Berlucchi G, Buchtel H A
Department of Neural and Visual Sciences, University of Verona, Strada Le Grazie 8, 37134, Verona, Italy.
Exp Brain Res. 2009 Jan;192(3):307-19. doi: 10.1007/s00221-008-1611-6. Epub 2008 Nov 12.
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.
在本文中,我们概述了“可塑性”一词在神经系统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形成相关的神经通路变化,为此他受到赞誉;尤金尼奥·坦齐(Eugenio Tanzi)首次将尚未被称为突触的神经元之间的连接点确定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;而卡哈尔(Cajal)则用自己关于可塑性的假说对坦齐的假说进行补充,其假说是可塑性是皮质神经元之间形成新连接的结果。文中展示了卡哈尔早期对“可塑性”一词的使用情况,并初步解释了他后来避免使用该术语的原因,即其他作者将其扩展为部分意味着神经元反应具有一定病理性,无疑与那些假定与正常学习相关的反应大不相同。有证据表明,在20世纪的前二十年,学习基于练习过的突触处电阻降低以及神经过程通过共同激活而关联的理论被普遍接受。随后,当拉什利(Lashley)关于大脑皮质的整体活动和功能等势性的观点倾向于使基于正统神经回路的大脑模型过时的时候,该理论便失宠了。20世纪40年代后期,当科诺尔斯基(Konorski),尤其是赫布(Hebb)成功论证没有比通过经验和实践来思考大脑的可变性更好的替代方法时,学习的突触可塑性理论得以复兴。赫布关于成人学习机制的有影响力的假说包含了与詹姆斯、坦齐和卡哈尔早期推测惊人相似的元素,但赫布并没有特别承认他关于大脑思考的这些思想根源,尽管他完全意识到自己复活了长期被错误忽视的旧观念。最近,神经可塑性的概念因赋予其相当不同的含义而变得复杂。帕亚尔(Paillard)的一篇学术论文被用来展示深入分析如何能够澄清因无限制使用神经可塑性这一概念和术语而产生的一些困惑。