Talk:Neural processing for individual categories of objects

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Hmm, this looks like a nice start toward an article, but I'm not keen on the title. Not sure what would be best; maybe something like "Object categorization by neurons"? Lots of possibilities... Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the "… by neurons" idea very good. How about "Domain-specific neural processing"? Morton Shumway—talk 13:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Brain systems of object recognition" to be least intimidating to novice users? The article can be about object recognition in the brain, and what it says about that topic can be that there are different areas for recognising different classes of objects. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: we already have Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognition. This page risks being a content fork for that. The only reason for keeping them separate is if the subject matter of this article is not purely "visual". I'm not convinced that's the case. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. Morton Shumway—talk 13:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]