Function and structure in early modern muscular mechanics. Four episodes and a dialogue between Stensen and Borelli on two chief muscular systems.

Acta anatomica Pub Date : 1997-01-01
T Kardel
{"title":"Function and structure in early modern muscular mechanics. Four episodes and a dialogue between Stensen and Borelli on two chief muscular systems.","authors":"T Kardel","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The dispute on the movement of skeletal muscles in 1667 between Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, who maintained the ancient movement caused by inflation theory, and Niels Stensen (Nicolaus Steno), who proposed the first recorded theory of fibre contraction, had far reaching implications for understanding the relation between muscle morphology and function. A dialogue is reconstructed from citations from the two authors' main works. They had a similar dispute on the movement of the heart along the lines of the debate in the 1630s between William Harvey favouring contraction and René Descartes favouring swelling. Evidence is provided for the delayed general acceptance of fibre contraction in both heart and skeletal muscles. It is shown that the inflation interpretation of muscular mechanics elaborated by Borelli, Johann Bernoulli, his son Daniel, and by others, was maintained from ancient authors and Descartes in part due to a conceptual block resulting from the mechanical philosophy that denied any force of attraction in nature. The alternative theory, that of fibre contraction, was thought of as self-motion, which violated an accepted mechanical principle and therefore was rejected. In the mid-18th century, Albrecht von Haller recorded no microscopic structures in support of inflation. He adopted the view that contraction in fibres of muscles is generated through an 'irritability'. Research on this entity has taken place ever since with a clear preponderance of studies on single fibre properties and subcellular structures. Haller did not, however, refer to the original contribution of Stensen on fibre contraction. Haller even rejected Stensen's functional architecture of skeletal muscle. This structure, now called the unipennate, or semipennate, actuator, was overlooked and had to await confirmation by anatomical rediscovery and pragmatic demonstration through successful applications in computer models of muscular contraction in the 1980s.</p>","PeriodicalId":6885,"journal":{"name":"Acta anatomica","volume":"159 1","pages":"61-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anatomica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The dispute on the movement of skeletal muscles in 1667 between Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, who maintained the ancient movement caused by inflation theory, and Niels Stensen (Nicolaus Steno), who proposed the first recorded theory of fibre contraction, had far reaching implications for understanding the relation between muscle morphology and function. A dialogue is reconstructed from citations from the two authors' main works. They had a similar dispute on the movement of the heart along the lines of the debate in the 1630s between William Harvey favouring contraction and René Descartes favouring swelling. Evidence is provided for the delayed general acceptance of fibre contraction in both heart and skeletal muscles. It is shown that the inflation interpretation of muscular mechanics elaborated by Borelli, Johann Bernoulli, his son Daniel, and by others, was maintained from ancient authors and Descartes in part due to a conceptual block resulting from the mechanical philosophy that denied any force of attraction in nature. The alternative theory, that of fibre contraction, was thought of as self-motion, which violated an accepted mechanical principle and therefore was rejected. In the mid-18th century, Albrecht von Haller recorded no microscopic structures in support of inflation. He adopted the view that contraction in fibres of muscles is generated through an 'irritability'. Research on this entity has taken place ever since with a clear preponderance of studies on single fibre properties and subcellular structures. Haller did not, however, refer to the original contribution of Stensen on fibre contraction. Haller even rejected Stensen's functional architecture of skeletal muscle. This structure, now called the unipennate, or semipennate, actuator, was overlooked and had to await confirmation by anatomical rediscovery and pragmatic demonstration through successful applications in computer models of muscular contraction in the 1980s.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期现代肌肉力学的功能和结构。四集,斯坦森和博雷利关于两个主要肌肉系统的对话。
1667年,乔瓦尼·阿方索·博雷利(Giovanni Alfonso Borelli)坚持由膨胀理论引起的古代运动,而尼尔斯·斯坦森(Niels Stensen, Nicolaus Steno)提出了第一个有记录的纤维收缩理论,双方关于骨骼肌运动的争论对理解肌肉形态与功能之间的关系有着深远的影响。从两位作者的主要作品中引用了一段对话。他们在心脏运动上也有类似的争论,就像1630年代威廉·哈维赞成收缩论和雷诺·笛卡尔赞成膨胀论的争论一样。证据提供了延迟普遍接受纤维收缩在心脏和骨骼肌。由博雷利、约翰·伯努利、他的儿子丹尼尔和其他人阐述的肌肉力学的膨胀解释,从古代作家和笛卡儿那里得到了维持,部分原因是由于机械哲学否认自然界中存在任何吸引力而产生的概念障碍。另一种理论,即纤维收缩理论,被认为是自运动,违反了公认的机械原理,因此被拒绝了。在18世纪中期,阿尔布雷希特·冯·哈勒没有记录到支持膨胀理论的微观结构。他接受了这样的观点:肌肉纤维的收缩是由“烦躁”引起的。从那时起,对这一实体的研究就一直在进行,其中对单纤维特性和亚细胞结构的研究占明显优势。然而,Haller没有提到Stensen对纤维收缩的最初贡献。Haller甚至拒绝了Stensen的骨骼肌功能结构。这种结构,现在被称为unipennate或semipennate驱动器,被忽视了,不得不等待解剖学上的重新发现和20世纪80年代在肌肉收缩的计算机模型中成功应用的实际演示来证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[The subarachnoid space]. Protein-carbohydrate interactions during fertilization. Applications of lectins and neoglycoconjugates in histology and pathology. Detection of inflammation- and neoplasia-associated alterations in human large intestine using plant/invertebrate lectins, galectin-1 and neoglycoproteins. Glycobiology of the olfactory system.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1