Talk:Neuroimaging: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Mietchen |
imported>Daniel Mietchen |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
These appear to be CNS oriented, although I certainly could imagine functional neuroimaging of the peripheral nerves. For relatively nondestructive testing there, I've worked most with EMG/NCV, and wonder if these could be/are correlated. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | These appear to be CNS oriented, although I certainly could imagine functional neuroimaging of the peripheral nerves. For relatively nondestructive testing there, I've worked most with EMG/NCV, and wonder if these could be/are correlated. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I think (non-)invasive vs. (non-)destructive might merit a set of subarticles or some collective treatment like [[Sensitivity and specificity]]. [[Cerebral angiography]] is certainly related, and at the cellular level, it could be argued that it fits in here. At larger scales, however, it is typically treated as a separate subject. Peripheral and autonomous NS are fully in here, though a bit less prominent and less widely used than imaging of the CNS. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | :I think [[non-invasive imaging|(non-)invasive]] vs. [[non-destructive imaging|(non-)destructive]] might merit a set of subarticles or some collective treatment like [[Sensitivity and specificity]]. [[Cerebral angiography]] is certainly related, and at the cellular level, it could be argued that it fits in here. At larger scales, however, it is typically treated as a separate subject. Peripheral and autonomous NS are fully in here, though a bit less prominent and less widely used than imaging of the CNS. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:07, 29 November 2010
Histology
Please also briefly mention histology and the history of brain imaging, including classical staining (Golgi, Ramón y Cajal) and still widely used invasive techniques (e.g. cryosectioning, or tracers like 3H thymidine or DiI). -- Daniel Mietchen 13:51, 15 August 2008 (CDT)
Nondestructive, noninvasive, invasive, destructive
Rather than simply emphasizing in vivo in the lede, I wonder if these distinctions should be made more clear, and even split out to subarticles. Is neuropathology or neurohistopathology a better name for the destructive?
Is this to be resticted to the neurons themselves, or would cerebral angiography be at least related?
These appear to be CNS oriented, although I certainly could imagine functional neuroimaging of the peripheral nerves. For relatively nondestructive testing there, I've worked most with EMG/NCV, and wonder if these could be/are correlated. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think (non-)invasive vs. (non-)destructive might merit a set of subarticles or some collective treatment like Sensitivity and specificity. Cerebral angiography is certainly related, and at the cellular level, it could be argued that it fits in here. At larger scales, however, it is typically treated as a separate subject. Peripheral and autonomous NS are fully in here, though a bit less prominent and less widely used than imaging of the CNS. --Daniel Mietchen 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Psychology Category Check
- Physics Category Check
- Biology Category Check
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Psychology Developing Articles
- Psychology Nonstub Articles
- Psychology Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Biology Developing Articles
- Biology Nonstub Articles
- Biology Internal Articles
- Psychology Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Biology Underlinked Articles