Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

Neuroscience Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

There really should be some caption on the figures.

Taken care of. Digfarenough 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description of grid cells[edit]

This one line is taken almost verbatim from Hafting et. al. 2005 "a grid cell has multiple firing fields, with regular spacing, which tesselate the environment in a hexagonal pattern." whoever wrote that, is having as hard a time as I am understanding it. Once I figure out what that means, I'll update it, however, if someone already understands it, please remove the jargon which I encounter entirely too much as a research student. Paskari 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably was taken verbatim: It was Torkel Hafting who started the article and wrote that line. I don't know which jargon you encounter too much as a research student. I'll do a little cleaning up of wording... digfarenough (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest declaration[edit]

I added a reference to the Giocomo et al. (2007) paper in a small, new section. I was an author on that paper, so I wanted to make clear that I added it. I believe I described the results neutrally and I think the results are important for the content of this article, as they provided the first hint of an underlying mechanism to the grid cell spatial firing properties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digfarenough (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops, yeah: that was me) digfarenough (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why this section was removed from the article on 4 June 2009? digfarenough (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

models[edit]

Someone ought to write much more about models of grid cells. At present it sounds as if Burak and Fiete 2009 is the only current model, which is far from the truth (see for instance O'Keefe and Burgess 2005, McNaughton et al 2006, Fuhs and Touretzky 2006, Blair et al 2007, Burgess et al 2007, Guanella et al 2007, Hasselmo et al, 2007, Gaussier et al 2007, Kropff and Treves 2008, Blair et al 2008, Burgess 2008, Hasselmo 2008). Indeed, at the moment it seems that only continuous attractor models are cited, completely omitting oscillatory interference models (e.g. Burgess, Barry, and O'Keefe 2007, which is a good starting reference, though much more has been done with that mechanism). Also the phrase "In most models, such as those of..." is curious: are there path integration models that don't require those three features? Seems to me that those are all necessary for performing path integration. digfarenough (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "in most models" was because there are about a hundred models by now, and I didn't dare to make a universal generalization. I agree that an account of oscillatory interference models is needed -- I didn't add it because I have a personal aversion to models of that type and would find it hard to write neutrally (also I don't know the details very well), but they do seem to be the most popular models across the community. Looie496 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your aversion, even though I'm one of the people doing a lot of work on those models! Ill try to write up a short description of the models at some point, though secretly I hope someone does the work for me, which is why I listed all those papers. digfarenough (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Central Controller of Theta[edit]

"The entorhinal cortex is no exception: like the hippocampus, it receives cholinergic and GABAergic input from the medial septal area, the central controller of theta" seems 10 years out of date. Local theta frequency in the hippocampus/MEC seems to be correlated with speed cell firing. This correlates well with the observed phase precession of place cells as a rat moves in its environment.

The global, central controller model seems to have been refined towards a more spatially local model with varying theta frequencies between more distant regions of the brain. I'm hesitant to edit this, though, because I'm not sure that "true and confusing" is much better than "wrong but simple." MichaelNaunton (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]