神经科学离理解大脑还有多远。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-10-05 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fnsys.2023.1147896
Per E Roland
{"title":"神经科学离理解大脑还有多远。","authors":"Per E Roland","doi":"10.3389/fnsys.2023.1147896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The cellular biology of brains is relatively well-understood, but neuroscientists have not yet generated a theory explaining how brains work. Explanations of how neurons collectively operate to produce what brains can do are tentative and incomplete. Without prior assumptions about the brain mechanisms, I attempt here to identify major obstacles to progress in neuroscientific understanding of brains and central nervous systems. Most of the obstacles to our understanding are conceptual. Neuroscience lacks concepts and models rooted in experimental results explaining how neurons interact at all scales. The cerebral cortex is thought to control awake activities, which contrasts with recent experimental results. There is ambiguity distinguishing task-related brain activities from spontaneous activities and organized intrinsic activities. Brains are regarded as driven by external and internal stimuli in contrast to their considerable autonomy. Experimental results are explained by sensory inputs, behavior, and psychological concepts. Time and space are regarded as mutually independent variables for spiking, post-synaptic events, and other measured variables, in contrast to experimental results. Dynamical systems theory and models describing evolution of variables with time as the independent variable are insufficient to account for central nervous system activities. Spatial dynamics may be a practical solution. The general hypothesis that measurements of changes in fundamental brain variables, action potentials, transmitter releases, post-synaptic transmembrane currents, etc., propagating in central nervous systems reveal how they work, carries no additional assumptions. Combinations of current techniques could reveal many aspects of spatial dynamics of spiking, post-synaptic processing, and plasticity in insects and rodents to start with. But problems defining baseline and reference conditions hinder interpretations of the results. Furthermore, the facts that pooling and averaging of data destroy their underlying dynamics imply that single-trial designs and statistics are necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":12649,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585277/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How far neuroscience is from understanding brains.\",\"authors\":\"Per E Roland\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fnsys.2023.1147896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The cellular biology of brains is relatively well-understood, but neuroscientists have not yet generated a theory explaining how brains work. Explanations of how neurons collectively operate to produce what brains can do are tentative and incomplete. Without prior assumptions about the brain mechanisms, I attempt here to identify major obstacles to progress in neuroscientific understanding of brains and central nervous systems. Most of the obstacles to our understanding are conceptual. Neuroscience lacks concepts and models rooted in experimental results explaining how neurons interact at all scales. The cerebral cortex is thought to control awake activities, which contrasts with recent experimental results. There is ambiguity distinguishing task-related brain activities from spontaneous activities and organized intrinsic activities. Brains are regarded as driven by external and internal stimuli in contrast to their considerable autonomy. Experimental results are explained by sensory inputs, behavior, and psychological concepts. Time and space are regarded as mutually independent variables for spiking, post-synaptic events, and other measured variables, in contrast to experimental results. Dynamical systems theory and models describing evolution of variables with time as the independent variable are insufficient to account for central nervous system activities. Spatial dynamics may be a practical solution. The general hypothesis that measurements of changes in fundamental brain variables, action potentials, transmitter releases, post-synaptic transmembrane currents, etc., propagating in central nervous systems reveal how they work, carries no additional assumptions. Combinations of current techniques could reveal many aspects of spatial dynamics of spiking, post-synaptic processing, and plasticity in insects and rodents to start with. But problems defining baseline and reference conditions hinder interpretations of the results. Furthermore, the facts that pooling and averaging of data destroy their underlying dynamics imply that single-trial designs and statistics are necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585277/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2023.1147896\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2023.1147896","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对大脑的细胞生物学相对了解,但神经科学家尚未产生解释大脑如何工作的理论。关于神经元如何共同运作以产生大脑所能做的事情的解释是暂时的,也是不完整的。在没有对大脑机制进行预先假设的情况下,我试图在这里确定神经科学理解大脑和中枢神经系统的主要障碍。我们理解的大多数障碍都是概念性的。神经科学缺乏植根于实验结果的概念和模型来解释神经元如何在各个尺度上相互作用。大脑皮层被认为控制清醒的活动,这与最近的实验结果形成了对比。将与任务相关的大脑活动与自发活动和有组织的内在活动区分开来存在歧义。大脑被认为是由外部和内部刺激驱动的,而不是相当大的自主性。实验结果通过感觉输入、行为和心理概念来解释。与实验结果相反,时间和空间被视为尖峰、突触后事件和其他测量变量的相互独立变量。以时间为自变量描述变量进化的动力学系统理论和模型不足以解释中枢神经系统的活动。空间动力学可能是一个实用的解决方案。对中枢神经系统中传播的基本大脑变量、动作电位、递质释放、突触后跨膜电流等的变化进行测量,可以揭示它们的工作原理,这一一般假设没有额外的假设。当前技术的结合可以从一开始揭示昆虫和啮齿动物的尖峰、突触后处理和可塑性的空间动力学的许多方面。但定义基线和参考条件的问题阻碍了对结果的解释。此外,数据的汇集和平均化破坏了其潜在的动态,这意味着单一的试验设计和统计是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How far neuroscience is from understanding brains.

How far neuroscience is from understanding brains.

How far neuroscience is from understanding brains.

How far neuroscience is from understanding brains.

The cellular biology of brains is relatively well-understood, but neuroscientists have not yet generated a theory explaining how brains work. Explanations of how neurons collectively operate to produce what brains can do are tentative and incomplete. Without prior assumptions about the brain mechanisms, I attempt here to identify major obstacles to progress in neuroscientific understanding of brains and central nervous systems. Most of the obstacles to our understanding are conceptual. Neuroscience lacks concepts and models rooted in experimental results explaining how neurons interact at all scales. The cerebral cortex is thought to control awake activities, which contrasts with recent experimental results. There is ambiguity distinguishing task-related brain activities from spontaneous activities and organized intrinsic activities. Brains are regarded as driven by external and internal stimuli in contrast to their considerable autonomy. Experimental results are explained by sensory inputs, behavior, and psychological concepts. Time and space are regarded as mutually independent variables for spiking, post-synaptic events, and other measured variables, in contrast to experimental results. Dynamical systems theory and models describing evolution of variables with time as the independent variable are insufficient to account for central nervous system activities. Spatial dynamics may be a practical solution. The general hypothesis that measurements of changes in fundamental brain variables, action potentials, transmitter releases, post-synaptic transmembrane currents, etc., propagating in central nervous systems reveal how they work, carries no additional assumptions. Combinations of current techniques could reveal many aspects of spatial dynamics of spiking, post-synaptic processing, and plasticity in insects and rodents to start with. But problems defining baseline and reference conditions hinder interpretations of the results. Furthermore, the facts that pooling and averaging of data destroy their underlying dynamics imply that single-trial designs and statistics are necessary.

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
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience Neuroscience-Developmental Neuroscience
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
144
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research that advances our understanding of whole systems of the brain, including those involved in sensation, movement, learning and memory, attention, reward, decision-making, reasoning, executive functions, and emotions.
×
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