Talk:Neurophysiology

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Physiology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Copied verbatim

https://www.physio-pedia.com/Introduction_to_Neurophysiology#:~:text=Neurophysiology%20is%20the%20branch%20of,s%2C%20glia%2C%20and%20networks.

I thought WP bots picked this up.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deficient Lemma

Deficient Content. Nevis.lewis (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Neurophysiology

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neurophysiology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bear":

From History of neuroscience: Bear, M.F.; B.W. Connors; M.A. Paradiso (2001). Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain. Baltimore: Lippincott. ISBN 0-7817-3944-6.
From Philosophy of mind: Bear, M. F. et al. Eds. (1995). Neuroscience: Exploring The Brain. Baltimore, Maryland, Williams and Wilkins. ISBN 0-7817-3944-6

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference from Neuropsychology

The term Neuropsychology isn't found in the article. At least one passage noting major differences is needed. 109.67.134.243 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are really quite different, but I can see how the terms can be confused when searching for a page. I added it briefly to the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophysiology relationship to psychiatry

User:Tryptofish Instead of a reverting Tryptofish, I will discuss this with you for the sake of civility. Why do you believe psychiatry and Neurophysiology is such a "stretch" as you bluntly put it? There are entire chapters of scientific texts and quite a few empirical studies devoted to the topic. The relevance and relatedness is obvious to me for example in relation to diagnostic disease markers, but perhaps you have a unique perspective to add?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about: [1]. Aside from ECT, I cannot think of any clinical psychiatric practice that is based specifically on the electrophysiological aspects of neuroscience. Neuropharmacology, sure, but not neurophysiology. I think it would be a mistake to simply list every brain-related subject here. I'll put a note about this at WT:MED, where I'm sure some editors with expertise in psychiatry will see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-59519-6_9.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. I self-reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think it's a stretch, but nobody really pays attention to these sorts of lists anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Looie496 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish How on earth is it a "stretch"? Psychiatry probably relates more to neurophysiology than the other areas listed. There are chapters, journal articles and texts on the relatedness for goodness sakes Tryptofish! If you truly don't believe you should self-revert and psychiatry does not relate to neurophysiology let's get other opinions. Don't just say something like "nobody really pays attention to these sorts of lists anyway, so it doesn't really matter" All our articles should be of the highest possible standard. Charlotte135 (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte135: I didn't say that. Looie496 and I are two different editors. Please take "yes" for an answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish Sorry Tryptofish.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference where neurophysiology is related to psychiatry can be useful to make the point. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118801086 Gcastellanos (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Suggestion

Merge with Clinical neurophysiology or indicate that Clinical neurophysiology is the modern usage and this page is historical? SittingDuckCasting (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that very strongly. That it is no longer modern usage is simply false. There is an entire field of experimental (preclinical) neuroscience that remains very active and is not clinical. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a seperate page for neuroscience. This is not that page. SittingDuckCasting (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is also a page for neurology. I realize that you are a new editor, but please understand that this merge proposal is not going to go anywhere. If you take a look at Category:Neuroscience, you can see the breadth of page topics that we have. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding Clinical neurophysiology to the see also list. I do see your point it needs to be a separate article it just needs work. 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SittingDuckCasting (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's a very good idea, thanks! In fact, I did that one-better by putting a sentence about it into the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]