Talk:Putamen

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

In line citations[edit]

Please use inline citations. The current method, employing "sup" and "/sup" tags, is incredibly difficult to work with, and doesn't provide any of the benefits of the standard method of citation.Fuzzform (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomy section is unwieldy. It needs reorganization and clarification.Fuzzform (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference "Crutcher, Michael D. Telephone Interview. 19 November 2008." cannot be found via google or any other search method. It needs to be clarified.Fuzzform (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture correct ?[edit]

The purple region seems the striatum, ie to include both the caudate and outer/lateral part of the striatum, the putanem. The orange region seems like it could be the thalamus... 70.81.15.136 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely right, thanks for catching the error -- I've changed it. Looie496 (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confusing study[edit]

It says samples were taken and made into lines... why not words?

And it says the categories were rotated. Shouldn't we say the lines were given two categories and they had to separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.38.68 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a low-quality article, and I recommend against taking anything in it seriously unless you verify it from the source. I really don't even think that experiment is notable enough to be worth describing here. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Diseases[edit]

Multiple System Atrophy https://academic.oup.com/jnen/article-abstract/77/11/1055/5116244?redirectedFrom=fulltext

(I don't want to edit the page since I can't figure out how to add citations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.172.97 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unecessary mention of trans women[edit]

It's well-documented that there are sexually dimorphic brain areas. It's also well-documented that the brains of trans individuals, as they transition, change i.e. a trans woman's brain becomes more similar to that of a cis woman's. This section says that the putamen of trans women is different than that of a typical biological male. This is neither interesting nor novel, and therefore doesn't need to be here at all.

Even the next sentence "this possibly suggests that a fundamental difference in brain composition may or may not exist between trans women and biological men" is a useless read. It not only suggests nothing, but it also contradicts the sentence right before it. There are plenty of other wiki articles that cover sex, transgenderism, and neurology that also happen to contain real scientific claims, facts, and appropriate descriptions.

Can we please remove this? Doughpamine (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have read through the study, and now understand why this fact was inluded. I want to find an appropriate way to specify in the article that the MTF individuals from the study were not yet treated with feminizing hormones, and that is why this anatomical difference is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughpamine (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]