Talk:Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep

Non-peer review

Hey guys, really great job. You were able to include a ton of information without being repetitive or wordy. The article is detailed and clear and obviously well-researched. The only comment I have at this point is that you rely heavily on a small number of sources, which is fine, but with a little more research you may be able to add to what you already have. Good luck! Stempera (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Stempera. We will definitely take your advice and spend the remaining time left for our project (as well as after it is due, we have no intentions of abandoning editing/following this article!) to work to use more sources to add to our article and make the concepts explained more substantiated/justified. I believe that Polvinod found some more information and applied it recently and we will continue looking to further improve our article. We will also continue to look for more updates about new species found to exhibit USWS (if new research is published/found). Thanks again. Mtportman (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nature Magazine

I was unable to find the nature magazine article abstract referred to and linked in the article, so I removed it. I will probably try to find it again at a later date. DLPanther 18:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New Revisions

This page was edited for our Introduction to Neuroscience class at Boston College under the direction of our professor Professor Burdo by Polvinod, Colehawk92, and Mtportman on 1 November 2011. Please leave us advice and recommendations! —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

"The common swift (apus apus) was the best candidate for research as to whether birds exhibiting USWS can potentially sleep in flight as it directly observed during their flight habits at night." is not a sentence - needs fixing. --Hordaland (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also this sentence needs fixing: "The "group edge effect" describes how birds that are at the edge of the flock are more alert and are scanning for predators for often." --Hordaland (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is, IMO, poorly worded and possibly redundant: "Keeping one eye open aids birds to engage in USWS while mid-flight as well as to observe predators in their vicinity." --Hordaland (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Should this say 'captivity'? "However, the sleep patterns in this study were observed during migratory restlessness in capacity which might not be equal to that of free-flying birds." --Hordaland (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work! Just one more comment here: just the first word in headers is to be capitalized. Please decapitalize as needed, thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I fixed some of the revisions and will have my group members double check them to ensure they are adequate! If you (or anyone else) find anymore we'll fix them promptly. --Mtportman 14:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to figure out how to get a mention on DYK (did you know) on the main page. You've increased the bulk of this article sufficiently for that, I believe. There's a short time limit -- 5 days, IIRC. See WP:DYK --Hordaland (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wish we would have been nominated in time but we didn't want to do it ourselves or ask other friends to (as a part of a project asking someone to nominate you or getting a friend to or doing it yourself is not allowed since extra credit is given to "Good Articles.") But hopefully, as we keep working on this article and incorporating the advice of others, someone will! Thanks again for all your help. Mtportman (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys: I already sent this to Mark, but I didn't realize we were supposed to post our comments on the actual article talk page rather than individual users. Therefore, I have copy and pasted my comments below. Awesome article!

Hey Mark- My name is Alexandra and I am in your neuroscience class with Dr. Burdo. I read over your article and thought it was really interesting and well written. I thought of a few things that perhaps you guys could expand upon to make your article better. Please don't think I'm being critical, I'm just simply completing my "peer review" part of the assignment. These are just suggestions, like I said-I think the article is great! First: When you list the specific species that demonstrate this quality, perhaps it would be beneficial if you discussed how this was discovered in the first place, and what the experimental technique/guidelines were for determining which animals exhibited this quality. If the procedure is similar for all of the species, maybe you could just tell about it once. Otherwise, incorporating individual studies and the unique techniques would add more scientific depth to your article. Next, while reading your article I was asking myself "where did this come from, how did it develop?" In other words, is there any evolutionary evidence for this concept? It might be cool if you did a "history" section noting when it was first discovered, how it has progressed, etc. I know the resources are scarce, so this information might not even be available. Finally, just a last minute touch-I think it would really help your article if you guys could add a picture of two of the difference between a "regular" brain (or EEG) versus one that exhibits the USWS. Once again, maybe this can be found by incorporating a specific study and using an image from that (granted you have the rights to). But, overall, I thought this was one of the better articles that I've read. Sorry for being picky, but obviously that's what we have to do to complete the assignment. Please feel free to comment on our article, Rostral Migratory stream. We welcome your comments. Good job! Thank you! Alexandra Pretkennedy (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)pretkennedy

Thanks for the advice Alexandra, we agree that the images would be awesome and did look for them however we couldn't find any on wikipedia commons (let alone google or in our sources which we cannot use); but like I said we agree that if that were possible it would be great and will continue to look. Also, I like your idea about mentioning something about the method used to elucidate which species exhibit USWS and will try and include a concise description directly under the heading "Species exhibiting USWS." Like you said, the sources are scarce, and there isn't too much historical information but we'll look into that as well and judge whether or not the addition of the few bits of information we could find would be useful (a lot of it might be based on inferences from articles and not directly related to historical aspects of the discovery of USWS and therefore might not be entirely appropriate, but we'll see!)

Thanks again. Mtportman (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great article guys! You were very thorough with your research, and very clear with the way you presented it – job well done!

I only have a few little comments about your article. The first is just a technicality; you use acronyms like BSWS and SWS in your Pinnipeds section before you actually defined what these stand for. This is an easy thing to overlook when putting together a group project, so no worries. Just pointing it out so you guys can tweak it!

My only other suggestion is to change around the order of your article. Naturally this is a question of personal preference, so whatever you decide is perfectly fine. I think the article would flow better if you put the Physiology and Anatomical Variations sections directly after the introduction. I like your list of animals that exhibit USWS, but I found myself skipping over it to learn more about the phenomenon itself first, and then coming back to the list later. The list of species is very interesting; I just think it could be more effective if placed further down the page.

That’s all guys – again, great article!

KMaher123 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help KMaher123. We fixed the first error of using undefined acronyms early by also taking advantage of your second recommendation to restructure/reorganize. Thanks again Mtportman (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

USWS is an intriguing concept, which I found very interesting to read about. Overall the article was well written and answered all the important questions. I do, however, have a few suggestions on how to possibly improve/expand the article. I'd be really interested to know how studies were conducted on animals to determine whether they exhibited USWS, especially in animals such as whales. I'd also recommend the article answers the purpose of these studies. What do researchers hope to use this knowledge for. I can't imagine researchers will continue getting money to test whale brains if there isn't some use from all of it. Besides these two points I feel the article covers an interesting, unknown topic that people outside of neuroscience will find fascinating. Hope my comments are useful. On a side note I think this would be awesome for humans to develop. Wesmather (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and input Wesmather. I too found this topic really interesting. We didn't want to dive too much into the details behind research methods as doing so would be pretty much explaining what an EEG and various techniques used to measure anatomical variations (most of which I believe have been hyperlinked for those who are further interested). Also, I too agree that future research is limited as the these studies do not seem incredibly lucrative but like other animal studies I'm sure they will continue to occur (though there have not been many other studies than those we cited let alone ones about practical applications). Mtportman (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article was probably the most interesting article that I have read. Overall it was a concept I knew nothing about and now I feel like I have a good idea about what it is and what species are capable of doing this type of sleep. That being said here are my few suggestions of how to potentially improve this article. First, I do like the picture of the seal, but I think that even more pictures would benefit this article. I believe that maybe a picture of the bird or some other species would be great. Also if it is available (which I am not sure if it would be) a picture of the brain showing the active as well as the not active parts would be interesting and helpful. I would also suggest adding a few more hyperlinks to other wiki pages if possible. Just by reading a few other articles not made by us, I noticed they typically have more links in their larger paragraphs. As i have read in other comments I would also be interested in more studies about this and how they conduct them. With that being said, as I said to begin, this is probably the most interesting article that I have read and I think it is done VERY well. Good job guys! Brian Sleasman (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Brian. We agreed that the page needed some more pictures so we added a picture of a bird and a dolphin. Unfortunately there are no images of brains showing different regions of activity available on Wikimedia Commons. Instead, I found an image of an EEG read-out for the slow-wave sleep that we discuss in detail within the article. I will continue to search for brain images that would add to the page. Also, we will be going through our article adding more hyperlinks to other wikipedia pages. Finally, we will add some brief information on how some of the studies were performed in order to discuss the studies without overshadowing the results. Once again, thanks! Polvinod (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall I think you guys did a really great job and you picked a really interesting topic! You chose really good subtopics to cover and you presented them in a very organized and clear fashion. I just have a few suggestions that I hope you consider that I think could make your article that much better. First off I agree with the previous review that putting in a few more images would really bump up the quality of the article. In addition, I think if you added a few more links to other articles that would really be helpful for other readers who may not know what a certain term or outside topic is. Related to this I think you should add links to for certain topics earlier on in the article. For example you mention BSWS under the northern seal section but did not tell what "BSWS" is until the Regulations based on surroundings section. It could be helpful to maybe introduce BSWS very briefly at the beginning of the article, and maybe explain how/why it is different than USWS. You also mention EEG early on the article but do not have an attached linked until the Physiology section. Other than those content changes I only noticed a few things in terms of grammar and punctuation that you might want to consider.

"USWS offers species exhibiting a number of benefits, including the ability to rest in areas of high predation or during long migratory flights." This statement is a bit awkward. I would reword the beginning: Species that exhibit USWS enjoy a number of benefits...

"In addition, pinnipeds that exhibit USWS do so at a higher rate while sleeping in water than on land" Here I would simply add "rather" between water and than.

"During flight, birds maintain visual vigilance while sleeping using USWS by keeping one eye open." I would reword this to "maintain visual vigilance by utilizing USWS and by keeping one eye open."

Other than these changes I think that article was very well written and very interesting. It was easy to read and I learned something knew from reading it. Awesome job! Peter Clarner (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Peter. We really appreciate the help you gave us and we looked into all of your suggestions. We ended up adding in more pictures to our article which, like you stated, really made our article more appealing. We have been adding more links to other wikipedia pages as well along making the changes you suggested. We took all of your suggestions into account and made the changes that we thought were necessary to improve our article. In addition, we did change the grammar in the noted sentences that you noticed were worded awkwardly. Again, thanks for all of your help. (Colehawk92 (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

This is a well written and interesting article. To start, the general outline of the article is encompassing and covers what a reader needs to know about UWSW. However, I do feel like briefly explaining what Slow-wave sleep and Sleep are may be beneficial to the overall flow and comprehension of the article. I found myself reading those articles so I could have a better understanding of what slow-wave means and what the definition of sleep actually is animals. For example, BSWS was introduced briefly in the middle of the article, but it is not contrasted with USWS. The introduction provides a concise explanation of what USWS is, but is stylistically redundant in parts (eg. "Unique physiology, including differential release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine has been linked to the phenomenon. USWS offers species exhibiting a number of benefits, including the ability to rest in areas of high predation or during long migratory flights."). Like others have stated, minor stylistic changes and increased hyperlinking are needed to make this an even better article. Thanks for the stimulating read. --Lorenzes (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for your input. We took your suggestion and outlined briefly in the Physiology section the different sleep stages. Hopefully it helps our readers understand easier without having to flip to other pages. We also have added a number of additional hyperlinks to the body of our article. As well, we have proofread and done a few minor edits style-wise. Once again, thanks! Polvinod (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

I though this was a thorough article. You touched on a wide range of topics spanning from species to physiology and I felt this really made the message more clear. THe intro paragraph is very well worded and really starts off the article quite nicely. I really liked how you linked to all the animals that exhibit this behavior, it seemed professional. One thing I would suggest is that you should add more pictures. Maybe of the different species or for the Anatomical variations. I would suggest expanding what happens to crustaceans with USWS. You do a good job listing species there, but it would be nice to have more information go along with it. Overall a great start to the project and I look forward to seeing the end product. -deroberm (talk) 011:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions deroberm. We did add more pictures to the article like you and many others suggested which did make it look much more presentable and professional. If by crustaceans, you mean cetaceans, we are looking more into USWS involving dolphins and other marine mammals in order to find more information and to expand our article. For our list of species we added more information where we can, but most of the descriptions of USWS utilized by the stated species of animals are mentioned in other sections throughout the article. We really do appreciate your help and all of your suggestions. Thanks again! (Colehawk92 (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

I think you guys have done a great job with this topic- you picked good subtopics to discuss that and it was really east to follow along along. This may be a personal preference but i think you might consider including the physiology and anatomy sections before the benefits section. I think that it would be easier for the wiki reader to connect the biology with the behavioral effects. Also this would allow you to go more in depth into the physiology and anatomy in the benefits section. Something I think you could expand on: "Surfacing for air while sleeping in marine animals". I know a bit about bottlenose dolphins, namely that they use sonar. If there is any information on it, you could discuss how USWS effects sonar. I think it will make your article feel more balanced since you spend a good amount of the article talking about birds. One quick thing I noticed: you mention EEG the beginning of the article but you don't link to it until the physiology section. I would suggest linking in the intro instead. -Songforsunshine5 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Songforsunshine5. We created a link for EEG in the beginning of the article and changed the layout order of the article as well which did help increase the flow of our information. We also expanded a little bit in the "Surfacing for air while sleep in marine animals" and added a section about pod cohesion of Pacific white-sided dolphins. We may add more information on marine mammals, especially cetaceans, as we continue additional research. Thanks again for your help and advice! (Colehawk92 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC))

Peer Review

This topic is really interesting! The article was quite easy to follow. I agree with previous suggestions to place the "Physiology" and "Anatomical variations" sections before the Benefits. It is more beneficial to the reader to have a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the concept before diving further into the topic.

Throughout the article, there are several grammatical errors, including missing commas in sentences such as "Unique physiology, including differential release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine has been linked to the phenomenon". There should be a comma after acetylcholine. Just make sure to go back through and do a little extra proofreading!

There is also some disorganization within the article. Acronyms are used before the concept is laid out (such as EEG in the introduction). Also, there is not enough relevant linking to other Wikipedia articles. Some things that are linked later on in the article should be linked earlier on (again, EEG for example). Also, the list of cetacean species says that USWS has been found in four species, but goes on to list five species. Just a quick fix!

The information presented throughout the article is very interesting and comprehensive. In particular, the sections detailing research on particular species added a lot to the overall understanding of the topic. With a few fixes, the clarity and flow of the article will be slightly improved...good job overall! Kelseyfish1189 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Kelseyfish1189. We decided to go along with the numerous suggestions, including yours and restructured our article accordingly. Doing so took care of a few of the defining of acronyms. We also took care of the other minor edits you mentioned. Once again, thanks for your help! Polvinod (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi guys! Looks like you got a really interesting article. I really enjoyed reading it and I hope you benefit from my feedback. By the way, I am an English major, so I have a few copyedits for you as well. First off, in your introduction, as well as throughout your article, you fail to close a lot of your clauses. For example, in this sentence there should be a comma after acetylcholine: “Unique physiology, including differential release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine has been linked to the phenomenon”. Also, as well as needs to be dropped from this sentence in favor of and: “The phenomenon has been observed in a number of terrestrial, aquatic as well as avian species”. As for your main body, the sections are out of order. You discuss species exhibiting the sleep without really describing what it is first. Similarly, how can the reader understand the benefits of the sleep if he/she doesn’t know what it is first? Consequently, I believe you need to move the Physiology section up to be the first in the main body. Also, in the Species section under Cetaceans, you write there are four species, and yet you list five. Furthermore, when you move to pinnipeds in that same section, you compare pinnipeds to cetaceans, which is unnecessary. Instead, you should just directly write: Pinnpeds are capable of sleeping on land or water. If you create these internal comparisons, you would be required to compare all the other species to each other to maintain consistency. Instead, you should just treat each subsection as its own bit, without referring back to any previous ones. Next, in the Benefits section, the subsection headings are different sizes, which I think needs to be corrected because they are all of the same importance. Also, these titles could be worked on. For example, “Surfacing for air while sleeping in marine mammals” is far too wordy to be a title. Next, I really think you could work to expand the Physiology section, particularly the role of acetylcholine. Also, on the same note, why is acetylcholine not mentioned prior in this article? As a prominent neurotransmitter featured in this type of sleep, I would think it would at least be featured in the Introduction section. Overall, I think the article could benefit from a section on applications of this type of sleep. For example, is there any research related to humans? Does it have any clinical significance? Anyways, I think you are off to a great start. Good luck with the rest of your project! Fowlerta (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Fowlerta. We took your advice with the minor grammatical edits. We also restructured the article to give the introduction to how USWS works and then we go on to discuss the benefits and species that exhibit it. You also raised a good point regarding the pinnipeds section, which we made sure to change. We worked to expand the physiology section and mentioned acetylcholine in the introduction. As far as clinical significance/human cases go, there is little to no research done on humans exhibiting USWS. It appears as it is something that has been adapted by specific species in unique living conditions. If there are humans that exhibit the sleep behavior, they have not yet been located. Once again, thanks for all of your input, it was a great help! Polvinod (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article was very informative; I never realized that these species had such capabilities. There are just a few changes that should be made to the introduction paragraph. First, I suggest that you should link EEG to its Wikipedia article and also reference what EEG is short for. The last two sentences should also be reworded because it’s a little difficult to understand the points your trying to make. Neurotransmitter and acetylcholine should also be linked to their corresponding Wikipedia articles.

In the species section under cetaceans, four should be changed to five since five species are listed. Under northern fur seal, when BSWS is referenced it seems out of place because its never referred to in the article before. You should explain what BSWS is in comparison to USWS. You say that only one species of manatees exhibit USWS, I suggest you cut out the reference to the other two species of manatee since they have no connection to USWS. The final section on birds is a bit wordy and should be rewritten, so that the average person can understand it.

I feel like the Physiology section should placed before the benefits section. It would make the article more cohesive to explain how USWS works and then states its benefits. Kiki522 (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Kiki522. We took your advice and restructured the order of the sections which also took care of the early acronym reference. We also added in the links you recommended and fixed the reference to other, out of scope, species of manatees. Thanks for your input! Mtportman (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys, I really enjoyed reading your article. I thought it was very interesting, easy to understand, and eye-opening since I had never really heard about this phenomenon before reading your article. First of all, I would suggest reorganizing the article by making Physiology and Anatomical variations the first sections because this would give some initial insight into how USWS works, which would then help the reader to better understand and appreciate the species examples and benefits. I think it is more cohesive if you have some background knowledge before providing specific examples. Also, while reading I was curious about what methods scientists used to research USWS and what exactly they were looking for. I hope these suggestions help. Keep up the good work! Tlicolli (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! We decided to go ahead with your suggestion of switching the order of our topics in order to give more background before mentioning specific examples and benefits. Also, many of the studies were simply studying the phenomenon of USWS when conducting studies, so it would be redundant to include that in the article. We will, however, add some brief discussion of study methods. Once again, thanks for your suggestions. Polvinod (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey guys out of the several articles I have read, I think I like your topic the most. Probably because it was one of the few topics I have previously heard of. I think you make the article have a little more material by adding some pictures of the animals you mention, if you could find any of them undergoing USWS would be even better. The "Ability to rest during long flights" seems a bit shorter than the others and stands out a little. Maybe you could emphasize how important USWS would be during these flights by mentioning how long some birds stay in the air. Were you able to find out any history on the topic? I was curious how this was first discovered and how scientists first observed that these animals experience a unique type of sleep. Adding some EEG images that show the differences between USWS other type of sleep I think would also help the reader understand USWS. (Molonyc (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the input Molonyc. We added an example of an EEG to the physiology section re your input. The only issue we have with adding to the "ability to rest during long flights" is that research methods on USWS in birds (sleep during flight) is significantly different than others. It has proved very difficult to determine if birds do in fact even sleep during flight though we do mention in our future research the possibility of actually determining this with current and developing technology. We debated adding a history section but didn't want to get too sidetracked and throw in information about the few scientists that have done a ton of research for this topic (specifically Rattenborg who has done extensive research on non-human sleep); that could be a whole new wikipedia page, giving him credit! Thanks again for your input it and all the others have really helped our article. Mtportman (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Needed edits

I am a neuroscience student also, please respect my work as I have respected yours!! Please bulid on what is here when you edit.

Adding more species from 'Perspectives" and any that I mention on the body test to the 'species found in' sections would be great for the article. Please someone do this.

I will cite everything in the coming days, so please do not just start deleting. Cseime (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We will look into the edits you made, however some of them seem either slightly repetitive or out of place. The definition/characterization section is unnecessary as that is mentioned in the very beginning. The sleep section is out of scope of the article and anything about the definition of sleep should just be linked. We could though use your USWS' Challenge to this definition section summarized into a sentence at the end of the introductory section though it too is somewhat repetitive.

The modifications to the species exhibiting section are incredibly convoluted and we have already received feedback on our talk pages from wikipedia users to revert back to before your modifications. Thank you for your input and we will review it carefully but will likely revert back to the original structure but include non-repetitive aspects of your modifications. Mtportman (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We reverted back to the old version with the advice of others from wikipedia. Much of the "characterization" sections added under "species exhibiting USWS" were unnecessary given that much of the phenomena explained is subsequently explained in the "benefits section." Also, much of the added sections were still not cited or linked to references. The information about the lizards/fish/insects exhibiting would be beneficial, if added in the same format under the "species exhibiting section" which was designed merely to give brief information/a list of species with details not later provided. Thanks for the additions but the restructuring seemed to result in some redundancies. If you wish to further edit, please leave more specific details about changes made in this discussion page so we do not have to weed through the entire article to find them. Thanks! Mtportman (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Text duplicated

This text:

Studies of a captive pod of white-sided dolphin displayed that dolphins chose to keep the eye open that was directed towards the group rather than leaving open the eye facing the surrounding ocean. This was shown to be consistent with position in the group, as selected open eye chanced when the group rearranged positions.[*] A similar eye closure pattern was observed in the bottlenose dolphin, where the eye closed tended to be that facing the interior of a circular path during restful circle-swims. During this experiment, sleeping activity also changed with stress.[7] These findings regarding eye-closure being opposite the sleeping hemisphere and unihemispheric slow-wave sleep being used to monitor surroundings were repeated in studying the white whale.[10]

[*]Once ref 6, once ref 9

appears twice in the article, while once should be enough. --Hordaland (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, we reverted back to the earlier edit as advised to take care of this and other issues! Mtportman (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job, but I don't know if that paragraph was worth saving. Seems to be gone, now. Hordaland (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The same user has again made HUGE changes to the article. I've reverted and asked her/him to make bite sized changes, both on the user's talk page and in my edit summary. Corrections which had been made were changed back to their faulty versions, for example the over-capitalization of headings. It's impossible to check changes when they are so massive. Hordaland (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking out for this article. We too will continue to look out for it and I again notified the user on the discussion above/his talk page. We are happy for the help/additions (as you have given us many helpful pointers/mods) but agree that such drastic changes without individual explanations creates a very difficult situation. Thanks again for all your help/advice; we've really learned a lot about wikipedia from this project and users like you helping us along the way! Mtportman (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Siegel

Anyone interested in researching mammalian sleep or accessing more information regarding Unihemispheric sleep should search pubmed or google scholar for Jerry Siegel's work at UCLA. Lot's of good resources there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hen.bollocks (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) My initial take is that this article is well-written in some respects and contains a lot of important information, but parts of it are quite poorly written and some of the information is incomplete or incorrect, so it has a way to go before it deserves GA status.

• Because this is a class-project article and I know that the editors who wrote it are probably not all that familiar with Wikipedia procedures, could we please start with somebody acknowledging seeing this review and being ready to respond to requests for improvements?

• I will start with a couple of points concerning the lead, and add points as the review progresses. First point: I don't understand the phrase, "USWS is possibly the first animal behavior which uses different regions of the brain to simultaneously control sleep and wakefulness".

• I think the lead misses the point about the theoretical importance of USWS. The greatest importance is that it casts doubt on one of the most popular views of the function of sleep, a view that says the primary purpose of sleep is to shut an animal down in situations where there is nothing useful to do.

Thanks getting in contact with us Looie496, I'll do my best to check in as often as possible to communicate with you; we do have finals coming up which will make things slightly hectic but I don't plan on abandoning this page after the project is over. I understand that sentence as being slightly confusing; I think what was largely meant was simply that while in BSWS both hemispheres typically exhibit slow-wave activity or wakefulness, in USWS desynchronization is possible. Since rephrasing this sentence to illustrate that might be redundant, would it be best to modify it to encompass the point you made above about the greatest importance of USWS? Mtportman (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think the sentence is needed, you might as well delete it. Let me note that the usual practice in GA reviews is for the nominator to respond to each point raised by the reviewer, either by doing what the reviewer asks for, or by explaining why that would be wrong, or by asking for clarification. The reviewer can then check off each item once it has been handled appropriately. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that section re your advice and modified the last sentence to incorporate the point you raised which is supported very well in the cited reference. "The greatest theoretical importance of USWS is its potential role in elucidating the function of sleep by challenging various current notions. Researchers have looked to animals exhibiting USWS to determine if sleep must be essential; otherwise species exhibiting USWS would have eliminated the behavior altogether through evolution."

Does that seem to cover the point you made? Because I do agree that what you mentioned needs to be clear.Mtportman (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this review going to be continued? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose in general is clear and the grammar and spelling are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The sectioning and layout are satisfactory.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references are in suitable formats.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the species said to exhibit USWS do not have citations. If the information is available in the existing references, the citations could be made general by attaching them to the opening sentence preceding each list of species.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has been edited intensively in November/December 2011 and periodically since then. It seems stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images are suitably licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	I have rewritten the first half of the lead to provide more accessible information to anyone with little knowledge of the subjet. There has been no response to my requests for improvement and no improvement in the citations for some of the statements made as to which species exhibit USWS so I must fail this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of this article seems to have stalled or been discontinued so I will have another look at it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

In general this is a well written and interesting article. My main concern is with the references as mentioned in the table above. Where did the unreferenced information come from? Was it original research? I am also puzzled by the lead sentence " ... while a low voltage electroencephalography (EEG), characteristic of wakefulness, is present in the other." Is the word "electroencephalography" used in its correct form here or should the sentence be rephrased? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical Language

It would be great to have a description in layman's terms of what USWS is. If I didn't have some grounding in the scientific terms the article uses, I think there's no way I'd be able to read it and realize that, basically, the term describes half the brain sleeping while the other half remains somewhat awake. That's why I added the "Technical" template. Bhilly (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I rephrased the first introductory paragraph very slightly to allow me to include a link to slow-wave sleep and also added a link to wakefulness. What exactly would you recommend be modified to make it more generally comprehensible without summarizing what is explained in other articles and being redundant? Although some of the details discussed later are slightly more detailed, do you think the intro section is too advanced? Although my perception is biased, all I seem to see in the first few sentences is an explanation stating that USWS allows the brain to exhibit wakefulness and slow-wave sleep concurrently in different hemispheres. Mtportman (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bhilly. The opening sentence starts "Unihemispheric slow-wave sleep (USWS), also termed asymmetric slow-wave sleep (ASWS), ..." and then continues with a technical definition. This sentence could be broken into two sentences with the first one explaining the term in simple language and the second sentence starting "It is characterized by the ..." explaining it technically, as at present. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Study during April 2016

I was listening to NPR yesterday evening and I heard that a Japanese study performed on college students has suggested the existence of unihemispheric sleep in humans, but I can't recall what the name of the study was. The gist of the study was that slow waves were not present on the left side of the brain during the first night of the study (because the subjects were not used to the new sleeping environment). This was extended in a subsequent trial by playing beeps into the ears of the subjects and checking what volume level caused them to wake up. The result of this was that the right ear (which was connected to the left side of the brain) was far more sensitive and resulted in the subject waking up at much lower volumes. However, during subsequent nights when slow waves were present in both hemispheres, there was no difference from one ear to the other.

If anyone happens to know where this study took place, and where a copy of this study resides, I think the findings would be a worthwhile contribution to this article.

Thanks and good luck getting this thing to GA level, BearGlyph (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gonet99 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Currently a section reads:

>>> "On land, birds can switch between sleeping with both hemispheres to one hemisphere. Due to their poorly webbed feet and long wings, which are not completely waterproof, it is not energetically efficient for them to make rest stops or land on water, only to take flight again."

It is unclear what is meant by "Due to their poorly webbed feet and long wings, which are not completely waterproof" -- which species of birds are we talking about? I assume this is about birds like albatross (albatrosses? albatrossi?) but it's unspecified.

The same section also reads:

>>> "Once they land, they pay off their sleep debt, as their REM sleep duration significantly decreases and slow-wave sleep increases."

I'm no biologist, but doesn't REM sleep typically increase (REM rebound) after sleep deprivation? The cited source is this paper here (I don't know what common practice is, but the current citation isn't very accessible; could the open-source link be appended?), but the paper says that "the decrease in time spent in REM sleep ... reflects a non-specific effect of an overall decrease in sleep". The paper isn't really about sleep debt, and the study implies the exact opposite of the article -- that REM sleep duration increases when birds perceive themselves as safer.

REM rebound does seem to be present in birds (see here) but I didn't look for any studies about waterfowl. Celestialsamael (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)