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)
Is "imaging" a term of art?
While I don't know enough about MEG to comment, it's hard for me to think of EEG as imaging, unless there are image reconstruction techniques of which I am unaware. The functional and structural methods, however, are clearly imaging; why not add SPECT? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)