Talk:Neural coding

Neuroscience C‑class High‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

figure on the right?

the section on "temporal coding" refers to a figure. where is it?

watson (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article history shows that a bot removed two images that lacked copyright information back in December. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should temporal correlation code, in which the spike timing and the interspike timing is measured, be included? (rather than just spike timing, where the precise timing of each spike (for each neuron) is determined for each (typically 50,100,300 ms) period) seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The word 'moment' should have a link or it should be precisely defined. seunghwane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The section on the temporal code does not refer to the origins of the temporal code, but to a text book - can anybody correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.230.7 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Another editor, not me, is proposing to merge Neural coding with Neural ensemble. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. I can see some opportunities to fix redundancies, but these seem to me to be sufficiently distinct topics to justify separate pages. Although I agree that most coding studies focus on ensembles, not all do, so there is some material on coding that exists outside of ensembles, and, ensembles have structural or anatomical features that are independent of coding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has spoken in favor of the merger, I'm going to remove the templates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger possibilities

I think sparse coding can be merged into the neural codin as sparse coding is a type of neural coding and neurons are exclusively involved in the neural coding. In the "see also" section of this page, there are seven other pages, each dealing with a specific theory of neural coding. Is it a good idea to have all these separate pages, or should we consider merging all of those other pages into this one (essentially making each one a section of this page, when that section does not already exist)? I'm not yet making a formal merger proposal, but just gaging what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and none of these seven other pages are longer than an (elaborate) section. I would support a merger proposal. Lova Falk talk 11:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about that, and I now Support such a merger. I would consider it necessary to actually incorporate material from these other pages into this page, thereby expanding this page, for the merge to be appropriate. I'm going to formally template the pages, to discuss this proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's all neural coding, this is like having my grocery list on five different pieces of paper. ADDENDUM: to expand a bit, I think these are sufficiently notable topics to deserve their own page, but none of these pages are developed enough to merit that, they're basically all summaries like in the main neural coding page. But I agree with trypto that we should actually merge, not delete the others if the claims are cited or obviously true Xurtio (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]