Talk:Neuronal noise

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.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2012. Further details are available here.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The statement that "On the postsynaptic membrane, neural noise has been evident in the early stages of processing sight, smell, and hearing" does not provide a citation. It is uncorroborated, and cannot be corroborated unless there is indication of how, on the neuronal level, one defines noise versus signal. Until this is done, no associated "theory," which simply employs a hypothetical and unanalyzed "noise" term, is testable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitchygoomy (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does something like "Some suggestions indicate that these pacemaker cells might" in the WP:LEAD? That's three qualifications in one sentence. We should state facts. That's what readers care about. Biosthmors (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So is "Mazzoni and colleagues indicate that these pacemaker cells are responsible for our biological clock" accurate, or does it now overstate the source? Biosthmors (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - this is the first line from the abstract of Mazzoni's paper: "Circadian pacemaker neurons contain a molecular clock that oscillates with a period of approximately 24 hr, controlling circadian rhythms of behavior." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaychandora (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, then it sounds like a fact that doesn't need to be attributed to Mazzoni then, as in it's an accepted fact? Attributing it to a person suggests it is a majority or minority opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something isn't well understood, then how can we describe a theory as great? Biosthmors (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a scientific definition for the word "behavior" that is not going to be understood by a layperson? Same thing with sub-threshold. The beginning of the article should be easier to understand than the rest of the article. Biosthmors (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder... is any neuronal noise an byproduct of the background noise of the equipment that measures it? Is that noise negligible? Was it always negligible? Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that s a good one, but i can find an data or research about the topic! let me know if u stumble by anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaychandora (talk • contribs) 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]