语言皮层定位的证据评估:19世纪60年代和70年代的系统回顾。

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Marjorie Lorch
{"title":"语言皮层定位的证据评估:19世纪60年代和70年代的系统回顾。","authors":"Marjorie Lorch","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2025.2487419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The specialization of cortical function for language was proposed by Paul Broca (1824-1880) in 1861 and further elaborated to include the principle of hemispheric lateralization in 1865. Broca and other French colleagues argued for and against these hypotheses, employing clinical and pathological observations of individuals with acquired language disorders as evidence. These ideas became a topic of widespread interest after the debates at the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1865 were reported internationally. During this period until the end of the decade, hundreds of publications appeared on the localization and laterality of findings in aphasic individuals and case series. Several large-scale systematic reviews of historic (pre-1861) and contemporary (post-1861) clinical findings were published only a few years after the syndrome had been proposed. These aimed to determine the strength and quality of evidence regarding the specialization and lateralization of brain areas for language. However, their authors held distinct theoretical assumptions and ideological concerns and were motivated by varied research questions. These comprehensive efforts using systematic review methodology to assess the evidence for and against hypotheses about the organization of language in the brain are examined to expose the issues of live debate in early neuroscience.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating evidence for the cortical localization for language: Systematic reviews in the 1860s and 1870s.\",\"authors\":\"Marjorie Lorch\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0964704X.2025.2487419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The specialization of cortical function for language was proposed by Paul Broca (1824-1880) in 1861 and further elaborated to include the principle of hemispheric lateralization in 1865. Broca and other French colleagues argued for and against these hypotheses, employing clinical and pathological observations of individuals with acquired language disorders as evidence. These ideas became a topic of widespread interest after the debates at the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1865 were reported internationally. During this period until the end of the decade, hundreds of publications appeared on the localization and laterality of findings in aphasic individuals and case series. Several large-scale systematic reviews of historic (pre-1861) and contemporary (post-1861) clinical findings were published only a few years after the syndrome had been proposed. These aimed to determine the strength and quality of evidence regarding the specialization and lateralization of brain areas for language. However, their authors held distinct theoretical assumptions and ideological concerns and were motivated by varied research questions. These comprehensive efforts using systematic review methodology to assess the evidence for and against hypotheses about the organization of language in the brain are examined to expose the issues of live debate in early neuroscience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2025.2487419\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2025.2487419","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

保罗·布罗卡(Paul Broca, 1824-1880)在1861年提出了大脑皮层语言功能的特化,并在1865年进一步阐述了包括半球偏侧化原理。布洛卡和其他法国同事对这些假设提出了支持和反对的意见,他们利用对患有后天语言障碍的个体的临床和病理观察作为证据。1865年在巴黎医学院的辩论被国际上报道后,这些观点成为了一个广泛关注的话题。从这一时期到本世纪末,出现了数百篇关于失语症个体和病例系列的局部和横向发现的出版物。对历史(1861年前)和当代(1861年后)临床发现的几项大规模系统综述在该综合征提出后仅几年就发表了。这些研究的目的是确定关于大脑语言区域的专门化和偏侧化的证据的强度和质量。然而,他们的作者持有不同的理论假设和意识形态关注,并受到各种研究问题的激励。这些全面的努力使用系统的回顾方法来评估证据支持和反对关于大脑中语言组织的假设,以揭示早期神经科学中现场辩论的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating evidence for the cortical localization for language: Systematic reviews in the 1860s and 1870s.

The specialization of cortical function for language was proposed by Paul Broca (1824-1880) in 1861 and further elaborated to include the principle of hemispheric lateralization in 1865. Broca and other French colleagues argued for and against these hypotheses, employing clinical and pathological observations of individuals with acquired language disorders as evidence. These ideas became a topic of widespread interest after the debates at the Paris Academy of Medicine in 1865 were reported internationally. During this period until the end of the decade, hundreds of publications appeared on the localization and laterality of findings in aphasic individuals and case series. Several large-scale systematic reviews of historic (pre-1861) and contemporary (post-1861) clinical findings were published only a few years after the syndrome had been proposed. These aimed to determine the strength and quality of evidence regarding the specialization and lateralization of brain areas for language. However, their authors held distinct theoretical assumptions and ideological concerns and were motivated by varied research questions. These comprehensive efforts using systematic review methodology to assess the evidence for and against hypotheses about the organization of language in the brain are examined to expose the issues of live debate in early neuroscience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.
×
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