肌肉还是运动?新生脑科学中的代表性。

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q4 BIOLOGY Journal of the History of Biology Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s10739-023-09703-1
Zina B Ward
{"title":"肌肉还是运动?新生脑科学中的代表性。","authors":"Zina B Ward","doi":"10.1007/s10739-023-09703-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The idea that the brain is a representational organ has roots in the nineteenth century, when neurologists began drawing conclusions about what the brain represents from clinical and experimental studies. One of the earliest controversies surrounding representation in the brain was the \"muscles versus movements\" debate, which concerned whether the motor cortex represents complex movements or rather fractional components of movement. Prominent thinkers weighed in on each side: neurologists John Hughlings Jackson and F.M.R. Walshe in favor of complex movements, neurophysiologist Charles Sherrington and neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in favor of movement components. This essay examines these and other brain scientists' evolving notions of representation during the first eighty years of the muscles versus movements debate (c. 1873-1954). Although participants agreed about many of the superficial features of representation, their inferences reveal deep-seated disagreements about its inferential role. Divergent epistemological commitments stoked conflicting conceptions of what representational attributions imply and what evidence supports them.</p>","PeriodicalId":51104,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Muscles or Movements? Representation in the Nascent Brain Sciences.\",\"authors\":\"Zina B Ward\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10739-023-09703-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The idea that the brain is a representational organ has roots in the nineteenth century, when neurologists began drawing conclusions about what the brain represents from clinical and experimental studies. One of the earliest controversies surrounding representation in the brain was the \\\"muscles versus movements\\\" debate, which concerned whether the motor cortex represents complex movements or rather fractional components of movement. Prominent thinkers weighed in on each side: neurologists John Hughlings Jackson and F.M.R. Walshe in favor of complex movements, neurophysiologist Charles Sherrington and neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in favor of movement components. This essay examines these and other brain scientists' evolving notions of representation during the first eighty years of the muscles versus movements debate (c. 1873-1954). Although participants agreed about many of the superficial features of representation, their inferences reveal deep-seated disagreements about its inferential role. Divergent epistemological commitments stoked conflicting conceptions of what representational attributions imply and what evidence supports them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-023-09703-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Biology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-023-09703-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大脑是一个代表性器官的观点起源于19世纪,当时神经学家开始从临床和实验研究中得出关于大脑代表什么的结论。关于大脑表征的最早争议之一是“肌肉与运动”的争论,它涉及到运动皮层是代表复杂的运动还是运动的一小部分。著名的思想家们对两种观点都进行了权衡:神经学家约翰·休林斯·杰克逊和F.M.R.沃尔什支持复杂运动,神经生理学家查尔斯·谢林顿和神经外科医生怀尔德·彭菲尔德支持运动成分。本文考察了这些和其他脑科学家在肌肉与运动之争的前80年(约1873-1954年)中不断演变的表征概念。尽管参与者同意表征的许多表面特征,但他们的推论揭示了对表征的推论作用的根深蒂固的分歧。不同的认识论承诺引发了关于表征归因意味着什么以及有什么证据支持表征归因的相互矛盾的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Muscles or Movements? Representation in the Nascent Brain Sciences.

The idea that the brain is a representational organ has roots in the nineteenth century, when neurologists began drawing conclusions about what the brain represents from clinical and experimental studies. One of the earliest controversies surrounding representation in the brain was the "muscles versus movements" debate, which concerned whether the motor cortex represents complex movements or rather fractional components of movement. Prominent thinkers weighed in on each side: neurologists John Hughlings Jackson and F.M.R. Walshe in favor of complex movements, neurophysiologist Charles Sherrington and neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield in favor of movement components. This essay examines these and other brain scientists' evolving notions of representation during the first eighty years of the muscles versus movements debate (c. 1873-1954). Although participants agreed about many of the superficial features of representation, their inferences reveal deep-seated disagreements about its inferential role. Divergent epistemological commitments stoked conflicting conceptions of what representational attributions imply and what evidence supports them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of Biology
Journal of the History of Biology 生物-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of Biology is devoted to the history of the life sciences, with additional interest and concern in philosophical and social issues confronting biology in its varying historical contexts. While all historical epochs are welcome, particular attention has been paid in recent years to developments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. JHB is a recognized forum for scholarship on Darwin, but pieces that connect Darwinism with broader social and intellectual issues in the life sciences are especially encouraged. The journal serves both the working biologist who needs a full understanding of the historical and philosophical bases of the field and the historian of biology interested in following developments and making historiographical connections with the history of science.
期刊最新文献
A Biogeographical Debate at the Origins of Limnology in Switzerland and Italy: The Issue over Pelagic Fauna Between Pietro Pavesi and François-Alphonse Forel. Hey Hey We’re the Monkeys! An Essay Review of Gowan Dawson’s Monkey to Man "Pray Observe How Time Slips By:" Collaborators, Assistants, and the Background Dynamics in the Publication of Darwin's Cirripedia Project. "The Logic of Monsters:" Pere Alberch and the Evolutionary Significance of Experimental Teratology. How Phenograms and Cladograms Became Molecular Phylogenetic Trees.
×
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