Talk:Neural accommodation

Contested PROD

This piece of information had been missing from wikipedia until I created this article. The topic belongs to action potential, but it is a long and messy article already and both accomodation and anode bread excitation, as well as, oscillation are special cases of action potential. Even Hodgkin and Huxley discussed them in separate chapters of their 1952 review. I am a beginner in wiki and not a native speaker, so any improvement is appreciated. --Robag.Odnaj (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this piece of information is notable enough to deserve an article of its own or if it is not better merged with the existing Action potential article. As you say yourself, the subject belongs under the topic action potential. For one there is only one source, which is too old (1952) to be used as a WP:MEDRS. Secondly I am not at all sure that Neural accommodation is correct medical terminology for what you are trying to explain in the article. In your source, there is no mention of neural accommodation, the only reference being to accomodation (page 537), and what the source has to say about accomodation is; No measurements of accommodation were made nor did we make any corresponding calculations for our model. In acknowledged medical terminology neural accommodation refers to a theory of learning in psychology as can bee seen in this article, so the title of your article is at best misleading, at worst completely incorrect. Most importantly however, the notability of the article must be established by providing current, reliable, secondary sources. Ochiwar (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00337055

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nerve+accommodation

Based on my most recent search the article title can be changed to "nerve accommodation", but the other aliases could also be kept. It is really the matter of taste to put it to action potential or not, but that article is far too lengthy and messy. I am not very sure if the long and unreadable articles are the best way to organize wiki, but it is not my business. I would not argue with age of the article. Do you think that "Pythagorean theorem", Newtons laws or Maxwell's equations are too old and require new sources to confirm. Hodgking and Huxley created the first and the last physical-mathematical model in the history of neuroscience. If one types the equations into a matlab program it works, like Pythagoras's formula. No single mistake in the numbers of the article, however at that time there was no computer to integrate partial differential equations in time. They used a calculator to do limited number of simulation, which are published in the article. No need to confirm, Nobel Prize commitee and the past 60 years have done the confirmation already. A whole new field of science computational neuroscience and realistic neuron modelling are based on their theorem. If you were an expert in this field you would know that Hodgkin and Huxley's 1952 paper is the only rock-solid platform in the swamp of neuroscience. No measurements of accommodation were made nor did we make any corresponding calculations for our model That is true. That is the virtue of their model. They did not measure action potential, anode break, excitation, accommodation, oscillation, ion channels etc., They just created a physical model, based on their theorem, measured currents and did voltage clamps, and the model finally behaved exactly like a nerve. They even predicted the existence of the ion channels, and not just predicted, but mathematically described their behavior. 30 years before the actual discoveries of the ion channels by Sakmann and Neher. The secondary source could be a new field of science. Type into the google Hodgkin Huxley model, and you get billions of reference, explanations, simulation pages, where you can even see the phenomenon with you own eye. I could make figures of the simulations too, but not too quickly. In summary, I like the way wiki is controlled and appreciate your criticism, because this will warrant the quaility of information in the future.

--Robag.Odnaj (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Finally, I found a paper from 2005. It has a huge reference list. --Robag.Odnaj (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Generality

This concept is certainly notable enough to deserve an article, but the current version greatly understates its generality. The term accommodation is used to mean a gradual change in response to a stimulus that is delivered continuously or repetitively, and the terms "neural accommodation" or "neuronal accommodation" are used in the literature in a very general way to refer to accommodation that occurs that the level of neurons or the nervous system. The process described in this article is only one of several physiological mechanisms that can produce accommodation. A Google Scholar search for either of the phrases will find large numbers of examples. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that accommodation is a widely used term in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Back when I was a researcher in neuroscience, adaptation was the term more used for the concept you describe above. See for instance Neural adaptation or Acclimatisation (neurones), although both those articles are in poor shape. This article however, seems to be about a particular sort of single neuron accommodation that happens when a slowly ramping current is applied--compared to a step change in current, spikes may be suppressed or may require a higher threshold. Another reference describing this phenomenon is Schlue, W. R., D. W. Richter, K. H. Mauritz, and A. C. Nacimiento. "Mechanisms of accommodation to linearly rising currents in cat spinal motoneurons." Journal of Neurophysiology 37, no. 2 (1974): 310-315. --Mark viking (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)