well-known word whose meaning can be derived from context.

We have decided to follow your feedback in making the m vs p table a subsection, although we added it to structure rather than function. Finally, although we searched for many hours, we could not find an adequate picture of parasol cells that falls under fair use. We did, however, add a drawing that we made.

Hope these changes have adequately addressed your concerns! ScientificStarchild (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary review

This is pretty well written, good job. My only suggestions are to work on some of the details and add some more images. Two places where details should be added are your sections on the pathway involved and the differences between parasol and midget cells. Both are interesting topics and you all should keep those sections, but some more information would greatly help the reader. For the section about the pathway, I think a simple diagram of the M pathway or link to another wikipedia page would be useful, if you can find it. Maybe give a brief explanation of the M pathway as opposed to other pathways, since it seems important but isn't something most people would be able to place in the overall visual system. Same thing for the section comparing parasol cells and midget cells. The table is really useful as a quick summary, but doesn't tell us why we would compare the two cell types in the first place. A short section explaining why someone would compare them, ie they convey a different sort of information or synapse somewhere different, would put your well made table in context. If you can find some images for these topics, adding them might be enough. I reviewed the paper: Tracking blue cone signals in the primate brain, it supports what you said in the article and seems correctly cited to me. Nathanneuro (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much for your review! We have taken your feedback under consideration and have made changes as follows:

• We were unable to find an adequate picture of parasol cells in wikimedia commons. However, we did include a hand-drawn image found at the top of our page.
• In regards to your comment on the details of the pathway, there is nothing additional that we can include in this page. At the top of our article, we link to the magnocellular cell page, on which you can find limited information on the Magnocellular pathway, other information is linked in the visual system. In addition to these, there is no official magnocellular pathway article on Wikipedia.
• We moved our table comparing parasol and midget cells to the Structure section of our article in the hopes of alleviating some confusion. In addition, we added a sentence for clarification above the table to explain why we would compare the two types of cells.

We hope that these revisions help clarify any confusion from our page and greatly appreciate all of your feedback! Kshow14 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

Good job on your article. There are a couple things I noticed when reading through that your group should consider. 1) Consider adding more images, especially in the lead-in section, as this is where the reader first looks. An image encapsulating the structure/pathway of parasol cells would allow the reader to have a mental image when reading the rest of your entry. Another section this would apply in would be the research and experimentation area, as illustrating the techniques used could be helpful to the reader. 2) I would consider placing your table discussing the differences between parasol cells and midget cells up in the structure section rather than creating its own section. There is already some discussion of the differences between the two cells in the structure section, so the table might be more efficient there. 3) You should consider linking some more of your scientific terms in your article to other pages on Wikipedia, such as "binocular depth perception" and the disorders you list in your last section, just for the reader's clarification. 4) I verified your "Callaway EM (July 2005). "Structure and function of parallel pathways in the primate early visual system". The Journal of Physiology. 566 (Pt 1): 13–9. " source, as you draw from that paper a good deal. Consider adding footnotes more often than just at the end of paragraphs, as one might believe not all your claims are verified. Besides these points, overall good work. --BioEd53 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your feedback! The following changes have been made.

• Hand drawn photos of parasol cells were added to both the intro and structure sections.
• The m vs. p cell table was moved to the structure section as this is where a lot of the cell types differences occur.
• "Binocular depth perception" is now linked to the depth perception page. The two disorders were already linked in their section.
• Some additional footnotes were added within the paragraphs. In those where we use the same source for most of the info, we just used one footnote at the end to not be as redundant.

MWStudent (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review

This article was overall well written. I noticed a few things that could be improved. Some of the sentences in the initial summary paragraph were hard to understand, and didn't flow as smoothly as the rest of your article. Take a look at them and see if you could rephrase some sentences while still keeping all of your information. Secondly, In your structure section you talk a lot about Parasol and midget cell differences, but you have an entire section devoted to it. You could combine the two sections, or take the midget cell information and references out of the structure section. Also, I believe it would be beneficial to have a picture in the research and experiment section of a Golgi stained parasol cell. I reviewed the "Lee BB (March 1996) 'Receptive field structure in the primate retina' Vision Research 36 (5): 631-44." source. It was a secondary source, and the information you added seemed to be correctly cited, and used within the article. [[User:Brookeheim]] ([[User talk: Brookeheim:) 17:45, 18 April 2017 UTC

Reply

Thank you for your feedback! We have made the following changes to our article according to your suggestions:

• We reworded some of the introduction to hopefully make it flow better.
• We combined the midget vs parasol section with our section on structure.
• We were not able to find an adequate picture of a Golgi stained parasol cell in WikiMedia Commons, so we added a sketch of a parasol and a Golgi stained neuron for visual clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stromdabomb (talk • contribs) 04:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review

Nice wiki page. I thought it was a fairly simple read with nice linked words to better understand the structures and techniques used in identifying Parasol cells. The comparison table of Parasol vs Midget cells was helpful in clarifying the main differences. Just a suggestion maybe moving that section higher because some people may only want to see the main differences between parasol and midget cells...? Also maybe too, briefly explain under associated disorder schizophrenia, since dyslexia was explained. Other than that I thought the wiki page looked good. Yoyotime (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Overstated Connection to dorsal/ventral streams

This article connects midget and parasol cells of the primate directly to the dorsal/ventral stream distinction in cortex. For example in the table:

Function in visual system "Where" objects are; "How" to grasp the objects "What" objects are according to fine detail

This connection is wrong or at very least there is no evidence showing it. There are no studies investigating where the information from retinal ganglion cells goes once it reaches V1 (where both M and P pathways from LGN go.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C2:A3C3:B500:5D12:7913:CC63:CA81 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MWStudent, Kshow14, Stromdabomb, ScientificStarchild.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)