The attached file is intended to help catalyze discussion of the topic of hallucinations within SNOMED. I've inserted a few headings in the document that are for conceptual organization only. (I'm not suggesting that they be made into specific SNOMED terms.)
You'll see that many of the terms fit into a fairly straightforward hierarchy that relates to sensory type of hallucination (e.g., auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, somatic) but the other items are a hodge-podge in terms of an overaching conceptualization.
In addition to trying to arrange the terms in a conceptually related hierarchy, I've also incorporated comments from Piper's spreadsheet and comments of my own as a starting point for further discussion.
I would propose reviewing this document and editing/expanding on it in a subsequent conference call.
It occurred to me as I was reviewing the spreadsheet with the hallucination concept model (i.e., finding site, interprets, etc.) that we may want to model finding site as nervous system rather than brain structure.
One option we discussed was modeling hallucinations in each modalities as having a finding site of "x pathway", where "x" represents the modality (i.e., auditory pathway, visual pathway, etc.). Our primary justification for not using the sensory pathway concepts was that we weren't sure the science justified limiting the dysfunction to just these pathways (v other parts of the brain).
It occurred to me that - depending on how we define 'perception' - the sensory organs themselves may be included in the definition. For example, different receptors detect different classes of stimuli (rods v. cones; taste buds for sweet v sour, etc.). In these cases, do we consider the sensory receptors part of the 'perception' function? Is 'distinguishing' between different stimuli by firing at a different rate depending on the stimulus a form of perception itself?
I wonder if we want to come up with an explicit definition of the boundary between the constructs sensation and perception before we try to operationalize them in terms of where in the body we believe these functions occur....
2 Comments
Laura Fochtmann
The attached file is intended to help catalyze discussion of the topic of hallucinations within SNOMED. I've inserted a few headings in the document that are for conceptual organization only. (I'm not suggesting that they be made into specific SNOMED terms.)
You'll see that many of the terms fit into a fairly straightforward hierarchy that relates to sensory type of hallucination (e.g., auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, somatic) but the other items are a hodge-podge in terms of an overaching conceptualization.
In addition to trying to arrange the terms in a conceptually related hierarchy, I've also incorporated comments from Piper's spreadsheet and comments of my own as a starting point for further discussion.
I would propose reviewing this document and editing/expanding on it in a subsequent conference call.
SNOMED_Hallucinations_100618.docx
Piper Allyn Ranallo
Laura et al,
It occurred to me as I was reviewing the spreadsheet with the hallucination concept model (i.e., finding site, interprets, etc.) that we may want to model finding site as nervous system rather than brain structure.
One option we discussed was modeling hallucinations in each modalities as having a finding site of "x pathway", where "x" represents the modality (i.e., auditory pathway, visual pathway, etc.). Our primary justification for not using the sensory pathway concepts was that we weren't sure the science justified limiting the dysfunction to just these pathways (v other parts of the brain).
It occurred to me that - depending on how we define 'perception' - the sensory organs themselves may be included in the definition. For example, different receptors detect different classes of stimuli (rods v. cones; taste buds for sweet v sour, etc.). In these cases, do we consider the sensory receptors part of the 'perception' function? Is 'distinguishing' between different stimuli by firing at a different rate depending on the stimulus a form of perception itself?
I wonder if we want to come up with an explicit definition of the boundary between the constructs sensation and perception before we try to operationalize them in terms of where in the body we believe these functions occur....
Thoughts?