Talk:Stimulus (physiology)

Physiology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Untitled

The article is being edited by Boston College's Introduction to Neuroscience (BI481) class and will be updated as part of a class project until November 5th, when the project is due. Any edits made before that date are related to the project and are subject to further editing. Students are using secondary review articles as their sources of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsavarino (talk •contribs) 05:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Nice work on a very broad topic. I have a few suggestions for improvement. I'd like to see you elaborate a bit more on the details of the "Types of Stimuli" section. For example, what are the absolute threshold values for the five senses for humans? You could also list specific receptor types for the various stimuli, such as pain receptors. I think you should also note the regions of the brain involved in the specific kinds of sensations. Great job hyperlinking to other articles and Wikipedia; your article flows well. Be sure to proofread your article, I noticed there are some errors in capitalization and comma use: "In the nervous system, internal and external stimuli can elicit two different categories of responses: an excitatory response, normally in the form of an Action Potential, and an inhibitory response." Action potential should not be capitalized here. Overall, good job! -Reedich (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi guys, all around this is a very good article. It is easy to read, and it is simple and to the point, which is perfect for wikipedia. To highlight another positive about your article you did a very good job of consolidating this broad topic down to the bigger areas. When reading the different types of stimuli one suggestion I have is to keep the style a little bit more consistent. For example you begin the sound paragraph just getting to the function and the process. Whereas in the taste paragraph you start out by saying taste is an additional sense... which I think you should try and avoid. In your cellular system response I think it would be valuable to add a small section about vision, as It is a well known system with specific cellular responses. Other than that, keep up the good work! DineshVannan —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a very informative and well put together article on many different aspects of stimuli. Specifically, the description of the many different types of stimuli, both internal and external was very thorough. It may be beneficial to add information relating to different studies involving artificial stimulation of various organisms and cells within these organisms and comment on the different methods used to produce an artificial stimulus (i.e. small shocks, altering pH, changing temperature, touching, etc.) This would be beneficial as it would provide insight into the different ways to study stimuli. Pieningd (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! This was a very well written article. I found the information in the "Systematic response to stimuli" section very interesting and the information under types of stimuli was very thorough. One thing I do suggest however is to maybe break up the cellular response to stimuli into subsections such since each paragraph describes a different response and it would be much easier to locate specific information. The section just appears very dense. I believe splitting into subsections such as mechanical stimulus, Chemical stimuli, and sensory transduction. Overall though, well done. Neal.shah.bc (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article is well written and properly organized. It was an excellent idea to separate different stimuli into their own sections. Under 'Homeostatic inbalances' I think you should elaborate more on the types of receptors and sensors rather than generalizing which ones are involved. Perhaps also give an example of "appropriate action". Make sure that you mention a little bit about where these signals are integrated in the brain, anatomically. This can help if you want to adjust the size of each of the paragraphs and add a little more specificity to them. Lastly, I think it would be a good idea to add in a short paragraph about the phenomenon of habitualization to stimuli. It can provide a good balance to your article by stating the mechanism behind how we can "ignore" certain stimuli such as background noise. Otherwise, this is really an excellent article! User:NicoleKopidakis (talk) November 18, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]