Search

In November 1881, the eminent physiologist and physician David Ferrier was prosecuted under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. The prosecution was raised by the Victoria Street Society, formerly known as the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, through its activist founder, Frances Power Cobbe. This article examines the legislative context prior to Ferrier's trial, the personalities involved in the prosecution, and its course and outcome. The resultant impact, both personal, on Cobbe and Ferrier, and professional, on experimental neurophysiology, is discussed, in particular the foundation of the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research (AAMR) and the provision of legal support for medical practitioners subject to litigation.

Walter Eichler (1904-1942) performed the first in situ nerve conduction studies in humans. Eichler's work has been largely overlooked and there have been no biographical accounts written of him. His 1937 paper, Über die Ableitung der Aktionspotentiale vom menschlichen Nerven in situ (On the recording of the action potentials from human nerves in situ) was translated and reviewed. Archival material was obtained on his career that was housed predominantly at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau. He had memberships in Nazi organizations but did not appear to be politically active. During his brief career, he constructed novel equipment and established seminal principles for performing nerve conductions on humans. The authors repeated his experiment in the ulnar nerve, which duplicated Eichler's findings. His recordings were quite remarkable given advances in technology. In summary, the Eichler paper is the first study in the development of in situ clinical electroneurography in humans. Many of his procedural observations are still fundamental in the current practice of electroneurography. As best can be determined, his study in humans did not appear ethically compromised. Although Eichler's personal background remains open to question, his paper is a seminal study in the history and development of clinical electroneurography. Abbreviations: AP: Action potential; C: Capacitor; CNP: Compound nerve potential; DC: Direct current; E1: Preferred term for active electrode; E2: Preferred term for reference electrode; NSDÄB: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche NSD-Ärtzebund (National Socialist German Doctors' League; NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party/ Nazi Party); SS: Schutzstaffel (Protective Echelon or Squad of the Nazi party).

The first information on the structure and function of the autonomic nervous system dates back to the time of Galen (second century), while the beginning of the study of the autonomic nervous system in Russia can be traced back to the mid-19th century. This review is devoted to the professional achievements of Russian researchers in the 19th and 20th centuries who were active in the field of the autonomic nervous system at different stages of the development of neuromorphology and neurophysiology. In addition, recent achievements of modern Russian researchers active in this domain are also highlighted. This review is mainly devoted to research on the autonomic nervous system in Russia, but it would be unfair not to mention the scientists who made a significant contribution to this field of science and worked in the republics of the former USSR. Russian morphology and physiology developed under the significant influence of well-known western scientific schools. I sincerely hope that cooperation between Russian and foreign colleagues will continue and will be fruitful for global science., (© 2022 American Association for Anatomy.)

Dr. Wolf Singer (b. 1943) is one of Germany's most renowned brain researchers and neurophysiologists. His accomplishments in the creation of new research centers for neuroscience as well as his commitment to European scientific organizations for integrative brain research are highly valued as significant moments of advancement in the neurosciences. Before his appointment as a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and director at the Frankfurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, he gained deep insight into the chances and pitfalls of translational initiatives at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. From the late 1950s onward, the institute adapted to emerging international trends and successfully integrated neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy into the fledgling interdisciplinary field of neuroscience. This agenda of reorientation was an undertaking of Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt, Detlev Ploog, Gerd Peters, and Horst Jatzkewitz, among others. In the 1970s, Munich's laboratories attracted scientists from several countries in Europe and abroad. This article examines whether specific styles of conducting (neuro)science research existed in the Max Planck Society.

One hundred years ago, a 4-page paper published in the Pflüger's Archiv fűr die Gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere dramatically changed our view on synaptic transmission. The paper reported an ingenious, yet straightforward experiment made by Professor Otto Loewi in 1920 and published in 1921, which constitutes the first clear-cut proof for the chemical nature of transmission of the nerve impulse from nerve to muscle. The approach to this experiment was, however, tortuous and long.

One hundred years ago in 1921, Sir Boris Uvarov recognized that two locust species are one species but appearing in two different phases, a solitarious and a gregarious phase. As locust swarms are still a big problem affecting millions of people, basic research has tried to understand the causes for the transition between phases. This phenomenon of phase polymorphism, now called polyphenism, is a very complex multifactorial process and this short review will draw attention to this important aspect of insect research.

In 1981, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel received the Nobel Prize for their research on cortical columns-vertical bands of neurons with similar functional properties. This success led to the view that "cortical column" refers to the basic building block of the mammalian neocortex. Since the 1990s, however, critics questioned this building block picture of "cortical column" and debated whether this concept is useless and should be replaced with successor concepts. This paper inquires which experimental results after 1981 challenged the building block picture and whether these challenges warrant the elimination "cortical column" from neuroscientific discourse. I argue that the proliferation of experimental techniques led to a patchwork of locally adapted uses of the column concept. Each use refers to a different kind of cortical structure, rather than a neocortical building block. Once we acknowledge this diverse-kinds picture of "cortical column", the elimination of column concept becomes unnecessary. Rather, I suggest that "cortical column" has reached conceptual retirement: although it cannot be used to identify a neocortical building block, column research is still useful as a guide and cautionary tale for ongoing research. At the same time, neuroscientists should search for alternative concepts when studying the functional architecture of the neocortex. keywords: Cortical column, conceptual development, history of neuroscience, patchwork, eliminativism, conceptual retirement., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Rafael Lorente de Nó (1902-1990) was the youngest and last of Santiago Ramón y Cajal's students. With Fernando de Castro, Lorente de Nó helped to transition the focus of Ramón y Cajal's School from neuroanatomy to neurophysiology. His main contributions to neuroscience concerned the cytoarchitecture of the cerebral isocortex and hippocampus, neural networks, central vestibular system anatomy, vestibulo-ocular reflex physiology, cochlear nuclei anatomy, and synaptic transmission mechanisms. This article pays tribute to the memory of Lorente de Nó by providing a comprehensive review of the life and work of this giant of neuroscience. Anat Rec, 303:1221-1231, 2020. © 2019 American Association for Anatomy., (© 2019 American Association for Anatomy.)

This article reviews the contributions of the English neurophysiologist, Charles Scott Sherrington [1857-1952], and his Australian PhD trainee and collaborator, John Carew Eccles [1903-1997], to the concept of central inhibition in the spinal cord and brain. Both were awarded Nobel Prizes; Sherrington in 1932 for "discoveries regarding the function of neurons," and Eccles in 1963 for "discoveries concerning the ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in central portions of the nerve cell membrane." Both spoke about central inhibition at their Nobel Prize Award Ceremonies. The subsequent publications of their talks were entitled "Inhibition as a coordinative factor" and "The ionic mechanism of postsynaptic inhibition", respectively. Sherrington's work on central inhibition spanned 41 years (1893-1934), and for Eccles 49 years (1928-1977). Sherrington first studied central inhibition by observing hind limb muscle responses to electrical (peripheral nerve) and mechanical (muscle) stimulation. He used muscle length and force measurements until the early 1900s and electromyography in the late 1920s. Eccles used these techniques while working with Sherrington, but later employed extracellular microelectrode recording in the spinal cord followed in 1951 by intracellular recording from spinal motoneurons. This considerably advanced our understanding of central inhibition. Sherrington's health was poor during his retirement years but he nonetheless made a small number of largely humanities contributions up to 1951, one year before his death at the age of 94. In contrast, Eccles retained his health and vigor until 3 years before his death and published prolifically on many subjects during his 22 years of official retirement. His last neuroscience article appeared in 1994 when he was 91. Despite poor health he continued thinking about his life-long interest, the mind-brain problem, and was attempting to complete his autobiography in the last years of his life., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

British physiologist Charles Sherrington (1857-1952) and American neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing (1869-1939) were seminal figures in the history of neuroscience. The two came from different worlds, one laboratory-based and the other largely clinical. Their scientific intersection, beginning in July 1901, provides a glimpse into a nascent form of "bench to bedside" collaboration, which carried with it the potential to extend the arm of neurophysiological experimentation from Sherrington's laboratory to Cushing's operatory. I reviewed extensive primary source materials archived at Yale University School of Medicine Library. Sherrington viewed Cushing's bedside work as an opportunity, in humans, to extend his bench-side physiological observations on higher primates, at times almost directing Cushing in the clinic. Cushing would indeed take Sherrington's observations on apes and extend them to his patients, and the work would eventually overturn the prevailing notion that the motor and sensory cortex were intermixed across the Rolandic fissure.

Imagine you were asked to investigate the workings of an engine, but to do so without ever opening the hood. Now imagine the engine fueled the human mind. This is the challenge faced by cognitive neuroscientists worldwide aiming to understand the neural bases of our psychological functions. Luckily, human ingenuity comes to the rescue. Around the same time as the Society for Neuroscience was being established in the 1960s, the first tools for measuring the human brain at work were becoming available. Noninvasive human brain imaging and neurophysiology have continued developing at a relentless pace ever since. In this 50 year anniversary, we reflect on how these methods have been changing our understanding of how brain supports mind., (Copyright © 2020 Nobre and van Ede.)

Wilder Penfield is justly famous for his contributions to our understanding of epilepsy and of the structure-function relationship of the brain. His theory on the relationship of the brain and mind is less well known. Based on the effects of the electrical stimulation of the cortex in conscious patients, Penfield believed that consciousness and mind are functions of what he referred to as the centrencephalic integrating system. This functional system comprised bidirectional pathways between the upper brainstem, the thalami, and the cerebral cortex of both hemispheres, and was the physical substrate from which memory, perception, initiative, will, and judgment arose. It was the source of the stream of consciousness and the physical basis of mind. This paper reviews how Penfield arrived at this conception of the mind-brain relationship. Although Penfield ultimately felt that he had failed in his attempt to unify brain and mind, his work shed new light on the relationship of memory to the mesial temporal structures and to the temporal cortex; and his association of consciousness and the brainstem preceded the conceptualization of the reticular activating system by a generation. In these, as in so many aspects of neurobiology, Penfield was prescient.

I was flattered and felt tremendously honored to receive the 2018 Distinguished Career Award (DCA) from SSIB, the society that I always considered my scientific home, my family. Preparing the award lecture, I reflected about defining features of my career. This paper summarizes this very personal retrospective. As you will read, serendipity and more or less spontaneous decisions; i.e., some luck to be in the right place at the right time, and spontaneity to grab an opportunity when it presented itself, played a major role, and not necessarily a thorough analysis of my life situation at various junctions of my career path. Luck also often had the name of a fantastic tutor or mentor, or came in the form of enlightening discussions with a friend. Science is teamwork, which emphasizes how important collaborators, post-docs, students and technicians are. Although deep thinking was not necessarily crucial for my career path, a thorough examination is of course necessary when analyzing data, which were often most important when they did not confirm my hypothesis. Science is also hard work considering how much time one spends, but it never seemed like work to me because I had always this desire to find out how things in the organism work, and I always felt privileged to be able to pursue my "hobby" and even get a decent pay for it. In short, being a scientist is probably one of the most rewarding professional activities that life can offer., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The technique of microneurography has advanced the field of neuroscience for the past 50 years. While there have been a number of reviews on microneurography, this paper takes an objective approach to exploring the impact of microneurography studies. Briefly, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) was used to identify the highest citation articles over the past 50 years, and key findings are presented in a decade-by-decade highlight. This includes the establishment of microneurography in the 1960s, the acceleration of the technique by Gunnar Wallin in the 1970s, the international collaborations of the 1980s and 1990s, and finally the highest impact studies from 2000 to present. This journey through 50 years of microneurographic research related to peripheral sympathetic nerve activity includes a historical context for several of the laboratory interventions commonly used today (e.g., cold pressor test, mental stress, lower body negative pressure, isometric handgrip, etc.) and how these interventions and experimental approaches have advanced our knowledge of cardiovascular, cardiometabolic, and other human diseases and conditions.

The source of the human voice is obscured from view. The development of the laryngoscope in the late 1850s provided the potential to see the action of the vocal folds during speaking for the first time. This new instrument materially contributed to the understanding of vocal fold neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neuropathology. The laryngoscope led to elaborated understanding of disorders that previously were determined by changes in sound. The objective of this paper is to detail the consequences of this novel visualization of the larynx, and to trace how it aided in the development of understanding of the movements of the vocal folds. This is demonstrated through an examination of the activities and practices of a group of London clinicians in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Research on memory has been a major focus in the neurosciences over the past decades. An important advance was achieved by Wilder Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute, who reported from the 1930s to the 1950s about experiential phenomena induced by electrical brain stimulation in humans, implying neuronal causation of memory. Since then, neuroscientists have addressed the topic of memory from a range of subdisciplines; however, these reports by Penfield and his group as well as those on patient H. M. by Brenda Milner at the same institution continue to be referenced as groundbreaking. Further experimental work by Nobel laureates Eric Kandel and John O'Keefe, as well as by Edvard and May-Britt Moser related Penfield's patient documentation to experiential phenomena. However, our reassessment of Penfield's original patient documentation questions the stance that he had uncovered the "storehouse of memories." Human memory must be regarded more as context sensitive and as representative of an active reconstructive process, than as a simple recording of events. Hence, strategies aiming at naturalizing all phenomena of mind (including memory) to cellular and molecular mechanisms cannot convincingly refer to Penfield's electrophysiological studies alone as evidence that memories are solely caused by neuronal firing patterns.

As a primary component of homeostasis, the sympathetic nervous system enables rapid adjustments to stress through its ability to communicate messages among organs and cause targeted and graded end organ responses. Key in this communication model is the pattern of neural signals emanating from the central to peripheral components of the sympathetic nervous system. But what is the communication strategy employed in peripheral sympathetic nerve activity (SNA)? Can we develop and interpret the system of coding in SNA that improves our understanding of the neural control of the circulation? In 1968, Hagbarth and Vallbo (Hagbarth KE, Vallbo AB. Acta Physiol Scand 74: 96-108, 1968) reported the first use of microneurographic methods to record sympathetic discharges in peripheral nerves of conscious humans, allowing quantification of SNA at rest and sympathetic responsiveness to physiological stressors in health and disease. This technique also has enabled a growing investigation into the coding patterns within, and cardiovascular outcomes associated with, postganglionic SNA. This review outlines how results obtained by microneurographic means have improved our understanding of SNA outflow patterns at the action potential level, focusing on SNA directed toward skeletal muscle in conscious humans.

Edgar Douglas Adrian was an outstandingly brilliant, Nobel prize-winning neurophysiologist. He is remembered for developing the all-or-none principle of muscle contraction, and for explaining the minutiae of motor and sensory nerve transmission. He showed that the afferent effect in a neuron depends on the pattern in time of the impulses travelling in it, thereby providing a quantitative basis of nervous behaviour. With Sir Charles Sherrington, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1932 for discoveries on the functions of the neurons., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

The development and change of knowledge on the function of the parietal lobe from the second half of the 19th century to the early 1970s are reviewed. Motor and somatosensory functions were initially localized in a broad frontoparietal region. At the beginning of the 20th century the motor cortex was restricted to the posterior frontal lobe. The separate attribution of somatosensory functions to the parietal lobe was initially based on anatomic considerations, but mostly on localized bodily sensations elicited by electric stimulation in awake patients. Patients and nonhuman primates with anterior parietal damage showed deficits in somatic sensation (tactile discrimination and position sense, less markedly pain and thermal sensitivity). Somatosensory evoked potentials demonstrated in all mammals that the body is orderly and multiply represented in the anterior parietal cortex. The parietal lobe was divided into an anterior and a posterior cortex (PPC). The PPC is particularly developed in primates, where it includes a superior and an inferior parietal lobule. The PPC was initially thought to be a higher-order region for somatosensory information processing, but its functional specialization proved soon to be greater and more complex. PPC damage in humans gives rise to a variety of neuropsychologic disorders: pain asymbolia, sensory extinction, spatial neglect, optic ataxia and limb apraxia, alexia and agraphia. Single-neuron recordings in freely behaving monkeys furnished the complementary information that the PPC is involved in body-environment interactions, for visual exploration and hand use as a sensor and a tool. The PPC is now believed to underpin higher-order processes of sensory inputs, multisensory and sensorimotor integration, spatial attention, intention, and the conjoint representation of external space and the body. The symptoms in which disorders of these processes manifest after PPC damage are considerably different in humans and nonhuman primates., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Contemporary neurosciences have grown beyond the limits of a natural science. To its most vocal advocates, the study of the human brain can provide nothing short of the basis for a new science of man-the link between the "natural" and "human" sciences-as a simple consequence of the growing mass of facts relating to this most marvelous organ, accumulated in the last four decades. This straightforward picture of the growing import of the neurosciences simplifies and obscures the myriad different interpretations and images of "the brain" that have inspired the development of the neurosciences. Among them, this chapter will consider two deeply contrasting early images of the brain: the cellular-physiological brain proposed since the 1950s by John Carew Eccles, and the model-"whole" brain championed by John Zachary Young. Eccles' program was focused on the vertebrate synapse, and Young's on the whole brain of an "advanced" invertebrate (the octopus). The former was the programmatic extension of a long neurophysiological tradition, and the latter an outspoken attempt at providing a revolutionary model for the organization of an unprecedented research effort. One underscored continuity and scientific "soundness," and the other promised rupture and new, imaginative solutions to age-old problems. Nevertheless, they have been later lumped together into a single, marvelous and progressive history, or mythology, of the Science of the Brain. This chapter will show how the organizing principle of these two opposed (if almost equally successful) research efforts was not the foggy, ever-changing image of an experimental brain-in-becoming, but the clear, fixed horizon of a promised brain., (© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This article explores the work by Bernard Katz (1911-2003), Stephen W. Kuffler (1913-1980), and John C. Eccles (1903-1997) on the nerve-muscle junction as a milestone in twentieth-century neurophysiology with wider scientific implications. The historical question is approached from two perspectives: (a) an investigation of twentieth-century solutions to a longer physiological dispute and (b) an examination of a new kind of laboratory and academic cooperation. From this vantage point, the work pursued in Sydney by Sir John Carew Eccles' team on the neuromuscular junction is particularly valuable, since it contributed a central functional element to modern physiological understanding regarding the function and structure of the human and animal nervous system. The reflex model of neuromuscular action had already been advanced by neuroanatomists such as Georg Prochaska (1749-1820) in Bohemia since the eighteenth century. It became a major component of neurophysiological theories during the nineteenth century, based on the law associated with the names of François Magendie (1783-1855) in France and Charles Bell (1774-1842) in Britain regarding the functional differences of the sensory and motor spinal nerves. Yet, it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that both the histological and the neurophysiological understanding of the nerve-muscle connection became entirely understood and the chemical versus electrical transmission further elicited as the mechanisms of inhibition. John C. Eccles, Bernard Katz, and Stephen W. Kuffler helped to provide some of the missing links for modern neurophysiology. The current article explores several of their scientific contributions and investigates how the context of forced migration contributed to these interactions in contingently new ways.

The early development of nerve conduction studies (NCS) and electromyography (EMG) was linked to the discovery of electricity. This relationship had been concluded by observing the effect of applying electricity to the body of an animal and discovering that nerves and muscles themselves could produce electricity. We attempt to review the historical evolution of NCS and EMG over the last three centuries by reviewing the landmark publications of Galvani, Adrian, Denny-Brown, Larrabee, and Lambert. In 1771, Galvani showed that electrical stimulation of animal muscle tissue produced contraction and, thereby, the concept of animal electricity was born. In 1929, Adrian devised a method to record a single motor unit potential by connecting concentric needle electrodes to an amplifier and a loud speaker. In 1938, Denny-Brown described the fasciculation potentials and separated them from fibrillations. Toward the end of World War II, Larrabee began measuring the compound muscle action potential in healthy and injured nerves of war victims. In 1957, Lambert and Eaton described the electrophysiologic features of a new myasthenic syndrome associated with lung carcinoma. Overall, research on this topic was previously undertaken by neurophysiologists and then later by neurologists, with Adrian most likely being the first neurologist to be involved. The field greatly benefited from the invention of equipment that was capable of amplifying small bioelectrical currents by the beginning of the 20th century. Significant scientific and technical advances were later made during and after World War II which provided a large patient population with nerve injuries to study., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In between Carl Wernicke's locationist aphasia concept from 1874 and Norman Geschwind's new connectionist model of human brain functions in 1965, little notice was taken of the historical debate on aphasia and brain plasticity. Interestingly, Kurt Goldstein made long-forgotten, but highly relevant remarks on the connectionist model and thereby served as an important connecting link between Wernicke and Geschwind. With the original contributions of Goldstein and contemporary authors, we analyzed the historical background of the aphasia debate in the time period between Wernicke and Geschwind, which still influences current aphasia concepts and neurosurgical practice of today.

This article contrasts two American Physiological Societies, one founded near the beginning of the nineteenth century in 1837 and the other founded near its end in 1887. The contrast allows a perspective on how much budding neuroscience had developed during the nineteenth century in America. The contrast also emphasizes the complicated structure needed in both medicine and physiology to allow neurophysiology to flourish. The objectives of the American Physiological Society of 1887 were (and are) to promote physiological research and to codify physiology as a discipline. These would be accomplished by making physiology much more inclusive than traditionally accepted by raising research standards, by giving prestige to its members, by providing members a source of professional interchange, by protecting its members from antivivisectionists, and by promoting physiology as fundamental to medicine. The quantity of neuroscientific experiments by its members was striking. The main organizers of the society were Silas Weir Mitchell, John Call Dalton, Henry Pickering Bowditch, and Henry Newell Martin. The objective of the American Physiological Society of 1837 was to disperse knowledge of the "laws of life" and to promote human health and longevity. The primary organizers were William Andrus Alcott and Sylvester Graham with the encouragement of John Benson. Its technique was to use physiological information, not create it as was the case in 1887. Its object was to disseminate the word that healthy eating will improve the quality of life.

In the famous debate whether neurons communicate via chemical mediators or electrical signals, Henry Dale and Otto Loewi mounted powerful evidence on the mediation of nervous activity by chemical transmitters, while John Eccles led the campaign for the electrophysiologists. Eventually, Eccles converted to chemical transmission, when he identified excitatory and inhibitory postsynaptic potentials initiated by the release of chemical neurotransmitters in the synaptic cleft. This well-known episode from the history of neurophysiology counts as a rare instance of philosophy of science advancing scientific research, because the philosopher Karl Popper had encouraged Eccles to theorize an experiment proving the falsity of his own interpretation – according to Popper’s philosophy of science progressing by falsification. The paper shows how Eccles’ intellectual mobilization was grounded in a series of geographical moves, technological adaptations and re-arrangements of his group. This massive travel of people, ideas, instruments, and techniques mediated between the contradictory views, long before Popper kindled Eccles to reflect about the conflicting paradigms and the new theorizing did hardly change his experimental practice. Popper’s immediate effect was a critical and reflexive distance that enabled Eccles to present his evidence more persuasively, as can be shown from archival sources. The exchanges between Eccles and Popper thus shaped the philosophy of falsification to a powerful strategy for writing science.

John F. MacDonald was a close friend and mentor whose life was ended far too soon on April 22, 2014. To those who knew him, John was an endearing blend of fiery Scotsman, compassionate socialist, dedicated family man, and tireless investigator. Those close to him valued his loyalty and friendship, relished his biting wit, and puzzled at his self-deprecating manner. His career spanned a remarkable period of discovery from the early identification of excitatory amino acid, to the molecular cloning and characterization of glutamate receptors and the elucidation of mechanisms responsible for regulating their function. A true pioneer in each of these areas, John's research has had a lasting impact on our understanding of excitatory synaptic transmission and its plasticity. Our intent in commemorating John's work is to focus on some notable discoveries that highlight the impact and innovative aspects of John's work. In doing so, we also wish to highlight just how greatly our understanding of the glutamate transmitter systems has advanced since the late 1970s, when John first launched his independent neuroscience career.

This paper seeks to contribute to understandings of practice and place in the history of early American neurophysiology by exploring research with jellyfish at marine stations. Jellyfish became a particularly important research tool to experimental physiologists studying neurological subjects at the turn of the twentieth century. But their enthusiasm for the potential of this organism was constrained by its delicacy in captivity. The discovery of hardier species made experimentation at the shore possible and resulted in two epicenters of neurophysiological research on the American East Coast: the Marine Biological Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution's Dry Tortugas Laboratory. Work done in these locations had impacts on a wide range of physiological questions. These centers were short lived-researchers at the MBL eventually focused on the squid giant axon and the Tortugas lab closed after the death of Mayer-but the development of basic requirements and best practices to sustain these organisms paints an important picture of early experimental neurophysiology. Marine organisms and locations have played an integral role in the development of experimental life sciences in America. By understanding the earliest experimental research done at these locations, and the organisms that lured researchers from the campus to the coastline, we can begin to integrate marine stations into the larger historical narrative of American physiology.

The concept of the cortical column refers to vertical cell bands with similar response properties, which were initially observed by Vernon Mountcastle's mapping of single cell recordings in the cat somatic cortex. It has subsequently guided over 50 years of neuroscientific research, in which fundamental questions about the modularity of the cortex and basic principles of sensory information processing were empirically investigated. Nevertheless, the status of the column remains controversial today, as skeptical commentators proclaim that the vertical cell bands are a functionally insignificant by-product of ontogenetic development. This paper inquires how the column came to be viewed as an elementary unit of the cortex from Mountcastle's discovery in 1955 until David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel's reception of the Nobel Prize in 1981. I first argue that Mountcastle's vertical electrode recordings served as criteria for applying the column concept to electrophysiological data. In contrast to previous authors, I claim that this move from electrophysiological data to the phenomenon of columnar responses was concept-laden, but not theory-laden. In the second part of the paper, I argue that Mountcastle's criteria provided Hubel Wiesel with a conceptual outlook, i.e. it allowed them to anticipate columnar patterns in the cat and macaque visual cortex. I argue that in the late 1970s, this outlook only briefly took a form that one could call a 'theory' of the cerebral cortex, before new experimental techniques started to diversify column research. I end by showing how this account of early column research fits into a larger project that follows the conceptual development of the column into the present.

This work analyses the evolution of the scientific visibility of the neurophysiologist José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado. It examines the longitudinal evolution from 1955 to 2013 of an article (Delgado, Roberts, & Miller, 1954) studying the neurological basis of learning and motivation and compares it with a coetaneous article (Olds & Milner, 1954) with a similar subject and methodology. Both studies have been essential in Psychology. This work analyses the number of times each article has been cited between 1955-1984 and 1985-2013. The results show that the visibility of James Olds and Peter Milner's article (expressed in number of citations between 1955-1984 and 1985-2013) has longitudinally increased (p < .001), whereas the number of citations received by José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado et al.'s article has significantly reduced (p < .001). The results are discussed and the low visibility of Delgado's article is explained through historical and social factors, including the growing concern about compliance with bioethical and research guidelines and the controversial media projection of the Spanish scientist, not by the intrinsic value or the scientific repercussion of the compared articles.

This is a very personal reminiscence of the long period of Enteric Nervous System research in which I have been involved. I started to work on the gut in the early 60s really because in Turin when I arrived from Argentina, where my family migrated temporarily after the WWII, nobody was seriously working on the brain. In Anatomy they were studying the neural "intramural plexuses" and that for me was close enough to the nervous system. I grew up in the mountains near Turin near the French border where our ex-family house still bears our name. I joined the Department of Anatomy as an intern student and I was privileged to seat at a desk where a previous generation of young scientists, who studied under the professor of Anatomy A. Levi, the founder of the methods for culturing neural tissue. They were Salvador Luria, Renato Dulbecco and Rita Levi-Montalcini, who, after migrating to the USA, were each were given the Noble prize.

Camillo Negro, Professor in Neurology at the University of Torino, was a pioneer of scientific film. From 1906 to 1908, with the help of his assistant Giuseppe Roasenda and in collaboration with Roberto Omegna, one of the most experienced cinematographers in Italy, he filmed some of his patients for scientific and educational purposes. During the war years, he continued his scientific film project at the Military Hospital in Torino, filming shell-shocked soldiers. In autumn 2011, the Museo Nazionale del Cinema, in partnership with the Faculty of Neurosciences of the University of Torino, presented a new critical edition of the neuropathological films directed by Negro. The Museum's collection also includes 16 mm footage probably filmed in 1930 by Doctor Fedele Negro, Camillo's son. One of these films is devoted to celebrating the effects of the so-called "Bulgarian cure" on Parkinson's disease.

A narrative starting with the author's entering the Optometry program at the Sydney Technical College in 1940, taking him through his days as an optometry and science student, an optometrist in private practice, and participant in organized optometry in Sydney. It described his steps to become an optometric scientist and his service as faculty member in three optometry schools in the United States. Finally, it follows him into a long career in vision science and neurophysiology at Berkeley.