Search

In the neurosciences, concepts play an important role in the conception and direction of research. Among the theoretical notions and direction of research, plasticity stands out because of the multiple ways in which scientists use it to describe and interpret how the nervous system changes and adapts to different requirements. The occurrence of different conceptualizations of plasticity in the scientific literature during the second half of the twentieth century and up to the present was investigated using bibliometric methods. Throughout the period analyzed, synaptic plasticity has remained the dominant conceptualization of plasticity. However, scientists have continued to introduce novel plasticity concepts reflecting the scientific advances they have made in understanding the dynamic nature of the nervous system. The conceptual evolution of plasticity documents that the view of the adult nervous system as immutable has been replaced by an understanding of the nervous system as capable of lifelong change and adaptation.

Neuroscientists routinely use reverse inference (RI) to draw conclusions about cognitive processes from neural activation data. However, despite its widespread use, the methodological status of RI is a matter of ongoing controversy, with some critics arguing that it should be rejected wholesale on the grounds that it instantiates a deductively invalid argument form. In response to these critiques, some have proposed to conceive of RI as a form of abduction or inference to the best explanation (IBE). We side with this response but at the same time argue that a defense of RI requires more than identifying it as a form of IBE. In this paper, we give an analysis of what determines the quality of an RI conceived as an IBE and on that basis argue that whether an RI is warranted needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Support for our argument will come from a detailed methodological discussion of RI in cognitive neuroscience in light of what the recent literature on IBE has identified as the main quality indicators for IBEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In an interview with Neuron, Cori Bargmann discusses C. elegans as a model organism, the importance of considering the animal's own world (thinking like a worm), choosing a scientific problem, and her experience as head of science at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and co-chair of the BRAIN Initiative., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests C.B. is a member of the Neuron advisory board., (Copyright © 2024.)

Muscimol ( 3 ) is a psychoactive isoxazole present in various Amanita mushrooms, along with ibotenic acid and muscarine. It is structurally related to GABA and acts as a GABA A agonist with great affinity. Muscimol use dates back to Siberian shamanic cultures as an entheogen, where it was ingested orally to exert psychoactive effects. Although not approved for clinical use, its potential and use as a research tool in neuroscience is of immense value, with 3 H-muscimol being used as a radioligand in GABA receptor research. Since its discovery in the early 60s, many research groups have worked on the synthesis of the compound. Recent research suggests the potential use of muscimol in neuropathic pain relief and other potential uses are also being studied. In this review, we will cover the history, chemistry, pharmacology and overall importance of the compound.

We discuss with Yan-Gang Sun his passion and experiences that made him a neuroscientist and the current focus of his lab at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yan-Gang shares the lab environment he has been fostering and advises junior scientists to maintain research focus and form interdisciplinary collaborations., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The author declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024.)

In the second half of the 20th century, neuroscientists across North America developed automated systems for use in their research laboratories. Their decisions to do so were complex and contingent, partly a result of global reasons, such as the need to increase efficiency and flexibility, and partly a result of local reasons, such as the need to amend perceived biases of earlier research methodologies. Automated methods were advancements but raised several challenges. Transferring a system from one location to another required that certain components of the system be standardized, such as the hardware, software, and programming language. This proved difficult as commercial manufacturers lacked incentives to create standardized products for the few neuroscientists working towards automation. Additionally, investing in automated systems required massive amounts of time, labor, funding, and computer expertise. Moreover, neuroscientists did not agree on the value of automation. My brief history investigates Karl Pribram's decisions to expand his newly created automated system by standardizing equipment, programming, and protocols. Although he was an eminent Stanford neuroscientist with strong institutional support and computer know-how, the development and transfer of his automated behavioral testing system was riddled with challenges. For Pribram and neuroscience more generally, automation was not so automatic., (Copyright © 2024 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Michel Jouvet (1925-2017) is one of the most important figures in the contemporary history of the neuroscience of sleep and dreams, and one of the most awarded French researchers of the last century. Yet this former CNRS gold medalist and winner of the Cino Del Duca World Prize remains little known-not to say unknown-outside the field of sleep medicine, especially in non-French-speaking countries, where the name of his American counterpart, William C. Dement, is more familiar. Often reduced to his experiments on cats and the discovery of what he called "paradoxical sleep," Jouvet left behind a rather unique body of work that includes not only countless publications on sleep and dreams-neurophysiological as well as ethnological and psychological-but also major contributions to clinical medicine, two novels and an impressive collection of personal dream accounts and drawings, which now make it possible to explore the nocturnal side of the last 50 years of his life. This article draws on unpublished archives to illuminate all these little-known and unknown aspects of Jouvet's life and work, highlighting his hidden links with 19th-century scientific oneirology and bringing to light its paradoxes., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Stanislas Dehaene is a cognitive neuroscientist elucidating the biological mechanisms that give rise to human perception and cognition. In a conversation with Neuron, he talks about his ongoing interest in consciousness research, the role of theory in neuroscience, and his current work on education and the science of learning., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests S.D. is a member of the advisory board of the journal Neuron and one of the inventors on patent 2019 EP 2983586, "Methods to monitor consciousness.", (Copyright © 2024.)

One of the most important figures in the history of neurohistology, Giuseppe Levi (1872-1965) contributed in numerous ways to neuroscience, particularly in the fields of neuronal plasticity and the understanding of sensory ganglia. His daughter Natalia Ginzburg, née Levi (1916-1991), on the other hand, achieved fame as one of the most celebrated Italian writers of the twentieth century. Lessico Famigliare ( Family Lexicon ), from 1963, is a semibiographical account of her life in which she describes the life and character of her father in detail, providing depth and complexity to a seminal figures in the development of neuroscience. A thorough reading of the book enables modern neurologists to fully appreciate Levi's life and contributions, by means of humanizing him and giving context to his life and works. The present article provides a summary of Levi's and Natalia's lives and times as well as an analysis of the book and of the intimate, vivid descriptions of the neurohistologist's life., Competing Interests: The author has no conflict of interest to declare., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

In this chapter, we identify three distinct avenues of research on the philosophical, historical, and sociopolitical dimensions of engram research. First, we single out the need to refine philosophical understandings of memory within neuroscientific research on the engram. Specifically, we question the place of constructivist and preservationist philosophical claims on memory in the formulation of the engram concept and its operationalization in contemporary neuroscience research. Second, we delve into the received historiography of the engram claiming its disappearance after Richard Semon's (1859-1918) coinage of the concept. Differently from this view, we underline that Semon's legacy is still largely undocumented: Unknown are the ways the engram circulated within studies of organic memory as well as the role Semon's ideas had in specific national contexts of research in neurosciences. Finally, another research gap on the engram concerns a socio-anthropological documentation of the factual and normative resources this research offers to think about memory in healthcare and society. Representations of memory in this research, experimental strategies of intervention into the engram, as well as their translational potential for neurodegenerative (e.g., Alzheimer's disease) and psychiatric (e.g., post-traumatic stress disorder) conditions have not yet received scrutiny notwithstanding their obvious social and political relevance.All these knowledge gaps combined call for a strong commitment towards interdisciplinarity to align the ambitions of a foundational neuroscience of the engram with a socially responsible circulation of this knowledge. What role can the facts, metaphors, and interventional strategies of engram research play in the wider society? With what implications for philosophical questions at the foundation of memory, which have accompanied its study from antiquity? And what can neuro- and social scientists do jointly to shape the social and political framings of engram research?, (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Australian neuroscientists at the turn of the twentieth century and in the succeeding decades faced formidable obstacles to communication and supply due to their geographical isolation from centers of learning in Europe and North America. Consequently, they had to spend significant periods of their lives overseas for training and experience. The careers of six pioneers-Laura Forster, James Wilson, Grafton Elliot Smith, Alfred Campbell, Raymond Dart, and John Eccles-are presented in the form of vignettes that address their lives and most enduring scientific contributions. All six were medically trained and, although they never collaborated directly with one another, they were linked by their neuroanatomical interests and by shared mentors, who included Nobelists Ramon y Cajal and Charles Sherrington. By the 1960s, as the so-called "tyranny of distance" was overcome by advances in communication and transport technology, local collaborative groups of neuroscientists emerged in several Australian university departments that built on the individual achievements of these pioneers. This in turn led to the establishment of the Australasian Neuroscience Society in 1981.

In the 19th century, postmortem brain examination played a central role in the search for the neurobiological origin of psychiatric and neurological disorders. During that time, psychiatrists, neurologists, and neuropathologists examined autopsied brains from catatonic patients and postulated that catatonia is an organic brain disease. In line with this development, human postmortem studies of the 19th century became increasingly important in the conception of catatonia and might be seen as precursors of modern neuroscience. In this report, we closely examined autopsy reports of eleven catatonia patients of Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum. Further, we performed a close reading and analysis of previously (systematically) identified historical German and English texts between 1800 and 1900 for autopsy reports of catatonia patients. Two main findings emerged: (i) Kahlbaum's most important finding in catatonia patients was the opacity of the arachnoid; (ii) historical human postmortem studies of catatonia patients postulated a number of neuroanatomical abnormalities such as cerebral enlargement or atrophy, anemia, inflammation, suppuration, serous effusion, or dropsy as well as alterations of brain blood vessels such as rupture, distension or ossification in the pathogenesis of catatonia. However, the exact localization has often been missing or inaccurate, probably due to the lack of standardized subdivision/nomenclature of the respective brain areas. Nevertheless, Kahlbaum's 11 autopsy reports and the identified neuropathological studies between 1800 and 1900 made important discoveries, which still have the potential to inform and bolster modern neuroscientific research in catatonia., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The relationship between biology and the psy disciplines (psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy) is a complex one. Many scholars have criticized how these disciplines have been biologized in the 20th century, especially since the emergence of psychopharmacology, neuroscience, and genetic research. However, biology is not just a laboratory-based science of chemical compounds, scanners, and DNA sequencing, but also a field science based on observations of organisms in their milieus. In this paper, we draw a contrast between laboratory-based biology with a focus on brains and genes, and an ecology-based biology with a focus on lives and niches. Our argument is philosophical in nature - building partly on Wittgenstein as a "philosopher of life" - to the effect that the psy sciences need not just less biologization of the former kind, but also more biologization of the latter kind to avoid a prevalent mentalism. Not least when it comes to an understanding of psychological distress, which can favorably be viewed situationally and coupled to human lives in ecological niches., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

To further our understanding of the transformations of the modern, globalized world, historical research concerning the twentieth century must acknowledge the tremendous impact that science and technology exerted and continue to exert on political, economic, military, and social developments. To better comprehend a global history of science, it is also crucial to include Germany's most prominent research organization: The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science (MPG). Despite the existence of numerous institute chronicles and selected anniversary editions, the overall development of the MPG-historically situated in more than 80 institutes with more than 250 research service departments (of which approximately 50 have reached into the wider field of neuroscience, behavioral science, and cognitive science)-it remains largely terra incognita from a scholarly perspective. From June 2014 to December 2022, the Research Program on the History of the Max Planck Society (GMPG) opened previously neglected vistas on contemporary history, academic politics, and economic developments of the Federal Republic of Germany and its international relations by raising questions such as these: Who were the key scientific actors? In what networks did they work? In what fields had the MPG paved the way for cutting-edge innovations? What were its successes and where did it fail? In what ways were its institutional structures connected to its scientific achievements and its historical legacies? What is specific about the MPG in comparison to other national institutions in and outside of Germany? These questions relate to the emerging interdisciplinary field of the neurosciences. They refer in part to the MPG's founding years-from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s-which faced significant challenges for a "normalization process" in biomedical research and the burgeoning field of neuroscience. This special issue of the Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is composed of an introduction, five articles, and two neuroscience history interviews. It reflects on the multifold dimensions of behavioral psychology, brain research, and cognitive science developments at the MPG since its beginning through the reopening of several former Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes. After World War II, the extra-university research society-named in honor of physicist Max Planck (1858-1947)-was eventually established in the British Occupation Zone in 1946, in the American Zone in 1948, and in 1949 in the French Zone, unifying the MPG as the successor umbrella organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWIs), now transformed into Max Planck Institutes. Chronologically, the research period covered in this special issue ranges from 1948 to 2002.

Pliny the Elder was a prolific Roman author, naturalist, and military leader. Yet, his impact on modern-day neuroscience, psychiatry, and neurology has been little explored. Here, we aimed to trace the origins of our current understanding of the brain in ancient Rome through Pliny and his work, Natural History . As his magnum opus, this 37-book tome catalogs the facts and observations of natural life collected by Pliny, reflecting the knowledge of his time. Following the cephalocentric school of thought, Pliny places the brain as an agent for consciousness and details its diseases. Further, we explore Pliny's methods, which allow him to build a thorough collection of clinical descriptions and remedies. This body of work serves as an important lesson for future neuroscientists on the power of observation, the role of the humanities, and the necessity of understanding the origin of modern scientific thinking.

The compendia of medical knowledge of the great ancient Indian physicians Suśruta, Caraka, Jīvaka, and Vāgbhaṭa all attest to the practice of neurosurgery and neurology starting in the 1st millennium bce. Although a period of scientific stagnation ensued between the 12th and 20th centuries ce, Indian medical neurosciences once again flourished after India's independence from British rule in 1947. The pioneers of modern Indian neurosurgery, neurology, and their ancillary fields made numerous scientific and clinical discoveries, advancements, and innovations that proved influential on a global scale. Most importantly, the efforts of Indian neurosurgeons and neurologists were unified at the national level through the Neurological Society of India, which was established in 1951 and enabled an unprecedented degree of collaboration within the aforementioned medical specialties. The growth and success of the Indian model bears several lessons that can be applied to other nations in order to garner better collaboration among neurosurgeons, neurologists, and physicians in related fields. Here, the authors elaborate on the origins, growth, and development of neurosurgery and neurology in India and discuss their current state in order to glean valuable lessons on interdisciplinary collaboration, which forms the basis of the authors' proposal for the continued growth of societies dedicated to medical neurosciences across the world.

Phrenology is based on correlating character traits with visible or palpable cranial bumps (or depressions) thought to reflect underlying brain areas differing in size and levels of activity. Franz Joseph Gall, who introduced the doctrine during the 1790s, relied heavily on seeing and feeling skulls when he formulated his theory, as did Johann Spurzheim, who served as his assistant until 1813 and then set forth on his own. But Peter Mark Roget, a British critic of the doctrine, first assailed these methods as too subjective in 1818, and never changed his mind. George Combe, a Scotsman who admired Spurzheim, introduced calipers and other measuring instruments during the 1820s, hoping to make phrenology more like the admired physical sciences. In the United States, the Fowlers also called for more numbers, including measuring distances between the cortical sites above the organs of mind. Nonetheless, phrenologists realized they faced formidable barriers when it came to measuring the physical organs of mind, as opposed to basic skull dimensions. This essay examines the subjectivity that left phrenology open to criticism and shows how some phrenologists tried to overcome it. It also shows how vision and touch remained features of phrenological examinations throughout the numbers-obsessed 19th century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

To celebrate the 400 th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Willis, his main contributions to the development of neurosciences, in particular neurology, are presented. Willis coined the term neurology and contributed significantly to the field of neuroanatomy, with the description of the arterial circle-located at the base of the brain-, which bears his name. He also described the striatum and cranial nerves. Furthermore, as a clinical neurologist, Willis participated in the description of various diseases, including myasthenia gravis and restless legs syndrome., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Brazilian Academy of Neurology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

From the 20th century to the 21st century, rapid progress has been made in the field of neuroscience due to the application of single-cell and multi-channel recording techniques to awake animals while they are engaged in behavioral tasks. As a result, neuroscience has challenged areas that were previously thought to fall within the field of psychology. However, several problems have been pointed out regarding the discourse and literacy of neuroscience. Therefore, in this essay, I will discuss interpretations of neural activity from three perspectives: causality, part-whole relationships, and inside-out vs. outside-in research approaches.

After over seven decades of neuroscience research, it is now well established that γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain. In this paper dedicated to Krešimir Krnjević (1927-2021), a pioneer and leader in neuroscience, we briefly highlight the fundamental contributions he made in identifying GABA as an inhibitory neurotransmitter in the brain and our personal interactions with him. Of note, between 1972 and 1978 Dr. Krnjević was a highly reputed Chief Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology .

Some of us fortunate enough to have published a paper in The Journal of Neuroscience in its inaugural year (1981) have been asked to write a Progressions article addressing our views on the significance of the original work and how ideas about the topic of that work have evolved over the last 40 years. These questions cannot be effectively considered without placing them in the context of the incredible growth of the overall field of neuroscience over these last four decades. For openers, in 1981, the Nobel Prize was awarded to three neuroscience superstars: Roger Sperry, David Hubel, and Torsten Wiesel. Not a bad year to launch the Journal With this as a backdrop, I divide this Progressions article into two parts. First, I discuss our original (1981) paper describing classical conditioning in Aplysia californica , and place our results in the context of the state of the field at the time. Second, I fast forward to the present and consider some of remarkable progress in the broad field of learning and memory that has occurred in the last 40 years. Along the way, I also reflect briefly on some of the amazing advances, both technical and conceptual, that we in neuroscience have witnessed., (Copyright © 2021 the authors.)

Finding order in disorder is a hallmark of science and art. In the time of Leonardo da Vinci, the schism between science and art had yet to arise. In fact, Leonardo freely used scientific methods for his art and vice versa; for example, when he used his observations of turbulent, whirling water to guide his artistic imagination. Half a millennium later, a cornerstone of modern biology is the continuing search for order in dynamic processes. In neuroscience, the search has focussed on understanding complex spacetime brain dynamics. Recently, turbulence has been shown to be a guiding principle underlying the necessary information processing, supporting Leonardo's search for order in disorder. Here, we argue that Leonardo's seminal insights have ongoing relevance for modern neuroscience., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)