30 years later: On the problem of the relation between structure and function in the brain from a contemporary viewpoint (1996), part II.

L. P. Latash, M. L. Latash, O. G. Meijer

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the first half of the present paper, which appeared in vol. 3, issue 4 issue of Motor Control, the authors elaborated on Bernstein's (1935/1967) idea of the ambiguity of the relationship between the central command and the peripheral effect. The authors presented maybe the strongest statement so far: It is because the means are variant that the results can be invariant. As in Bernstein's 1935 paper, this was taken as evidence that there is no one-to-one relationship between structure and function in the brain. The authors discussed the history of localization theories, pointing out that neither strong localizationism nor strong anti-localizationism (as in Lashley's equipotentiality) would help understand the relation between brain structure and function. In order to understand the nature of a "brain center" for a function, the authors argued, one has to understand the concept of "function" itself. The development of "function" does not imply that the organism learns to (re)act in a stereotyped fashion, but that a control matrix is established, with non-single-valued relationships, allowing the organism to (re)act differently every time, in accordance with the need and actual situation. At the end of the first part of the paper, the authors emphasized the importance of a new basic logic of neurophysiology. In that sense, there are certain parallels between neurophysiology in the 60s (and also today, the present editors would add) and physics around the turn of the century, when Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, and others, created a completely new framework for theoretical physics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)125-149
Number of pages25
JournalMotor control
Volume4
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Neurophysiology
Physics
Brain
History

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

@article{82683d865943435dabce870d0658d6ea,
title = "30 years later: On the problem of the relation between structure and function in the brain from a contemporary viewpoint (1996), part II.",
abstract = "In the first half of the present paper, which appeared in vol. 3, issue 4 issue of Motor Control, the authors elaborated on Bernstein's (1935/1967) idea of the ambiguity of the relationship between the central command and the peripheral effect. The authors presented maybe the strongest statement so far: It is because the means are variant that the results can be invariant. As in Bernstein's 1935 paper, this was taken as evidence that there is no one-to-one relationship between structure and function in the brain. The authors discussed the history of localization theories, pointing out that neither strong localizationism nor strong anti-localizationism (as in Lashley's equipotentiality) would help understand the relation between brain structure and function. In order to understand the nature of a {"}brain center{"} for a function, the authors argued, one has to understand the concept of {"}function{"} itself. The development of {"}function{"} does not imply that the organism learns to (re)act in a stereotyped fashion, but that a control matrix is established, with non-single-valued relationships, allowing the organism to (re)act differently every time, in accordance with the need and actual situation. At the end of the first part of the paper, the authors emphasized the importance of a new basic logic of neurophysiology. In that sense, there are certain parallels between neurophysiology in the 60s (and also today, the present editors would add) and physics around the turn of the century, when Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, and others, created a completely new framework for theoretical physics.",
author = "Latash, {L. P.} and Latash, {M. L.} and Meijer, {O. G.}",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1123/mcj.4.2.125",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "125--149",
journal = "Motor Control",
issn = "1087-1640",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",
number = "2",

}

30 years later : On the problem of the relation between structure and function in the brain from a contemporary viewpoint (1996), part II. / Latash, L. P.; Latash, M. L.; Meijer, O. G.

In: Motor control, Vol. 4, No. 2, 04.2000, p. 125-149.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - 30 years later

T2 - On the problem of the relation between structure and function in the brain from a contemporary viewpoint (1996), part II.

AU - Latash, L. P.

AU - Latash, M. L.

AU - Meijer, O. G.

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - In the first half of the present paper, which appeared in vol. 3, issue 4 issue of Motor Control, the authors elaborated on Bernstein's (1935/1967) idea of the ambiguity of the relationship between the central command and the peripheral effect. The authors presented maybe the strongest statement so far: It is because the means are variant that the results can be invariant. As in Bernstein's 1935 paper, this was taken as evidence that there is no one-to-one relationship between structure and function in the brain. The authors discussed the history of localization theories, pointing out that neither strong localizationism nor strong anti-localizationism (as in Lashley's equipotentiality) would help understand the relation between brain structure and function. In order to understand the nature of a "brain center" for a function, the authors argued, one has to understand the concept of "function" itself. The development of "function" does not imply that the organism learns to (re)act in a stereotyped fashion, but that a control matrix is established, with non-single-valued relationships, allowing the organism to (re)act differently every time, in accordance with the need and actual situation. At the end of the first part of the paper, the authors emphasized the importance of a new basic logic of neurophysiology. In that sense, there are certain parallels between neurophysiology in the 60s (and also today, the present editors would add) and physics around the turn of the century, when Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, and others, created a completely new framework for theoretical physics.

AB - In the first half of the present paper, which appeared in vol. 3, issue 4 issue of Motor Control, the authors elaborated on Bernstein's (1935/1967) idea of the ambiguity of the relationship between the central command and the peripheral effect. The authors presented maybe the strongest statement so far: It is because the means are variant that the results can be invariant. As in Bernstein's 1935 paper, this was taken as evidence that there is no one-to-one relationship between structure and function in the brain. The authors discussed the history of localization theories, pointing out that neither strong localizationism nor strong anti-localizationism (as in Lashley's equipotentiality) would help understand the relation between brain structure and function. In order to understand the nature of a "brain center" for a function, the authors argued, one has to understand the concept of "function" itself. The development of "function" does not imply that the organism learns to (re)act in a stereotyped fashion, but that a control matrix is established, with non-single-valued relationships, allowing the organism to (re)act differently every time, in accordance with the need and actual situation. At the end of the first part of the paper, the authors emphasized the importance of a new basic logic of neurophysiology. In that sense, there are certain parallels between neurophysiology in the 60s (and also today, the present editors would add) and physics around the turn of the century, when Maxwell, Boltzmann, Planck, and others, created a completely new framework for theoretical physics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034173006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034173006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1123/mcj.4.2.125

DO - 10.1123/mcj.4.2.125

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 11500572

AN - SCOPUS:0034173006

VL - 4

SP - 125

EP - 149

JO - Motor Control

JF - Motor Control

SN - 1087-1640

IS - 2

ER -