Talk:Cranial nerves/Archive 1

Archive 1

Abducens vs. Abducent

At 15:20, 14 July 2005, User: 165.21.83.246 made an edit renaming CN VI to "abducent" nerve, with the claim "Abducent nerve is a more commonly used term". This does not seem to be the case. Apart from my unsubstantiated claim that every neuroanatomist, neurologist, and neuroscienctist with which I've spoken has referred to this nerve as "abducens", the major neuroscience and neuroanatomy texts (Diamond's "Human Brain Coloring Book", Kandel, Schwartz, ans Jessell's "Principles of Neural Science", Adams' "Principles of Neurology", and Nolte's "The Human Brain" just to name a few) refer to CN VI as the "abducens nerve".

"Abducent" is an adjective while "abducens" is the noun. A quick Google search for each of those exact phrases yeilds about 4,260 for "abducent nerve" and about 20,300 for "abducens nerve". A search on PubMed returns 286 journal articles with 6 reviews with the term "abducent" and 2405 journal articles with 149 reviews with the term "abducens". Further, the first item that pops up when one searches for the term "cranial nerves" on Google is from the Yale Medical School, which refers to CN VI as the "abducens nerve".

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If someone can show me stronger evidence to the contrary, then we can revert the name to "abducent" again. Until that time, I stand by my claim and by my change.

Semiconscious (talk · home) 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. JFW | T@lk 17:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Edwardian 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Brainstem?

Do they all attach to the brainstem? I put this on a test and got the question wrong. Mauvila 18:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The first and the second don't. I have edited to reflect this. The whole biology section of wikipedia is poor. I would advise you to not use it as a sole reference. Always cross reference with a textbook. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

CN XIII?

User:Richardcavell recently added an entire section regarding a renumbering of the CNs. I've never heard of this, but it's really cool. Is there a citation for this any where? Semiconscious • talk 08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone else added Andy Lelli. Also, I've been referred to 'The Spine' by Bogduk&Twomey. - Richardcavell 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina and hymen" leave out one of the Cranial Nerves? There should be a "V" between "feel" and "girl" for Cranial Nerve VIII Vestibulocochlear.

The vestibulocochlear is also know as the auditory vestibulocochlear; thus the word "a" represents that nerve. Semiconscious • talk 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively: "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel virgin girls' vaginas and hymens." --Antelan 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this whole subsection until a verifiable cite is given: just giving "Andy Lelli" is not a useful cite. (Googling for "Andy Lelli" just finds machine-translated mirrors of this page, and "Andrew Lelli" has zero hits.) -- The Anome 18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

CN XIII is hoax? I received email approaching me about a CN XIII hoax. Prof. Andrea Lelli work in University Pablo de Olavide (Spain) many years back and published a paper on this. She marry few years back and work at National University of Mexico now i think. CN XIII refers to RIS/RAS system... Controversial yes but hoax no. - Luis Martinez Millan, University of Pais Vasco

Nerve 0

If you're going to say that humans have CN 0, it would be advisable to reference a source. I am aware of no major text (Gray's, Moore) or atlas (Netter) which consider CN 0 to exist. This isn't to say that it doesn't - but citations should be added for such a controversial change. --Antelan ^talk 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone added citations. Because the claim that they are for "pheromones" does not cite a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, but instead Scientific American, I will remove this statement unless there are objections. (I will not remove Nerve 0 - just the statement that it is for "pheromones"). --Antelan ^talk 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have removed the "pheromones" claim and added a reference to a review article that addresses the controversy. A Scientific American article does not provide sufficient backing for the highly controversial claim that humans sense pheromones. The reference that I added addresses this controversy from a scientific standpoint, and notes where research could be done to find a resolution. Per WP:NPOV: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. I think that for now, we can be more generous than that, which is why I've left the CN0 claim and added more appropriate references. Can anyone else weight in on this debate? Antelan ^talk 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents. As far as major medical texts not having the nerve, wasn't it first discovered in humans around 1913, accounting for nothing in Gray's? And as far as having a source that supports the fact that CN0 is still controversial, the 1990 article for that reference doesn't concern itself with whether or not CN0 is controversial, it was a study about whether the nerve exists. In fact the study found it in 10 individuals, so maybe we should remove it as a citation for that claim. Rhetth 12:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call on the citation. I've moved the reference to the "new research indicates" claim. I'll have to source the "controversy" statement later; for what it's worth, there's nothing in my 2004 Gray's Anatomy regarding CN0 (but textbooks rarely have cutting-edge material, so this is not definitive by any means). Antelan ^talk 16:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cranial Nerves

My daughter had a mole removed from her face about a month ago. Almost instantly she has had problems with her face, ears, neck. this includes tingling, pain,swelling, blurring of vision. Her arms have tingling and pain that goes back and forth to each arm as well as pain in her legs that does the same thing. Every few days a new problem occurs. Today she developed a lump on the same side as the mole was removed with lots of pain in her neck. Her blood work always comes back with no symtoms. Every doctor that she has seen have no answers whatsoever!! Could the cranial nerves in her face been damaged and do they ever heal? What should she do? Thanks to anyone who can help us!! Karen

Please see WP;REFDESK--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09

37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Move from plural to singular

I moved this article from the plural "cranial nerves" to the singular "cranial nerve". Despite my research into the topic and knowledge of Wikipedia naming conventions, I now believe that I should have taken this one to requested moves so that contributors and readers could give their input. If a majority on this talk page wishes to move the article back, I will do it as soon as I am able. Please contact me on my user talk page instead of leaving a message here, though.

My reasoning for the move was that the singular form is usually preferred in Wikipedia naming conventions, unless there is a good reason to have the article title plural. Also, the vast majority of what appeared to be similar articles, such as spinal nerve, peripheral nerve and the articles in the categories Category:Cranial nerves and Category:Nervous system seemed to favor the singular form, although I did notice a tendency to use "fibers" at the end of article names rather than "fiber". I also considered other articles about body parts that we have more than one of, like kidneys, which has a singular title. However, more than one cranial nerve is discussed in the article and they are very different, unlike kidneys. Whatever, the consensus is, I will stand by it. However, my editing schedule is erratic, and it may take some time for me to move the article after someone puts a note on my talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cranial Nerve III

The Oculomotor Nerve also innervates the muscles of the ciliary body during accommodation. It shouldn't be hard to find a reference for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.51.7 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The picture has a false label

The picture File:Brain human normal inferior view with labels en.svg has a wrong label. It says "cranial accessory" but points to the spinal part of the accessory nerve, either move the label to the correct position or add the "spinal root of accessory nerve" as well. Unfortunately i don't know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.37 (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to read "Accessory" instead of "Cranial Accessory." File:Brain human normal inferior view with labels en-2.svg. Dwstultz (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins for Cranial Nerves Image

The image (File:Cranial Nerves Apparent Orrigins.jpg) "showing" where the CNs originate is horrible.

• 
  The Offending Illustration

Here's why:

• It is a poor quality JPEG.
• It makes no sense whatsoever. It is horribly designed. I have no idea what I am looking at...and I know the brain pretty well.
• The use of the word "apparent" is ambiguous. "Apparent" in that anatomists theorize that the cranial nerves originate from these locations? Or "apparent" in that the origins indicated are where the cranial nerves literally can be seen to exit the brain proper and we can see them without need for dissection?
• We have no idea of what the whole structure pictured even is! Even if we knew, we don't know the orientation.

I vote to remove the image from the article. Dwstultz (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Mnemonics

I have restored the previous version of this article, since the most recent version involved the removal of several mnemonics while leaving others. It would be helpful to make a statement on the talk page before doing so in order for the rest of us to get an understanding of your rationale beforehand, especially in the case of differential treatment of material. --Antelan ^talk 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of taking out all of the mnemonics, but I decided one or two might be considered encyclopedic. I just left he first ones. I don't think a huge list of mnemonics is necessary, especially since many of them are quite raunchy, and it is quite unnecessary to have such content on a page on cranial nerves. Mak (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mnemonics, like all other Wikipedia content, need a reliable source. For example, these could be sourced to University of Northern Iowa. --Arcadian 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What?? no. Nobody can prove that someone at univ of iowa was the one that came up with the mnemonic. Mnemonics float around and get spread from person to person, its EXTREMELY difficult to pinpoint who started it. You could sit there and come up with several of your own if you tried.

And I agree, its not necessary to list 40 mnemonics. Especially when some of them are pretty much variations of each other (one or two words different.)

And I disagree about the raunchy ones - dirty mnemonics are some of the most memorable ones, coming from a med student - those are the ones we employ most frequently, they are the easiest to remember and most difficult to forget.

• Agree with above. Anyone who has ever been to med school knows the very real, serious value of filthy dirty mnemonics. The shock is what makes them work; Very Green Vegetables are a forgettable side dish. Virgin Girls Vaginas (Vaginae?), well, that's memorable. Msaunier (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional mnemonics are constantly spammed by IPs, making it hard to sort out uncommon or plainly wrong ones. I therefore marked the section for cleanup. It doesn't matter whether some may be dirty, they are exploitable. Just look at the gaping vagina, ahem... Also keep in mind that we don't provide mnemonics for the majority of other topics, so we could as well leave them out entirely. Don Cuan 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

12 or 13?

An anon editor added a 13the nerve. The new addition, Glossal nerve, contradicts 'the Hypoglossal nerve' entry immediately above it, which says 'the palatoglossus, which is innervated by the vagus..." The contradiction should be resolved or the new edit removed. --CliffC (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unless anon knows something that the rest of the world does not, there are 12. I've fixed the article. Msaunier (talk) 05:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Central Nervous System"

"Because they exit from the brainstem as opposed to the spinal column, these are part of the central nervous system."

This sentence basically states that the spinal cord is not considered part of the CNS. It is part of the CNS. Check here, for example if you don't believe me. It is also confusing, given that most leave the confines of the dura and the CNS for some part of their course (the optic and perhaps olfactory nerves being exceptions). That, and the accessory nerve has some nuclei in the spinal cord, so they don't all exit from the brainstem.

Could we change it, please, to something like "All have have roots in the central nervous system." 58.96.44.232 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Cranial nerve nucleus?

Both are considerably short articles. And any discussion of cranial nerves without their nucleii is incomplete. So I think that we should merge the two. Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. While there should be prominent links between the two, the topics are usually taught in two separate courses in American medical schools: Gross anatomy for the nerves and Neuroanatomy for the nuclei. The nerves are best considered relative to the anatomical structures they traverse and innervate to enable the various functions, while the nuclei are most clearly understood relative to the rest of the brain. Robotsintrouble 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. A-giau 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonic devices

It's inappropriate to include such a sexist and offensive pneumonic, regardless of how many "doctors and medical students" in the UK use it. That statement actually suggests that the medical profession in the UK resembles a boys' locker room. That mnemonic needs to be removed in order to stop perpetuating sexism in the medical field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.223.147 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be VERY GOOD VELVET, not A good velvet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wusteffi (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The substance of the cranial nerves is not the mnemonic device by which students learn the names of them. Would anyone mind if this is moved to a less prominent section of the article (i.e. near the end)? Edwardian 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

For many neuroanatomy articles I've thrown in some mnemonics because I feel they aid in education, however they are not--as you say--the substance of whatever piece of anatomy is the subject of the article. Keep the devices, but feel free to move it toward the end as a footnote or something. Semiconscious (talk · home) 06:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On a very spurious note, I find most doctors and medical students who I know in the UK use the mnemonic "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina and hymen". Would this be considered too profane to include in the article? Jbarfield 11:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I put that in a while ago, and it was edited out. It is really the classic "dirty" version passed abound students. I suppose someone edited out, as they thought it was a joke.

• This is very common in the US as well. I've changed one of the two options to something also commonly used in the US. I'm not really sure what Wikipedia's view is on more risque things such as your example. I teach the "old olympus" one to my students to avoid any charges of sexual harassment. :) semiconscious (talk · home) 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the mnemonics have considerable value and should be in the article. Many medical textbooks use mnemonics and it is not uncommon to see mnemonics in the medical literature-- two examples are "CREST syndrome" and "CRAB" for MM (International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749-57. PMID 12780789.). The Anatomy & Physiology Text Book I have -- has the mnemonic "Oh Once One Takes The Anatomy Final Very Good Vacations are Heavenly." Nephron 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The abundance of mneomnic devices is counterproductive. Plus they make up half of this article which is ridiculous. Only a couple should remain. 7 June 2007.

Please leave in the mneomnic devices. Most of my medical class refer to wikipedia for such things like mnemonics, which are usually not found in a textbook. Mnemonics are useful, especially for those trying to memorize the cranial nerves. -Russ, 28 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.48.80 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please leave in the mnemonic devices, but change them to their less risque (and just as easy to remember) versions. Example: "Some Say Marry Money But My Brother Says Bad Business Marry Money" AND "On Old Olympus' Towering Top, A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops". We used both these in high school; they are appropriate in any situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyinfur (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mnemonic devices seem useful to have as an side note near the end of the page, but comments such as "Because the mind recalls rhymes well, the best mnemonics often use rhyming schemes." seem irrelevant to the content of the article.
Bhbuehler (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Working on the article

I'm currently working on this article at User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Please help out if you wish. The article is there to ensure that any content I add unsourced will eventually be fully sourced before being introduced to the main page.

I have also requested images, and am looking for images to fill the article properly, so it may have very many or very few under certain periods. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Cranial nerve or Cranial nerves

This is not really important. Normally would be singular per WP:Naming conventions (plurals); but arguably this depends upon how the guideline is interpreted. Also some consistency with spinal nerve would be good. Lesion (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well as per the exceptions on the naming conventions page both the articles should be pluralized. You seldom speak about a cranial nerve, but rather the cranial nerves in general or a specific one such as the facial nerve. The same isn't really true for spinal nerves which are much more similar in structure and function, so either we leave that article as singular or change it as well. I personally won't object to either, but I'm inclined to agree with the move of cranial nerves.

CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

For historical value (ie in case there are any proactive future editors who may make this move), I also think that, as CFCF states, the plural name is more appropriate. --LT910001 (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming

In preparation for the (eventual) review, I will standardise the phrasing of cranial nerves in this article. I propose nerves are referred to:

• First by their common name, in plural singular, and followed by a hindu-arabic roman numeral
• Branches to be named in full, referred to in singular, without cranial nerve number.

For example:

• "The facial nerve (CN7 emerges from..." "The facial nerve (VII) emerges from..."
• The mandibular branch of the facial nerve branches at..."

Input/feedback? Ping CFCF, Lesion. Whatever the outcome, I think we ought to put this in an FAQ section at the top of this page so that editing is consistent. --LT910001 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As you probably are aware, normally cranial nerves are singular in anatomy texts, but it is probably more correct to refer to them as paired consistently. I would Roman numerals since that is more common for cranial nerves too. Lesion 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That's true, I have altered the above proposal accordingly and the article uses roman numerals so I'll stick with that. I've added two 'FAQs', one regarding this, and one regarding mnemonics. --LT910001 (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the naming convention, but would suggest that the trigeminal branches also be followed by V₁ V₂ etc., seeing as this seems to be the convention in text-books. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That does seem to be the convention; I have changed accordingly. I've removed the singular/plural as I think it may be excessively nitpicking to not much benefit, and also hard to keep in mind while writing: --LT910001 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines:

• Cranial nerves and their branches should be written using their full name.
• Cranial nerves and the three main branches of the trigeminal should be referred to with roman numerals after being mentioned.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cranial nerves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Figured this nom has waited in the queue long enough... hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

After going through the entire page, I found a few clauses that I was unable to fix due to ambiguity in the prose:

1. The accessory nerve (XI) is considered either a cranial nerve or a spinal nerve which emanates level with the brain-stem.[1] (Not sure what this means.)

 Done - and arrises on level of the brain-stem.

1. This is due to impairment in the lateral rectus muscle, which is innervated by the nerve.[1] (Which nerve?)

 Done - innervated by the abducens nerve.

1. This jerk is a reflex involving an induced twitch in muscles involved in closing the jaw when upon tapping on the jaw. (No clue what that last part means.)

 Done - gives rise to twitch in some of the muscles involved in closing the jaw, and occurs when the jaw is tapped from a precise angle.

1. The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory in supplying five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, covering the oropharynx and back of the tongue with innervation.[1] (This sentence is written rather oddly. Not entirely sure what was meant.)

 Done - The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory and supplies five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, providing sensory innervation to the oropharynx and back of the tongue.

There were a lot of misplaced semicolons, missing commas/periods, and run-on sentences, but I think I managed to fix these problems. In any event, I'll pass the prose criteria once these 4 sentences are fixed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Seppi333:} Just in case you missed it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFCF: Sorry for the late reply, been really busy over the weekend. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)		Pass
(b) (MoS)	Passes the minimal GA MOS requirements	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Adequately referenced.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources are medical, many are current.	Pass
(c) (original research)	None.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Extensively covered.	Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No bias.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obviously stable.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All tagged, most PD.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All captioned	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passes GA criteria.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Additional Notes

Thanks for the review, I am currently away for a few more days, but when I get home on Wednesday (20th) I will take on the comments, and I think I may be able to improve some minor things as well. 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Notes

Tranche 1

Extended content

Hello CFCF, I may work on this article in the next week or so in preparation for the GA review. Some things I will be doing:  Done Changing ipsilateral/contralateral to lay equivalents ("on the same side...")  Done Changing "damage or lesion" to "Damage" (the meaning is equivalent)  Not done Question: The 'clinical significance' section is sometimes unclear as to whether lesions are UMN or LMN. For example, CN XI states that damage is contralateral on the trapezius muscle, but I was under the understanding that a LMN lesion will be ipsilateral here. Will more thoroughly review article later. --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Question: Cranial nerves are referred to by their numbers consistently, so this is a matter of some consensus? I ask because some sections are titled with the nerve names and then refer to the nerve numbers, which (I feel) makes the article less readable than it could be. I chose to refer to nerve numbers because I felt the text would be too long if we consistently referred to nerve names, no consensus, and I'm open for debate.  Done Fair enough. Would you have any objection if I standardised the formatting to this: "Olfactory nerve (I)"? This formatting is quite widely used as it is. --LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC) I may remove the detailed nystagmus section and replace it with a shorter summary  Done I have also moved this to the section on the vestibulocochlear nerve. --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Some information here (eg "The hypoglossal nerve is unique in that it is innervated bilaterally from both hemispheres motor cortex. ") should be contained in the structure information, so I'll move it there.  Not done Will defer these changes until later. --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)  Done Will be rewording where possible from "anosmia (inability to smell)" to "inability to smell (anosmia)" so that the plain prose is given precedence I have reworded the sections here by function, as I think that is a lot more immediately understandable. What do you think? If this is the case, I'll correct the information about taste.--LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Question: Can I ask what the significance of the data in cranial nerve columns is? I know that this is often covered in anatomy books, but I've never encountered it used clinically, and isn't it just a restatement using scientific language of their function? (eg general somatic afferent = sensation to face) and so forth. If that's the case, I might consider rewording in a more general form. As you say the columns are mentioned in numerous text-books, but their actual significance is smaller except pertaining to embryology. It may be possible to split this section into a new article. I believe learning them helps with mapping organization on the brain stem, and I am working on labeling the current image as [1], with different colors for different columns (but I'm no graphic designer and its slow progress).  Done Ah, I understand now and have expanded that section slightly. --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) May consider rewording "Exiting the skull" using List of foramina of the human body  Done Have reformatted the table so that it lies on the right. What are your thoughts about removing the latin names to decrease the table size? --LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Tranche 2

Tranche 2  Done

Hope that you're well! --LT910001 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I think those are great points and appreciate the help, to answer your questions: Thanks for pointing out the UMN/LMN confusion, I realize it will need clarification. You are correct, and I will go back and look over it. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) I've started making some edits to the article. As always I respect your opinion CFCF, so please let me know if you think I'm editing in the wrong direction! Have also added a 'terminology' section at the start to briefly mention some of the common terms which may slip in... have also moved some of your replies so that they match the items above, so that the discussion isn't too fragmented --LT910001 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Thought: CFCF, what would your thoughts be on branching out the many tables to a separate List of cranial nerves. That way we could put all the tablular content in a nice, presentable fashion on one article, and then have a summary and integrated presentation here. Might require more work, but I think the product would be much better. The division would be similar to List of emperors of the Han dynasty/Han dynasty. --LT910001 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Have moved 'Clinical significance' to 'Function', and created a new 'Clinical significance' section. The new 'function' section documents what the nerves do and what will happen if they are damaged, and I intend the clinical significance section to document how the nerves are damaged. I hope this is a logical division, and I will add citations shortly.--LT910001 (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Hi, I think the division is a good call, but I feel the function section now reads too much like clinical significance. For this to work we would need to place more info on healthy function, which I had previously done in the tables. Agree, our shared worry being there is only one place that should have a subtopic about the nerve. I prefer Function, as it is strange to think of the nerves only in terms of their clinical relevance (they are, after all, structures which we use every day), but then the problem as you point out is what about loss of function? I am not sure what is ideal. Perhaps a non-titled subheading (Damage:) in each function section, or leave it as is? I have added the clinical significance section because I think it is worth covering some of the actual processes that cause damage to the nerves in general form, ie cancer, stroke, spontaneous inflammation and trauma. I think that is a good way to present how the nerves are relevant to clinical conditions, rather than just a list of rare-ish conditions isolated to each nerve. --LT910001 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC) As you point out the tables aren't ideal, and we should probably present the function in prose as well. I'm all for moving the tables to a new article (seeing as the foramina etc. aren't strictly part of the cranial nerves, maybe Features of the cranial nerves), where we could also have the latin names present. I'm a bit fond of the latin names myself, and I think they're very useful for non-English speakers, who most often use that terminology. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Hmm, that is a good point. I think some tables are important (list of foramina) and others are less important (ganglia, nucleus), but it is hard to articulate why. I wonder if it is possible to have a List of cranial nerves which is essentially a big reference table, and then use this article to write about them in general form. --LT910001 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)  Done See Table of cranial nerves--LT910001 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Question: what are your thoughts on moving ganglia/nucleus to the sub-articles and writing in more general form on this article?--LT910001 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC) As long as the ganglia are covered in general in the article I don't see a need to mention them all, so I'm positive to moving it to the list article. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)  Done I've covered some of the important ganglia and then left the complete list on the side-page. Should we consider renaming Cranial nerve ganglia to List of cranial nerve ganglia? --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)  Doing... I may do something similar for the nuclei -- mention some nuclei but not all, as there appear to be very many and there is a subarticle. --LT910001 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tranche 3

I'm very enthusiastic about this article and hopefully it's getting closer to a comprehensive article with all our changes. There are still one or two things I'd like to do: --LT910001 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Expand 'history' section (will do this myself)
• Slightly rephrase 'Function' sections to give more emphasis to physiological function.

CFCF, GA nominator, is there anything else, including citations and fixing up the bibliography, that you think needs doing? --LT910001 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is looking really good, there are some referencing issues which should be easy to solve, I will look into them. Apart from that the only section that might need fleshing out is the history one. I will see what I can come up with. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 Also there is mention of a Lateral colliculus, do you mean superior or inferior instead? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There are THIRTEEN cranial nerves, not 12

This article describes the cranial nerves as being 12 in number. This is simply not true even though the error is repeated in many introductory texts on neuroanatomy. The fact that there are 13 cranial nerves has been known for decades and a recent review article in clinical anatomy questions why the false information regarding the 12 nerves is repeated as an urban myth. This article states that there are 12 cranial nerves (not true) and another article on Wikipedia correctly describes the 13th cranial nerve (cranial nerve 0; Nth cranial nerve; Terminal Nerve). In some parts of the article the terminal nerve is mentioned, but not listed in the table. If you add up the number based on the text of the article there are 13. The article needs to reconcile the discrepancy by being re-written to correctly and clearly state that there are 13 cranial nerves.

24.141.23.39 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a recent medical review that indicates this? The text/content of medical articles can't be substantively changed without a supporting reference. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why

Why did you take the "See also" links to the other cranial nerves off of the pages for the individual articles for each nerve? I know that the list on the "cranial nerve" article already has the list but why force people who want to go from one cranial nerve aritcle to another to take an additional step in order to get to that information. The articles about the varioius cranial nerves form a tighly bound unit and making it easy to go from one to the other with a simple "See also" list at the bottom is not messy methinks. Qaz 01:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There. I created the template en:Template:cranial_nerves which solves this problem more elegantly. Acceptable? Alex.tan 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like that. It is acceptable to me at least. Not sure if it has to appear on the original "Cranial nerves" article since that makes the same list appear there twice though, but I like having it on all the others. Qaz

Qaz, basically I thought the list of 12 cranial nerves was too long to include in each article in the way it was formatted. It seemed that it would be better to link to the main cranial nerves article, which then linked to each cranial nerve. I was thinking that a template would be a better way in the future to provide a connection between each cranial nerve article, and I see that Alex.tan has gone ahead and implemented this. I think it looks great. Cheers, —Brim 16:04, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Development Section

I see this article has had recent thoughtful consideration for GA status, but I would suggest that Subsection 1.4 on Development should be separated into its own Section 2.0. I'm not very familiar with Wikiproject Anatomy, so I don't know if they have a preferred style that addresses this. Biolprof (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Biolprof. The relevant manual of style entry is here: WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, which says that either arrangement is fine. This wouldn't affect the GA status. I look forward to your future contributions at other articles. Members of the project are also always available to talk at WT:ANATOMY, the talk page of the WikiProject. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Exiting the brainstem

Could a term other than "lateral colliculus" be used for the optic nerve? Using this as a term for temporal lobe anatomy could lead to confusion with the corpora quadrigemina structures of the midbrain. If this is a modern explanation, Wikipedia could have a page or link to an article instead of a textbook. Vokesk (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuclei

Is it accurate to describe trigeminal's nuclei as at the midbrian only? Vokesk (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vokesk. The trigeminal has many associated nuclei in every part of the brainstem. The most prominent of them is located in the pons and extends to the very superior part of the spinal cord. Would you give us a cite to the part of the article you are referring to? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

decussation

The trochlear nerve is the only one that actually decussates. Some nerves control ipsilateral function and some control contralateral functions but only nerve IV actually decussates as a nerve. And even that could be questioned as it occurs within the brainstem and thus it is really a brain tract at this point and not a cranial nerve.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Agree, and we don't use that terminology in the article. I have put back the sentence about ipsilateral function though, as that is useful to readers to know about as they explore the subject in more depth. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

I changed the introductory sentence and am slowly going to edit this article. I am a retired anatomy professor and think it can be improved. I removed the Norton reference - I have never heard anyone refer to the cranial nerves as cerebral nerves - just not done. I also will clarify that although technically CN II is part of the CNS, no anatomist ever considers this to the case. Also, the Wikipedia PNS pages states that all the CNs are part of the PNS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Thanks AnatomyCzar. We try very hard not to use WP as a source or basis for any factual statement, as it too may be wrong (or worse, a circular error based on this page!). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

optic nerve as part of CNS?

All 12 (13) of the cranial nerves have always anatomically been considered part of the PNS not the CNS. Here the optic nerve is noted to be part of the CNS. I have never seen that in any anatomical textbook. Further, if the optic nerve is part of the CNS, then the olfactory nerve should also be considered part of the CNS. And lastly, in the wiki page on the PNS, there is a statement that all 12 cranial nerves are part of the PNS. Any objection to fixing this? Anatomyczar (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections here. On a sidenote, in your experience do most sources give as much prominence to the 0th nerve as we do? The ones I'm familiar with don't --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom: I authored the cited article on CN 0 so I am probably the wrong person to ask. But basically no, and I will reduce the amount covered here. Thanks. Anatomyczar (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AnatomyCzar. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

cranial nerves are not my area of expertise, but retina is definitely CNS and brain is CNS, so how can the nerve fibers connecting them be PNS? Biolprof (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Most modern medical textbooks I've come across state the optic nerve as a part of the CNS, while some also include the olfactory nerves. If there is any I believe we should "teach the controversy", but we need good sources for a differing opinion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

CFCF - can you provide me a source that specifically states that the optic nerve should be considered part of the CNS other than at a very technical level? I really don't think there is a controversy here. All anatomy textbooks that I know consider all the cranial nerves to be part of the PNS. I think any further discussion of this belongs on the page dealing with the optic nerve itself and not here.Anatomyczar (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF here, if there are two different perspective we should include them. As you state, "technical[ly]" the optic nerve may be considered a part of the CNS. It's confusing if we state two different things on the two articles, particularly as you indicate they both may be correct and depend what perspective (gross anatomy or neuroanatomy) you are taking. Why don't we just include both? --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nuclei

I thought the nuclei section was a bit confusing. I deleted it and simply put in the next section that the CNs leave the brainstem from nuclei. Anatomyczar (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've put it back in for three reasons. Firstly, many of our nerve articles contain a section about where the nuclei is, and this is relevant to the subject. Secondly, I think it's a logical place to start talking about the nerves and important for readers to know about; and thirdly, I think it is helpful to understand the cranial nerves from their origin (ie nuclei) onwards. There are no space constrains here and editors and readers are always welcome to improve what's written. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also mention that it's clinically useful as many signs of cranial nerve dysfunction relate to the position of the nuclei. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Having originally written the section I would be biased towards keeping it, and I do agree it can be useful. That said I am aware it can be rewritten for more simplicity. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

exiting the brainstem

I have edited the nuclei section and incorporated the exiting section within it so there is less repetition. Thus the exiting section as a separate section has been deleted.Anatomyczar (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's more reasonable I think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

nodose ganglion

added this ganglion to sensory ganglion of CNs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

parasympathetic ganglia

As written the sentence on the parasympathetic ganglia within the Ganglia section is very incorrect. These ganglia contain the synapses for the parasympathetic fibers for III, VII ,IX and X, but are located on branches of the trigeminal nerve. So the lingual nerve is NOT as indicated in the sentence a branch of the facial nerve, but a branch of V3. Nevertheless the submandibular ganglion contains the synapses of fibers from VII via the chorda tympani nerve. I am deleting this sentence because this concept is much better explained later in the article.

s written the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Exiting the skull

I am going to add information to this section for nerves Ix-XII. Also, I don't at all see the value of the sentence pertaining to the pituitary gland and don't really understand what it is saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The point of that section as we wrote it before was to talk about the foramina and other points at which the nerves exit the skull. We have included the pituitary section because it's clinically useful to know which nerves travel near it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The only cranial nerve that is clinically linked to the pituitary gland is the optic. A pituitary tumor tends to grow upwards and therefore impinges typically on the optic chiasm. The other nerves travel in the cavernous sinus, which is separated by bone from the pituitary gland.

Function

Again, errors here. The vagus nerve supplies thorax and abdomen. Very confusing uses of sensory and somatic (first is general second is specific). The Accessory nerve has both spinal and cranial components. No one considers it to be a spinal nerve.Anatomyczar (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

images in exiting th skull section

The images shown here are very difficult to use unless one has a good knowledge of cranial nerve anatomy to begin with. I will eventually find or make new images to display this information but right now I would suggest deleting them because I think they have the potential to confuse more than clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any images there at my screen resolution; do you mean the images in "Extracranial course", or the images on the right starting from the infobox down? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean all the images on the extra cranial course. I think they would fit much better later. We really have an image issue wit this page and all the anatomy pages. Images are crucial to understanding anatomy but most of the images here are very old and not clear b/c of copyright issues. I have some of my own images that I need to label and put in here and elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's much appreciated. I agree that the current set don't add much. Our image corpus is (thankfully) expanding due to CFCF's work getting images from various out of copyright textbooks, but the majority are still from Gray's Anatomy and a Romanian anatomist. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Development

This section is very confusing and contains errors. It would be impossible for a general reader to have any idea what is being explained here without a great deal of additional information. Many anatomists have stopped teaching the component structure of the cranial nerves (GVE, SVE etc) because it really isn't very helpful However, if we want to mention it I would suggest rewriting this section and titling it Components. And it could be said that these components are developmentally based. OK?Anatomyczar (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I'm please to hear that because it has always seemed a complicated way of stating that a nerve is eg motor or sensory or both. I would support rewriting it completely, and as I go through other articles will decrease the prominence of the GVE/SVE system. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Structure/function divide

@AnatomyCzar we try very hard to separate structure and function. We have tried to separate out the 'tidbits' into sections (anatomy, function, development, variation). That way it is easier for a reader to focus on understanding one bit of the anatomy or function in isolation. Using a compare/contrast model is useful for teaching purposes but difficult to convey information in depth to a reader. We previously had a state where all the tidbits were lumped together. That makes it very hard to cover anything in depth because the focus of the reader is constantly being diverted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Brainstem / brain

Technically the brainstem is part of the brain, but I feel we should state that the nerves leave the brain and brainstem. Otherwise I worry readers will expect the nerves to leave the cerebrum rather than the brainstem. Keeping in mind most users will not have a good understanding of anatomy, and will assume 'brain' to mean the cerebrum, this will make it more confusing for readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Status

Thanks Tom for the supportive comments. Another project came up that I have to work on but will return to improving this page as soon as I can. Anatomyczar (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, there's no rush. I appreciate you putting your time towards this article --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Extracranial Course (Images) and associated text

The images provided in this section can only be understood by someone who already understand a great deal about human skull anatomy and about the cranial nerves. I really don't think these images are beneficial, and the information provided in the legends is often very vague and repeated in the following function section. I would like to delete these images and their legends (in other words, delete the section). I plan to hopefully add some additional images to the article once I complete the overall editing. Is there an objection to deleting this section: Anatomyczar (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. These images duplicate content covered above, and to some extent below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks Tom. Will work on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

finished editing

I have finally completed my editing of this page. It could use more figures but for now I want to go on to the individual nerves. Anatomyczar (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

CN 13 and 14

These have been accepted in the medical literature for at least two decades are being taught regularly in most US MD programs. Shouldn't these be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.85 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

They are not generally accepted in my understanding. We will need some reliable sources to back up your claim. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)