Talk:Grandmother cell

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Move

alot of the content on this page should probably be moved or copied to sparseness. Grandmother cells are an extreme example of sparseness. The issue of Nature in which Quiroga article that largely supports the idea of grandmother cells, was first published contains a second article summarizing the impact of the study and suggests that grandmother cells is a "parody" or a reference to a common joke in neuroscience, while sparseness is a more technical term. This term is probably more suitable for much of the content on this page. Steveywonderboy (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Alternative Explanations of the "Grandmother" Cell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

unacceptable POV split DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This merger proposal appears to be extant since April 2014. I am unsure how to interpret the Apr 2014 comment from DCG as either support or not. Given the lack of other input, I am closing the discussion and removing the merge tags from both pages. In accordance with WP:MERGE, any user could restart a discussion to merge the pages, or if the current situation is interpreted as no comment, then a user could WP:BOLDly merge the pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grandmother cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829143727/http://www.as.wvu.edu/daly/439/readings/Gross%202002%20Grandmother%20Cell.pdf to http://www.as.wvu.edu/daly/439/readings/Gross%202002%20Grandmother%20Cell.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]