Neuronal plasticity: historical roots and evolution of meaning
Neuronal plasticity: historical roots and evolution of meaning
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00221-008-1611-6
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Buchtel, H. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berlucchi, G.;Buchtel, H. A.
在本文中，我们概述了神经系统“可塑性”一词历史上的一些重要里程碑。威廉·詹姆斯 (William James) 首次采用该术语来表示与习惯养成相关的神经通路的变化，这一点值得赞扬。尤金尼奥·坦齐 (Eugenio Tanzi) 首次确定了神经元之间的关节（尚未称为突触）作为神经可塑性的可能位点；埃内斯托·卢加罗（Ernesto Lugaro）首次将神经可塑性与突触可塑性联系起来；卡哈尔用他自己的可塑性假设补充了坦齐的假设，可塑性是皮质神经元之间形成新连接的结果。卡哈尔早期使用了“可塑性”这个词，而他后来避免使用这个词的原因暂时是这样的：其他作者将其扩展为表示部分病理性的神经元反应，并且无疑与那些假定的与正常学习相关的神经元反应有很大不同。有证据表明，在二十世纪的前二十年，人们普遍接受的理论是，学习是基于运动突触阻力的减少，并且神经过程通过共激活而相关联。随后，当拉什利关于质量作用和皮质功能等电位的思想倾向于超越基于正统神经回路的大脑模型时，该理论颜面扫地。学习的突触可塑性理论在 20 世纪 40 年代末得到复兴，当时 Konorski（尤其是 Hebb）成功地论证了没有更好的替代方法来思考大脑通过经验和实践的可修改性。赫布关于成人学习机制的有影响力的假设包含与詹姆斯、坦齐和卡哈尔的早期推测惊人相似的元素，但赫布并没有具体承认他对大脑的思考的这些根源，尽管他充分意识到他复活了长期被错误忽视的旧观念。最近，神经可塑性的概念变得更加复杂，因为它被赋予了相当不同的含义。 Paillard 的一篇学术论文展示了深入分析如何澄清因不受限制地使用神经可塑性概念和术语而产生的一些混乱。
In this paper, we outline some important milestones in the history of the term "plasticity" in reference to the nervous system. Credit is given to William James for first adopting the term to denote changes in nervous paths associated with the establishment of habits; to Eugenio Tanzi for first identifying the articulations between neurons, not yet called synapses, as possible sites of neural plasticity; to Ernesto Lugaro for first linking neural plasticity with synaptic plasticity; and to Cajal for complementing Tanzi's hypothesis with his own hypothesis of plasticity as the result of the formation of new connections between cortical neurons. Cajal's early use of the word plasticity is demonstrated, and his subsequent avoidance of the term is tentatively accounted for by the fact that other authors extended it to mean neuronal reactions partly pathological and no doubt quite different from those putatively associated with normal learning. Evidence is furnished that in the first two decades of the twentieth century the theory was generally accepted that learning is based on a reduced resistance at exercized synapses, and that neural processes become associated by coactivation. Subsequently the theory fell in disgrace when Lashley's ideas about mass action and functional equipotentiality of the cortex tended to outmode models of the brain based on orthodox neural circuitry. The synaptic plasticity theory of learning was rehabilitated in the late 1940s when Konorski and particularly Hebb argued successfully that there was no better alternative way to think about the modifiability of the brain by experience and practice. Hebb's influential hypothesis about the mechanism of adult learning contained elements strikingly similar to the early speculations of James, Tanzi and Cajal, but Hebb did not acknowledge specifically these roots of his thinking about the brain, though he was fully aware that he had resurrected old ideas wrongly neglected for a long time. Lately the concept of neural plasticity has been complicated by attributing considerably different meanings to it. A scholarly paper by Paillard is used to show how an analysis in depth can clarify some confusion engendered by an unrestricted use of the concept and term of neural plasticity.