Revision as of 21:39, 26 October 2006 editNrets (talk | contribs)1,701 edits electrical synapses← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:37, 13 November 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →electrical synapsesNext edit → | ||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
I guess it depends how you define adult. The original papers by Connors and Hestrin labs were in juveniles (~p21) precisely because of the reasons you mentoned about the optics, so yes it may not represent what happens in older animals. However using transgenic mice that selectively express GFP in specific subtypes of interneurons you can more easily identify interneurons in older animals, so in 2002 Galarreta and Hestirn showed that electrical synapses are still present in 2-7 month-old mice, which are definitely adults . Take that in combination with the observation that some connexins persist into adulthood, and its not such an unreasonable conclusion to say that in some cell types, electrical synapses are fairly common even in adults. Also, in parts of the brain such as the inferior olive its been known for a long time that gap junctions are present and allow the cells to oscillate together, so in this case I don't think its such a stretch. I guess. ] 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | I guess it depends how you define adult. The original papers by Connors and Hestrin labs were in juveniles (~p21) precisely because of the reasons you mentoned about the optics, so yes it may not represent what happens in older animals. However using transgenic mice that selectively express GFP in specific subtypes of interneurons you can more easily identify interneurons in older animals, so in 2002 Galarreta and Hestirn showed that electrical synapses are still present in 2-7 month-old mice, which are definitely adults . Take that in combination with the observation that some connexins persist into adulthood, and its not such an unreasonable conclusion to say that in some cell types, electrical synapses are fairly common even in adults. Also, in parts of the brain such as the inferior olive its been known for a long time that gap junctions are present and allow the cells to oscillate together, so in this case I don't think its such a stretch. I guess. ] 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
==Your edits== | |||
AR, your edits to animal rights articles are becoming unacceptable. Your recent edits about BUAV and the ALF said the opposite of what the source said, and were arguably defamatory; your edits to PETA about their attitude to pets said the opposite of what the source said; and your edit that PETA deliberately prolonged monkeys' suffering for publicity is not only highly unlikely, but was sourced to Misplaced Pages, which is not allowed. If you continue with this kind of editing, I'll either seek administrative intervention or I'll initiate the dispute resolution process against you. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:37, 13 November 2006
License tagging for Image:Awreport2004.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Awreport2004.png. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
welcome
Thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I wonder if you would be interested in helping to establish a way to sytematically work towards better Misplaced Pages articles that are related to animal research. In the near future, Wikiversity might be approved as a sister project to Misplaced Pages. I have been thinking that it would be possible to have a scholarly Wikiversity project devoted to improvement of Misplaced Pages articles that concern animal research (see). --JWSchmidt 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it a look.--Animalresearcher 20:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your advice?
Hello Animalresearcher, I wonder if you would mind having a look a an animal experimentation related mini project i'm embarking on? You opinion would be welcome. Thanks. Rockpocket 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject Proposal
Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Request for clarifications on Operant Conditioning edit
Recently you edited the Operant Conditioning article in a couple of places and would like some clarification about their basis.
The first edit involved the deletion of the term "involuntary reflexive" from the portion reading "while Pavlovian conditioning deals with the conditioning of involuntary reflexive behavior so that it occurs under new antecedent conditions." However, Classical Conditioning cannot be used with all behavior in general, only with reflexes (respondent behavior). Is it possible that you are confusing Classical Conditioning with operant procedures that condition stimulus control over operant behavior? I would agree that both cases involve procedures to cause a behavior to occur in response to a novel antecedent stimulus. However, Classical Conditioning does this using successive trials in which the novel stimulus precedes an existing unconditioned stimulus. Wouldn't this happen regardless of any consequences delivered, whereas consequences would have an effect upon the occassion of non-reflexive behavior? For example, you can condition salivation to occur in response to a tone regardless of whether or not you provide reinforcement afterwards (ie. whether or not you give them food to eat for having salivated). An operant response, however, will not change in frequency without a change in the contingency of the consequences that maintain it. Operant conditioning employs consequences while Classical conditioning does not.
Stimulus control procedures, such as discrimination training or generalization training, require the use of consequences to alter the frequency of operant S-R relations. If you reinforce a response when it occurs in situation 1, but extinguish it when it occurs in situations 2, 3, and 4, the response will occur with greater frequency upon the occassion of S1 and with less frequency upon the occassion of either S2, S3, or S4. That is to say, S1-R will be reinforced, while S2-R, S3-R and S4-R will have been extinguished. Unfortunately, the article currently lacks a good section on the stimulus control of operant behavior, something I hope to get around to adding in the future.
The second edit I refer to in the article is an addition stating, "The subject has no control of the consequences in Pavlovian conditioning." As I mentioned before, in the implementation of Classical Conditioning there are no consequences to speak of, hence the procedure being referred to as representative of "S-R Psychology," while operant conditioning employs the addition of a third term, the consequence, in what is called the "Three-Term Contingency" (S-R-S). --Lunar Spectrum | Talk 10:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Although the early literature on Pavlovian Conditioning did utilize nearly only reflexive responses, there has been a significant movement away from the restriction to reflexes in recent years. This is reviewed, pretty clearly, in Domjan's textbook on the Principles of Learning and Behavior that I refererenced. It, in turn, references many principle articles on conditioning written in recent years that do not use reflexive actions to measure classical conditioning.
Also, I do not find it out of turn, at all, to speak about consequences when talking about Classical Conditioning. RA Rescorla has made quite a career out of demonstrating the requirement that the unconditioned stimulus have some characteristics of a reinforcer for the procedure to work - and that the reinforcing value of the unconditioned stimulus is of nearly direct relation to the ease with which a conditioned response may be elicited.
Both of these areas of behavioral psychology are quite broadly supported by research in the last 3-4 decades, even if they are not discussed by Pavlov or Konorski's earlier work. Part of the process at Misplaced Pages is adding referenced, sourced, material, and I added references with my additions. The Classical Conditioning page is very weak in this area, and I had planned to add more as time permits, later. The key is adding references as the material is added, so that the material is verifiable. But I think you will find both of the points I added are broadly supported in recent reviews on Pavlovian or Classical Conditioning, and much of the support can be found in the citations in Domjan's text. --Animalresearcher 10:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a very good point about the similarilties between USs and primary reinforcers, and there's clearly overlap between the two procedures in terms of their effects upon behavior. But how does that suport the statement that "the subject has no control of the consequences in Pavlovian conditioning" when Pavlovian conditioning doesn't use consequences to begin with? And even if a consequence could be construed from Pavlovian conditioning, if a behavior has no control over it consequences, then the behavior is inconsequential and the consequence would have been unable to maintain the frequency of that response. Doesn't it seem that the reliable elicitation of a response, despite its lack of control over its consequences, would imply that respondent behavior is a distinct class of behavior apart from operants? --Lunar Spectrum | Talk 19:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, consequences should be replaced with "presentation of unconditioned stimulus". Consequences clearly implies things that I didn't intend to imply. A student of eyeblink conditioning explained to me that eyeblink conditioning could be operant or classical depending only on whether the eyelid was restrained or not. In classical the unconditioned stimulus is out of the control of the animal. In operant the reinforcer is controlled by the animal. I've been doing a lot of work translating between classical and operant, and forget the whole world hasn't been living inside my head for the last few years. ;) --Animalresearcher 23:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, the sentence does look better now. I hate to press the issue, though, but the only problem left is that instead of describing a contrast between Pavlovian and operant conditioning, the sentence now describes a similarity (which would make the "Unlike" redundant). In operant procedures also, the subject's response does not have control over antecedent stimuli, only upon its consequences. I could simply change it to "Like," but I might just wait until I've put in a section on the stimulus control of operant behavior to be able to follow up on that similarity.
- What you mention about the eye-blink reflex sounds right. The eye-blink by itself would be a respondent behavior, while the restraint of the reflex would be operant behavior. However, during the restraint of the reflex, I don't think that the original motor impulse causing the eye-blink would itself be inhibited. Rather, the learned restraint probably occurs through the activation of opposing muscle groups which prevent the eye from blinking, but do not prevent the neural activation of the reflex from being transmited. So that would mean that during restraint, at least two responses occur: the orignal reflex and its opposing restraint (an operant). --Lunar Spectrum | Talk 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Template
Looks good, I'll take a look at it more carefully when I have a bit more time (I'm sure you are busy with the SfN meeting as well) and see if I can suggest other things to add. One thing, in your edit about Cambridge University, didn't Adrian win his Nobel prize before the work on primates? I may be wrong about this though. best, Nrets 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- My point was more that a Nobel Laureate at Cambridge is also one of the most famous primate researchers ever. But yes, his Nobel prize was mostly for demonstrating nerve cells are excitable, and that nerve cells signal by action potential frequency, not magnitude.--Animalresearcher 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see. One more (unrelated) thing - if you need a break from arguing about AR, you might want to check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neuroscience. There's a current drive to improve neuroscience related articles which you might be interested in. The collaboration of the week is: neuron. Nrets 03:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I do some Neuroscience article editing. To me, that is more minor. A fair showing of all points of view related to animal research is likely to have a very strong effect on me personally in the future. There is a lot more at stake. --Animalresearcher 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
electrical synapses
I guess it depends how you define adult. The original papers by Connors and Hestrin labs were in juveniles (~p21) precisely because of the reasons you mentoned about the optics, so yes it may not represent what happens in older animals. However using transgenic mice that selectively express GFP in specific subtypes of interneurons you can more easily identify interneurons in older animals, so in 2002 Galarreta and Hestirn showed that electrical synapses are still present in 2-7 month-old mice, which are definitely adults . Take that in combination with the observation that some connexins persist into adulthood, and its not such an unreasonable conclusion to say that in some cell types, electrical synapses are fairly common even in adults. Also, in parts of the brain such as the inferior olive its been known for a long time that gap junctions are present and allow the cells to oscillate together, so in this case I don't think its such a stretch. I guess. Nrets 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edits
AR, your edits to animal rights articles are becoming unacceptable. Your recent edits about BUAV and the ALF said the opposite of what the source said, and were arguably defamatory; your edits to PETA about their attitude to pets said the opposite of what the source said; and your edit that PETA deliberately prolonged monkeys' suffering for publicity is not only highly unlikely, but was sourced to Misplaced Pages, which is not allowed. If you continue with this kind of editing, I'll either seek administrative intervention or I'll initiate the dispute resolution process against you. SlimVirgin 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)