You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 54 No. 6, June 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  HISTORY OF NEUROLOGY
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Changing Interpretations of the Human Cortical Pattern

David D. Maudgil, MRCP

Arch Neurol. 1997;54(6):769-775.


Abstract

There has been a long historical succession of scientific descriptions of the cerebral cortex, usually accompanied by conflicting speculations on its function. It was noted by Thomas S. Kuhn that scientific descriptions are phrased in terms of the prevailing scientific paradigm and that disagreement about the interpretation of observed phenomena is what drives scientists to formulate new theories. The objectives of this study were to examine how the observation of Kuhn can help to gain insight into historical concepts of brain functioning from contemporary descriptions of the cortical gyrations, to examine how these historical concepts are relevant to neurology today, and to demonstrate how subjective these concepts are because they are based on interpretations that may be wrong. The method used here is examination of historical sources that give descriptions and illustrations of the cerebral cortex and contemporary theories of brain function. I have found that the emphases on cortical description have varied according to the prevailing contemporary paradigm. Debates about and between different paradigms mirror some themes in current neuroscience. In conclusion, the observations of Kuhn help to interpret descriptions to shed light on theories of cerebral cortical functioning, and they demonstrate that a scientific description is necessarily highly subjective (since it is phrased in terms of the current paradigm). The insights that can be gained are relevant to modern neurology and neuroscience research.



Author Affiliations

From the Epilepsy Research Group, Institute of Neurology, London, England.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.