Talk:Amygdala

It is stated that 'The right amygdala is also linked with taking action as well as being linked to negative emotions' by source[9]. This source however, doesn't mention anything about initative or action being associated with the right amygdala more than the left. Is this information valid?

Used source 9: Lanteaume L, Khalfa S, Régis J, Marquis P, Chauvel P, Bartolomei F (June 2007). "Emotion induction after direct intracerebral stimulations of human amygdala". Cerebral Cortex. 17 (6): 1307–13. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl041. PMID 16880223.Davidtanis128 (talk • Special:Contributions/Davidtanis128)

The revert by Special:Diff/1307601201 was justified because the content is pure conjecture based on primary research that is as much as 18 years out of date, with no WP:BMI review used to better clarify why this topic is worthwhile to include. The reverted edit also used sources from studies of birds, other animals, a dubious website called Manifest Yourself, and undergraduate course notes, among other outdated primary research sources. The entire entry impresses as one student editor's hypothesis of how the amygdala may be involved in social regulation. One paragraph supported by a recent BMI review (within 5 years) may be suitable. Zefr (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Zefr, I understand your concerns. However, there is strong evidence that the amygdala is related to social function (Adolphs, 2009; Meisner et al., 2022; Ferrara & Opendak, 2023). Instead of removing the entire section, it would be more constructive to address only those sentences that rely on inappropriate sources. Also, while the essay WP:BMI might be relevant to medical claims about human health, this is an article "Amygdala" — a topic with a broader scope. I believe that not all content here requires a strict adherence to MEDRS guideline, and it would be more informative for readers to gain a broader perspective, including findings from animal studies.Benthorntag (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As the amygdala is an anatomical structure within a diverse neural and functional circuit, it is an article topic certainly deserving of BMI ("biomedical information") review sources. Having read several reports retrieved via PubMed using the search terms, "amygdala social behavior human", with filters for "within the last 5 years" and "review", the most fitting source found is Meisner et al., 2022 in the Handbook of Clinical Neurology, definable as a BMI review.

However, two conspicuous features of the Meisner review on the amygdala's role in "social behavior" are a) most of the background cited is from outdated animal lesion studies (not reviews) backdated as far as the 1980s, and b) interpretations are, at best, conjecture based on this primary research.

The "broad perspective" of the amygdala's role in social processes might be sufficiently stated under the section, Neuropsychological correlates, as "the amygdala is under preliminary research for its possible roles in various social behaviors, including learning, decision-making, social memory, perception, and interaction behaviors" citing Meisner.

None of the content covered in the Special:Diff/1307601201 is useful. Overall, except for the neuroanatomy, the amygdala article is woefully outdated and based on old lab research, justifying an overhaul. Zefr (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m not convinced by the view that an article on an "anatomical structure within a diverse neural and functional circuit" requires WP:BMI or WP:MEDRS. My understanding is that these guidelines apply to articles about human diseases and drugs (e.g., Klüver–Bucy syndrome). I’d like to hear opinions from other editors.

A PubMed search for "amygdala social behavior human" retrieves >2,000 articles, which suggests that "social behavior" is a major area of study, even when restricting to the human amygdala. While Meisner et al., 2022 cites "outdated animal lesion studies (not reviews) backdated as far as the 1980s", I don't think citing primary research makes its conclusions mere "conjecture". Primary studies are the source of our knowledge. If we required reviews to cite only other secondary sources, the evidence base would become circular.

To be fair, I feel that removing an entire section contributed by multiple editors, based on subjective impressions such as "conjecture" or "not useful", is excessive. I suggest reverting to the original and replacing "weak evidence" with stronger sources, but I will wait to hear other opinions. Benthorntag (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Brain structure and function are within the sourcing domain of WP:MEDRS, which is not strictly about diseases or drugs, but covers all the subdisciplines of medical science. This article needs more WP:MEDREV/BMI reviews like the 2022 Meisner publication, and should represent the scientific consensus (WP:MEDSCI) about amygdala functions based on reviews, not the opinions of editors using outdated primary research to speculate on functions - that is WP:SYNTH.

Special:Diff/1312492016 retained the major issues for social function. Further editing should rely on the Meisner report or a more recent review, which I was unable to find. Zefr (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Since no other editors seem to be against, I’d like to see if reverting to the previous version will prompt others to weigh in on whether the “social” section is appropriate to keep.Benthorntag (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Tryptofish, could you look into this? (Benthorntag left a note at WT:BMI.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a long history of people looking at a role of the amygdala in social behaviors, but (unless there's something recent that I'm unaware of), there's not much definitive evidence. My suggestion would be for editors to update the section, probably as something briefer than it had been, instead of completely eliminating it. It would be best to give only a sentence or two to any individual speculation, and to be clearer about what is as yet only conjectural. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr, Benthorntag, and WhatamIdoing: I was recently at the Society for Neuroscience meeting, where I kept an eye open for any recent developments in the science about what we discussed here. There was a featured lecture by Rony Paz of the Weizmann Institute, where he summarized where this field is at. You can find a good published source about this here: . My reading is that there is a growing recognition of a role of the amygdala in social behaviors that relate specifically to classical "amygdala behaviors": for example, amygdala behaviors related to fear and aversion showing up in anxiety disorders. For our purposes here, and considering what is WP:DUE, I think this should focus narrowly, rather than try to cover the much broader range of speculation that was in the reverted edit that started this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to have an eye on emerging basic research. The term "classical amygdala behaviors" is similar to the so-called "Canonical Model" discussed in this 2024 psychiatry review, which concludes that neuroimaging studies to discern human behaviors originating in amygdala nuclei are few in number, "modest and inconsistent". Without a good review, speculating about control of social effects seems undue. Zefr (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The diagram in the infobox showing the regions of the amygdala is in French, which is at least just a little hard for monolingual English speakers to read. Might there be an English version that could replace it?

-Sincerely and aufrichtig, Babelball | talk 00:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Other than hippocampe, and the accents, they're the same spelling in english. And obviously hippocampe is hippocampus. Mandlerex (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)