[Nerve impulse in the 19th century: it's nature and the method of research].

Risa Ueda, Shigeo Sugiyama
{"title":"[Nerve impulse in the 19th century: it's nature and the method of research].","authors":"Risa Ueda,&nbsp;Shigeo Sugiyama","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We demonstrate in this paper how scientists in the 19th century did researches on the nervous system; some scientists tried to make the nature of \"nerve impulse\" clear only to fail, while others chose to investigate how the nervous system works, leaving the nature of the impulse unknown. A. Mosso and H. D. Rolleston, for example, attempted to detect heat produced in nerves with a view to elucidating the nature of the impulse. The heat, they believed, would suggest that \"nerve impulse\" was nothing but \"a wave of chemical reaction\" or \"a wave of molecular vibration.\" On the other hand, C. S. Sherrington who introduced the term synapsis in 1897 to refer to the special connection between nerve cells--special in the sense it offers an opportunity for \"nerve impulse\" to change in its nature--refrained from examining the nature of the impulse. He believed that it was impossible for science at the time to elucidate the nature. He, therefore, focused his attention to reactions of muscles in an animal caused when various stimulations were applied on animal's skin in a remote area from the muscles. He did not probe into the working of the nerves running between the part where stimulation was given and the part where corresponding reaction occurred. He pursued his studies by using phenomenalistic approach. We call his approach \"phenomenalistic\" because his research focused only on contradictions of muscles easily seen without probing into minute arrangement in a body. Gotch and Horsley, like Sherrington, did not argue about the nature of \"nerve impulse.\" But unlike Sherrington, they made experiments with electrical changes produced in nerves or a spinal cord, based on the idea that \"nerve impulse\" should accompany certain electrical changes. Making use of their electrical method effectively, they obtained a series of quantitative data as to the electrical changes. The data they collected allowed them to explore distribution of nerves deep in a body and even led them to contemplate the existence of \"field of conjunction\" in a spinal cord. They introduced the concept to explain decrease in quantity and delay in transmission time of the electrical change, which was observed when a nerve impulse traversed a certain part of the spinal cord. This idea was considerably similar to \"synapse\" introduced six years later by Sherrington.</p>","PeriodicalId":81754,"journal":{"name":"Kagakushi kenkyu. [Journal of the history of science, Japan","volume":"42 226","pages":"76-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kagakushi kenkyu. [Journal of the history of science, Japan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We demonstrate in this paper how scientists in the 19th century did researches on the nervous system; some scientists tried to make the nature of "nerve impulse" clear only to fail, while others chose to investigate how the nervous system works, leaving the nature of the impulse unknown. A. Mosso and H. D. Rolleston, for example, attempted to detect heat produced in nerves with a view to elucidating the nature of the impulse. The heat, they believed, would suggest that "nerve impulse" was nothing but "a wave of chemical reaction" or "a wave of molecular vibration." On the other hand, C. S. Sherrington who introduced the term synapsis in 1897 to refer to the special connection between nerve cells--special in the sense it offers an opportunity for "nerve impulse" to change in its nature--refrained from examining the nature of the impulse. He believed that it was impossible for science at the time to elucidate the nature. He, therefore, focused his attention to reactions of muscles in an animal caused when various stimulations were applied on animal's skin in a remote area from the muscles. He did not probe into the working of the nerves running between the part where stimulation was given and the part where corresponding reaction occurred. He pursued his studies by using phenomenalistic approach. We call his approach "phenomenalistic" because his research focused only on contradictions of muscles easily seen without probing into minute arrangement in a body. Gotch and Horsley, like Sherrington, did not argue about the nature of "nerve impulse." But unlike Sherrington, they made experiments with electrical changes produced in nerves or a spinal cord, based on the idea that "nerve impulse" should accompany certain electrical changes. Making use of their electrical method effectively, they obtained a series of quantitative data as to the electrical changes. The data they collected allowed them to explore distribution of nerves deep in a body and even led them to contemplate the existence of "field of conjunction" in a spinal cord. They introduced the concept to explain decrease in quantity and delay in transmission time of the electrical change, which was observed when a nerve impulse traversed a certain part of the spinal cord. This idea was considerably similar to "synapse" introduced six years later by Sherrington.

[19世纪的神经冲动:它的性质和研究方法]。
我们在这篇论文中展示了19世纪的科学家是如何研究神经系统的;一些科学家试图弄清楚“神经冲动”的本质,但以失败告终,而另一些科学家则选择研究神经系统是如何工作的,对冲动的本质一无所知。例如,莫索(a . Mosso)和罗勒斯顿(H. D. Rolleston)试图探测神经中产生的热量,以期阐明冲动的本质。他们相信,热量会表明“神经冲动”只不过是“一波化学反应”或“一波分子振动”。另一方面,c·s·谢林顿(C. S. Sherrington)在1897年引入“突触”一词,指的是神经细胞之间的特殊联系——特殊的意义在于它为“神经冲动”的性质改变提供了机会——却没有研究冲动的本质。他认为当时的科学是不可能阐明自然的。因此,他把注意力集中在动物肌肉的反应上,当对动物的皮肤施加不同的刺激时,肌肉会产生不同的反应。他没有探究在受到刺激的部分和产生相应反应的部分之间的神经的工作情况。他用现象学的方法进行研究。我们称他的方法为“现象主义”,因为他的研究只关注容易看到的肌肉矛盾,而没有深入研究人体的细微排列。和谢林顿一样,戈奇和霍斯利并没有争论“神经冲动”的本质。但与谢林顿不同的是,他们基于“神经冲动”应该伴随着某些电变化的想法,对神经或脊髓产生的电变化进行了实验。他们有效地利用他们的电学方法,获得了一系列关于电变化的定量数据。他们收集的数据使他们能够探索身体深处神经的分布,甚至使他们思考脊髓中是否存在“连接场”。他们引入了这个概念来解释当神经冲动穿过脊髓的某个部分时观察到的电变化的数量减少和传递时间延迟。这个想法与谢林顿六年后提出的“突触”非常相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信