Talk:Cortical column

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

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.

discovered[edit]

discovered 40 years ago

200.165.20.46 20:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things that could be added to this article: There is currently no distinction between anatomical columns and functional columns. Also, there is no mention of 'minicolumns', which is a vertical column about one-neuron thick and containing 100-200 neurons. Brain-mapper 09:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a stub Cortical minicolumn; it's now linked to. Archelon 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph[edit]

The second paragraph seems more about the Cortex than columns per se -- should be deleted? mfc 07:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cortical column' is a vague term[edit]

It's not clear if this article is meant to cover all cortical columns (minicolumns, hypercolumns, macrocolumns, etc.) or just hypercolumns. I had assumed the latter, but it's not consistent on that (a minicolumn has neurons that respond to a single receptive input; larger groupings need not. Thoughts, anyone? mfc 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian cortex?[edit]

The article says that "the reptilian cortex is composed of three" layers. But the article on cerebral cortex suggests cortex is a feature of mammalian brains only. Which is correct? P.r.newman (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cerebral cortex article should probably be clarified. All vertebrates have a pallium constituting the upper surface of the forebrain -- in mammals and reptiles, the pallium is referred to by anatomists as "cortex", because its layered structure is especially salient. However in most respects the reptilian "cortex" more closely resembles the pallium of amphibians, fish, elasmobranches, etc, than it does the neocortex of mammals. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Human cerebral cortex" was really erroneous so I rewrote it completely. Especially the part about dolphin was really wrong; the statement of three reptilian layers is at best inaccurate, and probably irrelevant for cortical columns.--Marci68 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Cortical columns error[edit]

There is sayd "There are almost 100,000 cortical columns in the human brain with 1,000 to 10,000 neurons each.". But this is delirium numbers. If calculate then we have 10,000x100,000=1,000,000,000 (or 1 billion) neurons. But neocortex contain about 20 billion neurons! And whole brain contain about 85 billion neurons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.150.74.188 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cortical column. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520020935/http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page19092.html to http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page19092.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

This article would benefit from a section describing what evidence exists concerning the topic. That might also help to elucidate the details of the concept/hypothesis.

The article terminology is suggestive of the neocortex being compartmentalised into discrete units, with periodic boundaries, like a honeycomb. (Are there examples of sensory illusions to perceive Moiré patterns from stimuli with similar periodicity?) Would the compartments be anatomical or only functional? (Why aren't these vertical columns visualised in the same way that the horizontal layers are, say in a Nissl stained section?) How far do adjacent columns overlap? Or is there no discrete compartmentalisation at all (no such unit as a neighbouring column); is the term intended to convey nothing further than the idea of receptive fields being limited in spatial extent (as would still be applicable to a horizontally homogenous/continuous model of the neocortex, like a convnet)?

The article currently gives the impression that the concept is vague and has only ambiguous support, so it might be good to also give more detail about who holds which perspectives (i.e. is there a fringe viewpoint or historical supposition; what views are most widely attested among current specialists?).

Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful first sentence, EVERYTHING can be penetrated by a probe[edit]

",that can be successively penetrated by a probe inserted perpendicularly to the cortical surface",

EVERYTHING can be penetrated by a probe. Without relation to the rest of the sentence and not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MStSe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pictues please[edit]

pictures please RJJ4y7 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]