Talk:Tactile corpuscle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

contrast and comparison[edit]

Meissner's corpuscles are usually contrasted with Pacinian corpuscles for touch sensitivity (and possibly others, which might also be mentioned). In addition, Meissner's are sensitive to stroking sensations as well as fluttering, as is mentioned here:

Meissner's corpuscles respond to stroking and fluttering types of tactile stimuli.

Ashley Y 22:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

The article pacinian corpuscles says "They function as mechanoreceptors, detecting gross pressure changes and vibrations.". I haven't looked for any other reference for the "gross pressure" part, so I'll leave it until I find one. —Ashley Y 00:58, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

  • It may have escaped you but this article is about the Meissner corpuscles ... unless of course there is some agenda behind trying to insert this off-topic sentence into this article. Is there? - Robert the Bruce 05:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion a comparison between the Meissner's corpuscles and Pacinian corpuscles is a good addition to the article. I do not understand why Wikipedia's two pro-circumcision activists, Robert and Jake, want to delete the information about Pacinian corpuscles. -- DanBlackham 05:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is about leaving in the comparison to Pacinian corpuscles. They are both common mechanoreceptors. Should a new article called "Comparison of mechanoreceptors" be created to make it "on-topic"? By the way, to whoever removed the "gross pressure", Pacinian corpuscles are found in the pancreas. It would obviously take more than slight pressure to activate the nerve in the corpuscle... --jag123 14:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • In fact, Lamellar (Pacinian) corpuscles are as sensitive as to 0.5μ of capsule indentation (over a 100 μsec period), but my source is ancient and not online. 0.5 μ is not gross--Meral Rc. 05:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the comparison is that it could mislead the reader into thinking that these two are the only kinds of nerve endings. In fact, there are many. We should probably add a section to Nerve that lists the various types of nerve endings and the stimuli that they respond to, and then link to that. An additional problem is it gives "special treatment" to Pacinian corpuscles. Finally, we need to keep articles on topic. It's tempting to write a full encyclopaedia in each and every article, but doing so is detrimental to Wiki and makes it less valuable to the reader. In this instance, the reader wants to learn about Meissner's corpuscles, not Pacinian corpuscles. - Jakew 14:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I understand all that but I still don't think it's that big of a deal. There aren't that many types of nerve endings and then, not all of them function primarily to detect pressure, so it's not like the article is unfairly singling out Pacinian corpuscle out of a list of hundreds or even dozens, but more like half a dozen. Besides Meissner and Pacinian, I'm aware of Kraus's end-bulbs (which according to Bloom and Fawcett's Concise Histology, their sensory modality is unknown) and Ruffini endings (which isn't even mentionned in that same textbook) and free-nerve endings. If this article was making a comparison between Meissner's corpuscles and say, muscle spindles or motor end plates, then that would be off-topic, since apart from being nerve endings, they both serve different functions. Someone reading an article on Meissner's corpuscle could benefit from being made aware of the differences between (or even existence of) other bodies that respond to pressure changes. If the person is already aware, they can skip that sentence. I don't really see how it would mislead anyone. In my opinion, what's more detrimental to Wikipedia is reverting relatively innocuous edits and "forcing" users to debate or explain those changes. --jag123 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with JakeW. It is necessary to understand the anti-circumcision agenda to fully appreciate what is being attempted here. That is that it is important for their cause to play down the function of the Vater Pacini corpuscles and offer massive doses of innuendo suggesting a sexual function for the Meissner type. Why? Because the Vater Pacini are found in abumdance in the glans penis and the glans clitoris where the Meisseners are less present. Therefore we see deliberately inserted attempts to misconstrue the pressure required to "activate" the Vater Pacini and overstate the contribution of the Meissener. If therefore this comparison were to be made in the Meissener article it would require a fuller explanation including the reason why it is included in the article. That is to state clearly that it is because of the anti-circumcision agenda. For example the paragraph should start with: "Anti-circumcision activists claim that the Meissener corpuscles have a specific sexual function and often make a comparison with the Vater Pacinian corpucles so as to press their point of view ... etc etc". You see where I am coming from? BTW, where are you coming from on this? - Robert the Bruce 05:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion Robert's response is motivated more by his pro-circumcision agenda than a desire to have an accurate and informative article. I am not surprised that Wikipeidia's two pro-circumcision activists agree about deleting relevant information from the article. Robert and Jake have been trying for months to delete any reference to the fact that a male's foreskin has a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles. Their pro-circumcision agenda does not allow them to admit that a male's foreskin is an important and fictional part of his penis. -- DanBlackham 08:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Talking about agendas! What has been recognised is the attempt by anti-circumcision activists in insert POV into any article they can. Often passing unnoticed to those who are not aware of the anti-circumcision agenda and those who relentlessly plug it. You have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and are now ... sore. Now explain to me it you will (or are able) ... Meissener corpuscles are found on the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet ... there a sexual function here too? - Robert the Bruce 02:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less about circumcision. For those of you who want the comparison removed, have you ever looked at any histology or biology textbooks? Are you aware how many times those two encapsulated nerve endings are mentionned together, side by side or one after another? I strongly oppose any kind of mention of circumcision in this article. If mentionning two common and often "paired" pressure corpuscles is off-topic (which I think it isn't), then mentionning anything about circumcision is beyond ludicrous. Not every article on Wikipedia needs to be a huge debate. Has it really become this pathetic? It seems one can't even adequetaly describe a simple structure without having to worry about POV. You want to be pro/anti-circumcision? Good for you but take it elsewhere. --jag123 03:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Well you make the assertion that the two are inextricably linked so you need to provide the evidence (on this talk page). Further you are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter (as am I and any other person) but that is no basis to insert unsubstantiated stuff into an article. Over to you now to prove the relevance. - Robert the Bruce 05:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I never said inextricably. I just said it was common. What's that thing called, principle of least astonishment? Would someone reading about Meissner's be surprised to hear about Pacinian? No. Besides, how would you like me to prove that? Upload scans of textbooks? Why don't you go look for yourself? You won't, because you only care about leaving that info out, not because you actually care about it's use to readers. That's why you asked me to prove it, because you know I can't, or at least, not solidly enough to pass by your standards. It's funny how you hide behind "relevance" to omit something which obviously seems to offend or stand contrary to your personal opinions on a topic that is only marginally related with the article at hand. If you are so concerned about the correctness of Wikipedia in regards to irrelevant material, why don't you go look at Poison? Look for my comments in the talk page which discusses how irrelevant some of the stuff is. I'm sure your interest in keeping articles "in line" would soon fade. On the other hand, perhaps I should make a new article called "Pressure mechanoreceptors in the integumentary system" and redirect both Pacinian and Meissner's corpuscle to that article. Not only will I remove two stubs and make a real article, but I'd be able to compare the two without being off-topic right? Or would that break some other kind of rule or policy? By the way, what in the article is unsubstantiated? --jag123 05:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There are 5 receptors in the group so why do you focus only one in addition to the Meisseners? Why this selectivity? Why not mention the Merkel, Ruffini and the free nerve ends? This selectivity indicates a bias. I believe I understand the source of that bias so I am saying that either the whole group is mentioned or only the Meisseners. Why are you being selective in this? - Robert the Bruce 02:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Robert. They're both pressure receptors. One is at the boundary of the epidermis and detects light touch, stroking and whatnot, while the other is more deeply embedded and detects deep pressure. The fact that the two mechanoreceptors complement one another is the reason why they're often mentioned together in biology texts, and a good reason to mention the Pacinian corpuscle in an article about Meissner's corpuscle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Tony, I am not missing any point. I am well aware of the issues here. May I suggest that maybe you are not quite as informed on this aspect as you claim to be? First, it is known why anti-circumcision activists (and foreskin admirers) try to work the connection between the Meissener and Pacinian corpuscles. What I am saying is that if the Pacinians (vibration receptors) are brought into this article so should the other three mechnoreceptors or touch-pressure receptors being the Merkel (steady pressure on skin), Ruffini corpuscles (skin stretch) and the free nerve endings (touch-pressure, temperature, pain) which complement the role of the Meisseners (flutter). It is only this comprehensive handling of this group of receptors will prevent anti-circumcision propaganda being inseted into the article. You would want that, yes? - Robert the Bruce 02:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We are reflecting the standard Meissner's/Pacinian comparison found in histology textbooks. If that tends to support opposing circumcision somehow (I'm not even sure how), so be it. —Ashley Y 05:22, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • That tends to support nothing of the kind, but hey if one is deperate enough I suppose one could try and work that connection. - Robert the Bruce 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In that case, why are you so bothered by it? Why don't you just leave it alone? —Ashley Y 22:26, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Robert, if you look closely at what I wrote, you'll notice that my position on circumcision was clearly stated: I couldn't give a damn. In case you didn't realise, not everyone is interested in picking sides in your little fight. As I, and other have stated before, Meissner's and Pacinian's corpuscle are common pressure mechanoreceptors. You seem to have this idea that Pacinian corpuscles are for vibration only, and because of this, the comparison isn't appropriate. You're wrong. You can't even spell Meissner properly, which really shows just how much you care about the integrity of the information in the article. AFAIK, Pacinian corpuscles aren't even found in the foreskin, so how does that relate to pro or anti circumcision? Some of us really don't see where this so-called circumcision propaganda fits in. Not that I want you to point it out (because I don't care), but you seem to be turning this into some big "me vs them" conspiracy theory, being "well aware of the issues". Not everything is about you, so spare me your drivel. You know, maybe I will add appropriate comparisons to other nerve endings, if they deal with pressure, when I have time. In the meantime, go read some books and leave the stub as is. --jag123 05:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I almost took you at face value ... untill I went to the Pacinian corpuscle article and found no mention of the Meissner corpuscles there. Why would one imagine that to be the case? After having made such a song and dance about how supposedly important the connection between the two is one would have thought that you would have ensured that it was highlighted in that article as well, no? Don't expect to be taken seriously again. - Robert the Bruce 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Robert, on my list of priorities, being taken seriously by you (of all people) is somewhere below watering cactus in the Mojave and slightly above donating freezers to impoverished Inuits. I'm not participating in a popuplarity contest. Unlike you, I don't make the kind of edits where I need a group of friends or followers to rally for, approve or support whatever it is I'm writing. Let's not forget that the only reason you're here is because someone, who happens to oppose your views (and you obviously have a problem with that, you list them on your user page) made an edit to an article and you *think* it has something to do with circumcision. Are you now reverting every edit that user has done because you suspect it's all about hidden agendas? A few weeks ago, you removed genitals because, according to you, "there are enough examples". It is now obvious you only removed that because of your opinion on circumcision. The only edits anyone should be suspecting are yours. To point out that there is a lack of contrast to Meissner's corpuscle in Pacinian corpuscle is irrelevant, not to mention stupid. If you read what I wrote (which I really don't think you do), you'll notice I never said the connection was important, that they were inextricably linked or [insert any other claims I supposedly made], just that it's common to mention the two together. You say that others are "trying to work that connection". You are the only person who uses the word "connection". No one else is implying any "connection". It's really not a big deal to compare or contrast two structures found in the skin, especially since they have a similar functions. If you're so concerned about bias or selectivity, add the other nerve endings yourself. You know Robert, the skin is about two square miles and there must be millions of these mechanoreceptors, but somehow you're convinced that all of this and everyone involved here is concerned with a section of 4-6 squares inches, the foreskin, and that's just pathetic. --jag123 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Didn't read it all, just wanted to say both are rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors and are the end-organs of class A α,β fibres (almost identical in that sense). Both are carried to the cerebral cortex over the dorsal-column medial lemniscal system, without giving off lateral branches at their corresponding spinal segments. All these are common for both and especially the property of not giving off lateral branches upon entering through the dorsal roots is unique. This property is utilized by clinical neurologists to examine lesions in the dorsal column, an additional twist of the flutter-vibration (the name flutter has been proposed by Mountcastle in this article: Talbot et al but it never really made it into other articles). You could MERGE THE TWO TOPICS and not a single neurologist would notice (a neuroscientist would murder though), that's how identical the two are (and how blunt the clinical neurologists are).--Meral Rc. 05:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Textbook/anatomy website references to Meissner's and Pacinian corpuscles[edit]

I've inserted some external references that give the excellent anatomical reasons for linking these two nerve cells together, and written a paragraph highlighting the reason why academic texts up to undergraduate level often introduce them together. Robert is quite right; the Pacinian corpuscle article should also link to Meissner's corpuscle. I suggest that a "See also" link would be sufficient there as the link is quite adequately dealt with here; alternatively we could add the Meissner's and Pacinian corpuscle to a new article about this class of nerve cell. It should be possible to find a way of linking the two that correctly reflects the extremely close anatomical similarities and satisfies everybody. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edit done by Ashley Y clearly described the kind of stimulus needed to activate Meissner. Assume I drop a safe over my foot. Although Meissner's corpuscle will definitely be activated (the safe does tap the skin, at the beginning) but the instant pressure sensation is mainly "handled" by Pacinian corpuscles and the pain is handled by free nerve endings. Moments later, Merkel's disks tells my brain the safe is still there (it wasn't just a single hit) and Ruffini endings will tell my brain if my skin is stretched, which it probably is. If the safe is still there after an hour, Merkel's disks and Ruffini endings are still sending signals to my brain while Meissner's and Pacinian corpuscle have stopped transmitting. People can say it's off topic, but ultimately, if it's written correctly (what I wrote is not), then it becomes really clear to the reader exactly how and when Meissner's corpuscle work. Regardless of Ashley Y's motivation, intentional or not, their edit was a good step in that direction. This goal shouldn't be set aside because Robert has issues with circumcision. He's certainly entitled to that opinion, but why should the article suffer because it has to address Robert's concerns? (ie: having to mention textbooks, that "other common sensors are" -- I know you have good intentions Tony, and no offence, but your last edit was better...) It's not like his motivation is having correct information in there (as judged by his removal of genitals as an example). Maybe Ashley Y is an pro/anti/whatever activist, but the way it was done made a lot of sense and flowed nicely, which isn't the case now. Therefore, apart from a See also link in Pacinian corpuscle, a mention of Meissner's corpuscles shouldn't absolutely have to be made unless it's done in a natural and logical fashion (not just throw in). Besides, Robert is just using any excuse to exclude the material. First it was removed because it was off-topic. Then I was supposed to prove they were commonly mentionned together, at which point he'd have no problem. Then all the other nerve endings had to be mentionned. And now it has to be out again because Pacinian doesn't mention Meissner's. We have to do all kinds of work before Robert will grant us the privilege of letting us mention Pacinian corpuscles? I don't think so. I'm all for consensus and keeping the peace and all that, but in this case, it's obvious that Robert would prefer this thing didn't even exist, so why bother. --jag123 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I will ignore for the moment the personal "edge" in the tone of you comment. I must say that with your example you are getting close to what is required. Why as a matter of interest do you include the Merkel, Ruffini and free nerve endings in your example (as I would insist upon) yet seem prepared to defend Ashley Y's selective insertion of only the Pacinians to the death? And yes there is a cast of characters here on Wikipedia who focus upon circumcision related topics ... and yes Tony pops in from time to time and is certainly not as neutral as he would like all to believe IMHO. Now why not stop whining here on the talk page and make a NPOV contribution to the article? Waiting. - Robert the Bruce 07:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Robert's intent was to remove what he perceived as anti-circumcision bias from this article on anatomy, he knew he'd lost the minute I showed up and started editing. All we're doing here is deciding the terms on which the anatomical link between two different types of encapsulated pressure sensor is discussed in this and related articles. My feeling at present, subject of course to further discussion, is that I will go with any recommendations you have to make, and I feel that together we have the persuasive power to make them stick. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • So up rode the knight in shining armour to save the day? heh heh heh. Nice one Tony. The point is simple. Either the matter is dealt with comprehensively or not at all. Can't have single issue groups selectively inserting their POV now can we? You wouldn't want to be part of that sort of underhand stuff now would you? - Robert the Bruce 07:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The textbook in front of me (Gray's Anatomy) lists Krause end-bulbs, Merkel discs, Meissner's, Ruffini's endings, and Pacinian corpuscles together. It is still hard to understand the predilection for Pacinian corpuscles. - Jakew 00:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Look in that textbook and find how many receptors that are found in the skin, phasic and that deal with touch, like Meissner's corpuscles. There is only one other. Care to guess which one? I'll give you some hints: two words, starts with 'P' and 'c'. Does that settle the so-called predilection? Maybe if you took the time to learn about Meissner's corpuscle instead of just trying to find reasons to toss it out, you would have realised that. Maybe you should sit this one out now, and take your friend Robert with you. Apart from throwing out vague and paranoid accusations of this being an attempt by circumcision activists to make a point, neither of you seem equipped to participate in a reasonable discussion. Your weak attempts at arguments only serve to highlight your complete ignorance on the subject. --jag123 03:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a rewrite. I removed the stroking and fluttering mention because I think it's redundant (they deal with touch, regardless if it's stroking, fluttering, etc). I've also explained a bit more how the phasic part works in the receptor. I (purposely) didn't mention Ruffini endings or Merkel's disc because they are slowly adapting and my example (a poke) would not necessarily activate either. In addition, I think that because it's clearly mentionned that they stop firing after a while, no one should assume that Meissner's corpuscle are responsible for feelings of constant pressure, so explaining Ruffini or Merkel's might seem superfluous. On the other hand, I felt it important to point out that pain is not generated from MCs. By the way, what's the deal with corpusculum tactus? Is there a reason why it's in latin? --jag123 04:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although stroking and whatnot were removed on grounds of redundancy, and I thought that was okay, stroking is a very good example of the kind of touch that stimulates Meissner's corpuscle repeatedly and I have no real objection to its presence--I think it enhances the piece by giving a specific example (one that matches the poke of the Pacinian corpuscle). On balance I think it should probably be restored. --Tony Sidaway|Talk

Stroking[edit]

This a touch receptor. It detects touch, whether it's stroking, caressing, tapping, rubbing, petting, etc regardless if it's light, soft, strong or whatever. It also detects vibrations, which includes fluttering (depending how you define it). Is there any special reasons why these need to be added? --jag123 02:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Let's remove stroking and fluttering. - Jakew 02:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have asked Ashley Y on her talk page to explain why it is important to mention stroking. Her reply was that she was happy with Jakew's edit. Since no reasons have been presented, I will be removing those edits. --jag123 03:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


How about this wording? "It detects touch, including stroking, tapping and rubbing." Petting and caressing are redundant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this so important? What's the difference between stroking and rubbing? Seriously though, is this going to boil down to whether or not Oxford/Webster's considers them synonyms or not, or even worse, everyone's interpretation of those definitions? If that's what it's going to be about, I'll go with whatever word Jakew or Robert recommend, so long as it essentially means the same thing or is a synonym. Maybe that will even things out. </sarcasm> --jag123 10:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't be sarcastic, I'm trying to be helpful. You inserted a graphic example of the kind of stimulus that Pacinian corpuscles react to (a poke) at the same time that you removed all graphic examples of the kind of stimulus that Meissner's corpuscle reacts to. The words I'm suggesting are the words that you yourself gave on this talk page. I'm fine with any reasonable synonyms as long as the reader has a clear picture of the kind of motion that causes Meissner's corpuscles to fire in my lips when I move my finger across them. You ask "why is this so important?" Well I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. Why do you keep removing helpful graphic descriptions of the kind of stimulus the Meissner's corpuscle responds to? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the sarcasm. The purpose of the poke example is to clearly explain that although MC do get activated, the greater "jist" of the sensation is from PCs. If it weren't for PCs, you couldn't tell the difference between something that is resting on your skin, or jabbing into it. (I ignore FNEs to keep things simple.) On a slightly different note, this is the reason I object to the specifying of "light" touch. Unless there's a study out there that shows that MCs do nothing at all if the touch passes a certain threshold, then it's just not true. In my opinion, it's crystal clear that when I read touch, it's any and all kinds of touch. I don't see why someone would assume that a particular mode/way/method/whatever of contact does not count. In light of my recent experience with Ashley Y, it became obvious to me that her adding "stroking" serves only (at the very least) to piss off (maybe overly sensitive ?) activists. I do not believe that she is adding stroking for informational purposes. This, along with my previous reasons, is why I want to keep it out. However, if you can find someone else besides the five of us (only because we all know each other's position regarding adding/leaving it out) who sees value in adding stroking (or ideally another appropriate synonym), then I will go with whatever they say. At the same time, perhaps that/those person(s) could comment on whether or not mentionning Pacinian is of any value to them. Apart from you, I don't really know anyone well enough to ask them for their opinion, but I think you might be in a better position. If you can't/don't want to find anyone, then for the sake of putting this to bed, I'll agree to anything but the word "stroking" because for whatever reason (sexual connotation? used often with "penis" in a sentence?), it's causing unnecessary disruptions. --jag123 11:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He". I don't think your justification "it's causing unnecessary disruptions" is a good one. Shouldn't we be more concerned with providing useful and relevant information? Also, while I respect your expertise, please remember you are no more than me a final arbiter for text in this article. —Ashley Y 12:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
By useful and relevant information, you mean "stroking". If "stroking" is so relevant and useful, then please explain why. As I've stated before repeatedly, I believe that "touch" suffices and despite several requests, you don't explain anything. What you need to remember is that Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all or a soapbox for your cause. So far, none of my interactions with you have shown that you're the least bit concerned about cooperation. Putting "revert" in your edit summary for a spelling correction seems to indicate you're more interested in creating trouble. I don't have any more special rights than you in terms of editing, but this is a community project. If problems continue here, eventually the community will get involved and I doubt your standoffish behaviour will get you far with them. --jag123 13:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any "problems" here beyond your own abrasiveness. I have made one exactly edit you disagree with, but apparently this is enough to accuse me of "purposely fueling the fire" of someone's arbitration issue (something I don't find particularly relevant) and using this article as "a free-for-all or a soapbox for your cause". And now it's "continuing problems". This isn't particularly helpful behaviour and will not in general serve you well on Wikipedia. It also gives great irony to your complaint about "endless arguing" on your user page. —Ashley Y 22:48, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
As Jag123 has said, touch implies stroking and fluttering. There is no need to add them in explicitly - doing so adds nothing to the article. If the purpose of this article is not inform readers about Meissner's corpuscles, then touch is perfect. I do understand that you want to emphasise stroking as it could help promote your cause, but that isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedia. So why not just agree to leave them out? - Jakew 12:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Your explanation of the modality (that it'll still react to a jab) makes sense to me. I didn't appreciate that before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pressure in FNE[edit]

I agree FNE detect pressure but Pacinian corpuscles are more suited for deep pressure, simply because of their location in the dermis. Any objections to moving "deep pressure" beside Pacinian? --jag123 02:50, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strictly, we should include it in both. But why not just replace the comparative discussion with something like: "Other types of nerve ending detect different stimuli. Please see: Pacinian corpuscle, Krause end bulbs, Ruffini nerve ending, Free nerve ending..." Thoughts? - Jakew 02:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because it's about more than just comparing them for the sake of it. IMO, constrasting MCs to PC and FNE clarifies or narrows what will and what won't activate the corp. MCs still get activated if you get punched in the arm, but the pressure is handled by PCs. I think this offers a greater understanding of MCs than just saying something like "handles touch". Am I the only one who sees value in this? --jag123 03:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, how about this then: "Meissner corpuscles do not detect pain, deep pressure, or other forms of stimuli. Pressure is detected by free nerve endings and Pacinian corpuscles, while pain is detected by free nerve endings. Please see: ....(full list)" - Jakew 03:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nipples[edit]

I've temporarily removed the claim that Meissner's corpuscles are found in nipples, since it is contradicted by the following. I haven't read the other sources; if they claim otherwise then we ought to note the differing sources.

"AREOLA AND NIPPLE Martynoff18 found Golgi-Mazzoni, Vater-Pacini and genital corpuscles in the areola and nipple. Belonoschkin19 observed what he termed a "Krause end-bulb in the areola and nipple. Cathcart and colleagues20 did not confirm these findings. They found no Meissner corpuscles and few organized endings of any nature." -- Winkelmann, 1959 (emph added). Jakew 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Clothes feeling[edit]

We don't feel clothes mainly because of habituation, not because of how the corpuscles work (a person that wears clothes for the first time will feel them at every moment) --164.77.106.206 09:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) user:guruclefReply[reply]

Image:Skin.jpg[edit]

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Skin.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Skin.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant definitions[edit]

I have just corrected some redundancies, in which the text "prepuce (foreskin)" appeared three times in the same paragraph.

  • Regarding links, the applicable guideline suggests "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." (See WP:REPEATLINK)
  • Since prepuce is a disambiguation page that just links through to foreskin, I would suggest that making it a link is not helpful for the reader.
  • Regarding the parenthetical definition of "prepuce", it is reasonable to do this once in an article, but not three times in the same paragraph! Far from assisting the reader, that just interferes with readability. I think we can assume that the reader's attention span is sufficient for him/her to remember that "prepuce" means "foreskin".

For these reasons, I've replaced the first usage with "prepuce (foreskin)", and the second with "prepuce" (without a link). Jakew (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also like to see this redundancy reduced. My concern is regarding the word "prepuce", because it's a word the vast majority of people are not familiar with and don't understand. Three options come to mind.
  1. Add the word "foreskin" everytime prepuce is mentioned (this is messy).
  2. Only add the word "foreskin" the first time "prepuce" is mentioned in each section (not so messy, but not as easily understood to the reader).
  3. Replace "prepuce" with "foreskin" and include the word "prepuce" only the first time it's used for each section it's mentioned (this makes the most logical sense to me).
--Studiodan (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree that reducing redundant links would be better.--Studiodan (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The third option you outlined seems perfectly sensible to me. I'm not even sure if we need to include the word "prepuce" at all (except in a direct quote, obviously). Jakew (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Change made.--Studiodan (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undid all reverts and warnings. Sorry about the trouble. --Sidonuke (talk :: contribs) 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]