Abstract
For over a century the arrow has appeared in illustrations of cerebral function, yet the implications of using such symbols have not been previously considered. This review seeks to outline the nature, evolution, applications and limitations of this deceptively simple graphic device when it is used to picture functions of the brain. The arrow is found to have been used in several different ways: as a means of endowing anatomical structures with functional properties; as a method of displaying neural function either in free-standing form or in a structural or spatial framework; as a device for correlating functional data with underlying brain topography; and as a technique for linking functions of the brain with the world outside and with various philosophical concepts. For many of these uses the essential feature of the arrow is its directional characteristic. In contrast to the line, it is direction that enables the arrow to display information about time, which in turn can be exploited to depict functional rather than structural data. However, the use of the arrow is fraught with difficulties. It is often unclear whether an arrow has been used to illustrate fact, hypothesis, impression or possibility, or merely to provide a decorative flourish. Furthermore, the powerful symbolic nature of the arrow can so easily confer a spurious validity on the conjectural. Increasingly now there are insuperable difficulties when attempting to illustrate complex mechanisms of brain function. In the iconography of cerebral function, therefore, arrows with all their ambiguities may in certain circumstances become superseded by more non-representational symbols such as the abstract devices of the computational neuroscientist.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (703.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Cowey A., Stoerig P. The neurobiology of blindsight. Trends Neurosci. 1991 Apr;14(4):140–145. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(91)90085-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Crick F., Koch C. Constraints on cortical and thalamic projections: the no-strong-loops hypothesis. Nature. 1998 Jan 15;391(6664):245–250. doi: 10.1038/34584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geschwind N. Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. II. Brain. 1965 Sep;88(3):585–644. doi: 10.1093/brain/88.3.585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geschwind N. Language and the brain. Sci Am. 1972 Apr;226(4):76–83. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0472-76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Izquierdo I., Medina J. H. On brain lesions, the milkman and Sigmunda. Trends Neurosci. 1998 Oct;21(10):423–426. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(98)01279-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kawato M., Gomi H. The cerebellum and VOR/OKR learning models. Trends Neurosci. 1992 Nov;15(11):445–453. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(92)90008-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mesulam M. M. From sensation to cognition. Brain. 1998 Jun;121(Pt 6):1013–1052. doi: 10.1093/brain/121.6.1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nisticò G., De Sarro G. Is interleukin 2 a neuromodulator in the brain? Trends Neurosci. 1991 Apr;14(4):146–150. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(91)90086-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rizzolatti G., Luppino G., Matelli M. The organization of the cortical motor system: new concepts. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Apr;106(4):283–296. doi: 10.1016/s0013-4694(98)00022-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- STARZL T. E., TAYLOR C. W., MAGOUN H. W. Collateral afferent excitation of reticular formation of brain stem. J Neurophysiol. 1951 Nov;14(6):479–496. doi: 10.1152/jn.1951.14.6.479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Young M. P. Objective analysis of the topological organization of the primate cortical visual system. Nature. 1992 Jul 9;358(6382):152–155. doi: 10.1038/358152a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]