Talk:Bereitschaftspotential

WP: NOR

The "Outcomes" section is in huge violation of WP:NOR, it seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.248.113 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Libet?

I got here via Benjamin Libet. I wonder if this should link to his work as a "see also". It seems strange for this page to discuss the intense interest in BP regarding free will, and not mention Libet's experiments. --Jorend 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this important suggestion, we have included this.

Smith Predictor

This sounds alot like the smith predictor in a control network, actually I red somewhere that there actually is a similar mechanism in the brain, anybody have some reference? 41.241.131.30 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This note is very important and underlines the multidisciplinarity of the Bereitschaftspotential. We as Neurologists would encourage interaction with system sciences, networks, epistemiology and others.

Comment: This is correct, however, it would be better to make an extra Wikipedia page 'Contingent negative variation (CNV)'. The CNV was discovered by W. Grey Walter (who is already in Wikipedia!) and link the two important potentials. 129.228.163 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recurring dreams (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CNV section has been edited and a CNV page has been created and linked to the BP page and Dr. Walter's page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cry Rebel Spaceman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites for Bayes Net studies?

"EEGs and EMGs are used in combination with Bayesian inference to construct Bayesian networks which attempt to predict general patterns of Motor Intent Neuron Action Potentials firing. Researchers attempting to develop non-intrusive brain-machine interfaces are interested in this, as are system analysis, operations research, and epistemology (e.g. the Smith predictor has been suggested in the discussion)."

A citation or two on this would be great.

--131.252.214.20 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free will

The citation requests for this section go back to 2008. I propose to delete the uncited material. It looks like undergraduate notes, without the benefit of looking up the evidence. The use of the words 'consciousness obviously is switched on' is suspiciously unscientific. Myrvin (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As no one has contested this suggestion, I've gone ahead and deleted it. Dependent Variable (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently no mention of Schurger's 2012 paper

There is currently no mention or reference made to Schurger's important 2012 paper, An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement anywhere in the article. There needs to be, particularly in the sub-section 'BP and free will'. See also this popular treatment for its significance. Oska (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scientific reception of Schurger's paper? We do not report original research. --Saidmann (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“

When Schurger first proposed the neural-noise explanation, in 2012, the paper didn’t get much outside attention, but it did create a buzz in neuroscience. Schurger received awards for overturning a long-standing idea. “It showed the Bereitschaftspotential may not be what we thought it was. That maybe it’s in some sense artifactual, related to how we analyze our data,” says Uri Maoz, a computational neuroscientist at Chapman University.

”

Quote from The Atlantic article I linked above. More detail in the article on the paper's reception and significance. Oska (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic article is not a scientific source and it does not reference one, either. A PubMed search revealed only one review that is dealing with the subject: PMID 30618939. This review is not a reliable source, because it appeared in a journal of predatory publishing. The review discussed the Schurger suggestion at length but explicitly rated it as a suggestion:

"In contrast, recent studies propose that the pre-movement activity represented by the RP reflects ongoing changes in underlying brain oscillations that merely alter the probability that a voluntary movement will occur (Schurger et al., 2012; Jo et al., 2013; Schmidt et al., 2016)."

By the way, the readiness potential is not the first discovery of this kind of activity. The first discovery was the contingent negative variation. Interestingly, Schurger did not deal with this earlier discovery. Well, it is not compatible with his model. In summary, it seems much too early to add the Schurger model to this article. --Saidmann (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]