Abstract
This paper introduces the problem of anticipation in the theory of dominance by A.A. Ukhtomsky and his school of neurophysiology in the light of recent research. The works of this school can be seen to represent a still distinct systemic approach to functional state dynamics in the brain, both in its general biological principles and physiological mechanisms. It is proposed that this approach may help to ground novel frameworks and hypotheses for closer integration of several modern research directions, as discussed with reference to problems of anticipation, neuronal homeostasis, and the interaction of graded and field transmission effects with structured network activity in the brain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The question whether parabiosis represents an exclusively pathological condition or may to some extent also characterize normal functions was debated for a long time, and seems not to have received a conclusive answer. It seems possible to assume that parabiosis, at least in its early stages and as a transient state, can occur as part of normal functioning, with possible adaptive significance in the sense of leading to increased tissue resilience and range of functional capacities.
- 2.
Cf. respective diagrams in Pavlova’s “Individuality of Brain Dominants,” current volume.
- 3.
As testified by Ukhtomsky’s close younger colleague Arshavsky [22], Ukhtomsky was aware of Bauer’s (1890–1938) work, although he did not refer to it in this paper, or in his lectures devoted to the problems of biological equilibrium. At the same time, Bauer’s work in this area was groundbreaking and remains of significant interest [23, 24]. It voiced similar problems and shared some important ideas with Ukhtomsky’s own research (cf. the problem expressed in Ukhtomsky’s quote above). Arshavsky, perhaps under the circumstances of his time, expressed surprise over this fact. We know today that Bauer was arrested by the NKVD and executed in 1938, and his works disappeared from Soviet libraries. Ukhtomsky himself had been arrested at least three times by then, with serious charges made against him [cf. Sokolova, current chapter].
- 4.
“The concept of “collateral inhibition” in dominants should not be distorted. This is not a suppression of any activity at the inhibited sites, but its transformation more or less in line with the dominant direction of activity. The local reflexes can be entirely retained in these conditions: as I’m reading a lecture, I notice that I wave off a fly” [14, p. 249].
- 5.
Citations given through [26] refer to Ukhtomsky’s archival materials and notes.
- 6.
As a more specific point, there is obviously no such thing as zero activity in physiology, notes Ukhtomsky in his criticism of the all-or-none principle widely used for modeling neurophysiological processes both in his own days and currently. “We are surely to welcome the time when the physiology of excitation will become a mathematical science. It’s in this regard necessary to say in advance, however, that the mathematical construction of a theory of excitation on the basis of the ‘all or none’ postulate will remain a particular and exceptional theory, similar to Euclidean geometry. Future mathematical physiology cannot avoid the task of measurements within an ‘elementary excitation.’ It complicates our conceptions, but in return brings us closer to what exists in nature.” [16, p. 109].
- 7.
Ukhtomsky made it clear early on in his work that the phasic type of non-specific inhibition seen in parabiosis cannot be the sole source of inhibitory mechanisms in the brain (in spite of Wedensky’s earlier insistence to the contrary).
- 8.
These findings also indicate that the observed modulatory effects on neuronal excitability are not restricted to particular structures where non-synaptic modes of transmission are known to play an important role such as the hippocampus, or to clinical conditions of pathological activity where susceptibility to very weak field effects had been found earlier (e.g., in the hyperexcitable and pharmacologically activated rodent hippocampal networks). Current results indicate weak field effects may generally have a fundamental role in defining the activity of structured neuronal networks through the subthreshold modulation of their excitability [34].
- 9.
This refers to the speed of normal action potential propagation along a nerve fiber, as first measured by von Helmholtz in 1849.
- 10.
Rusinov induced polarizational dominants by weak constant current (0–10 × 10−6 A) stimulation by point electrode. Without evoking any overt peripheral effects in the experimental animal (rabbit), this modified the state of the stimulated (motor) cortical zone, which assumed the characteristic properties of a dominant [40].
References
Blumberg, M.S., Freeman, J.H., Robinson, S.R.: Introduction: a new frontier for developmental behavioral neuroscience. In: Blumberg, M.S., Freeman, J.H., Robinson, S.R. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Developmental Behavioral Neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)
Kurismaa, A.: On the Origins of Anticipation as an Evolutionary Framework: Functional Systems Perspective. Int. J. Gen Syst. Taylor and Francis (2015) (Forthcoming)
Cohen, M.X.: It’s about Time. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5 (2011)
Papo, D.: Time Scales in Cognitive Neuroscience. Frontiers in Physiology, 4 (2013)
Van Orden, G.C., Holden, J.G.: Intentional contents and self-control. Ecol. Psychol. 14(1–2), 87–109 (2002)
Van Orden, G.C., Moreno, M.A., Holden, J.G.: A proper metaphysics for cognitive performance. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 7(1), 49–60 (2003)
Batuev, A.S., Kruglikov, R.I.: The role of A.A. Ukhtomsky in outlining fundamental physiological problems and the formation of contemporary physiological thinking. In: Batuev, A.S., Kruglikov, P.I., M.G. Yaroshevsky, L.S. (eds.) Ukhtomsky’s Study of Dominance and Modern Neurophysiology (1990) (in Russian)
Nadin, M.: The anticipatory profile. An Attempt to Describe Anticipation as Process. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 1–33 (2011)
Nadin, M.: Anticipation—The End is Where We Start From. Lars Müller Publishers (2003)
Rosen, R.: Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2012)
Nadin, M.: Annotated bibliography: anticipation. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 39(1), 35–133 (2010)
Zueva, E.Y., Efimov, G.B.: Ukhtomsky’s Dominance Principle as an Approach to Describing the Living. Preprint of the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics RAS, Moscow, vol. 14, 1–32. (2010) (in Russian)
Zueva, E.Yu., Efimov, G.B.: Problems of Artificial Intelligence and the Theory of Dominance by A.A.Ukhtomsky. Math. Mach. Syst. 1, 98–105 (2008). (in Russian)
Ukhtomsky, A.A.: The Dominant. Nauka, Leningrad (1966). (in Russian)
Ukhtomsky, A.A.: Dominant of the Soul. Rybinsk (2001) (in Russian)
Ukhtomsky, A.A.: Selected Works. Nauka, Leningrad (1978). (in Russian)
Wedensky, N.E.: Excitation, inhibition and narcosis. In: Setchenov, I.M., Pavlov, I.P., Wedensky, N.E. (eds.) Physiology of the Nervous System. Selected Works. pp. 314–412 (1952) (in Russian)
Sandler, U., Tsitolovsky, L.: Neural Cell Behavior and Fuzzy Logic: The Being of Neural Cells and Mathematics of Feeling. Springer, Berlin (2008)
Tsitolovsky, L.E.: Protection from neuronal damage evoked by a motivational excitation is a driving force of intentional actions. Brain Res. Rev. 49(3), 566–594 (2005)
Golikov, N.V.: Mechanisms of Brain Function. Znanje, Leningrad (1968). (in Russian)
Abbott, L.F.: Theoretical neuroscience rising. Neuron 60(3), 489–495 (2008)
Arshavsky, I.A.: A.A. Ukhtomsky’s role in the creating the theoretical basis for the study of physiological mechanisms of individual and phylogenetic development. In: Batuev, A.S., Kruglikov, P.I., Yaroshevsky, M.G. (eds.) Ukhtomsky’s Study of Dominance and Modern Neurophysiology, pp. 85–131. Nauka, Leningrad (1990). (in Russian)
Schnoll, S.E. (ed.): Ervin Bauer and Theoretical Biology Collection of Scientific Works. Pushino (1993) (in Russian)
Igamberdiev, A.: Anticipatory dynamics of biological systems: from molecular quantum states to evolution. International Journal of General Systems. Taylor and Francis. (2015) (Forthcoming)
Bauer, E.S.: Theoretical Biology. Akademiai Kiado (1982)
Sokolova, L.V.: A.A. Ukhtomsky and the Complex Science of Man. St. Peterburg University Press, St. Petersburg (2010). (in Russian)
Vinogradov, M.I.: The Creative Path of Academician A.A. Ukhtomsky. The Bulletin of Leningrad University, 9, 17–31 (1950) (in Russian)
Golikov, N.V.: Physiological Lability and Its Changes in Basic Nervous Processes. Leningrad University Press (1950) (in Russian)
Marder, E., Tang, L.S.: Coordinating different homeostatic processes. Neuron 66(2), 161–163 (2010)
Shew, W.L., Plenz, D.: The functional benefits of criticality in the cortex. Neuroscientist 19(1), 88–100 (2013)
Plenz, D., Niebur, E. (eds.): Criticality in Neural Systems. Wiley, London (2014)
Weiss, S.A., Faber, D.S.: Field effects in the CNS play functional roles. Front. Neural Circuits 4, 1–10 (2010)
Fröhlich, F., McCormick, D.A.: Endogenous electric fields may guide neocortical network activity. Neuron 67(1), 129–143 (2010)
Mann, E.O., Paulsen, O.: Local field potential oscillations as a cortical soliloquy. Neuron 67(1), 3–5 (2010)
Nadin, M.: Mind-Anticipation and Chaos (Vol. 10). Dresden University Press (1991)
Francis, J.T., Gluckman, B.J., Schiff, S.J.: Sensitivity of neurons to weak electric fields. J. Neurosci. 23(19), 7255–7261 (2003)
Ukhtomsky, A.A., Vasiljev, L.L., Vinogradov, M.I.: The Study of Parabiosis (in Russian). Comacademy, Leningrad (1927). (in Russian)
Ukhtomsky, A.A.: Collected Works, vol. 6. Nauka, Leningrad (1962). (in Russian)
Rusinov, V.S.: A.A. Ukhtomsky and the Study of Dominance, Stationary Activity. In: Batuev, A.S., Kruglikov, P.I., Yaroshevsky, M.G. (eds.) Ukhtomsky’s Study of Dominance and Modern Neurophysiology, pp. 131–166 (1990) (in Russian)
Rusinov, V.S.: The Dominant Focus: Electrophysiological Investigations. Springer Science & Business Media (1973)
Nadin, M.: Quantifying anticipatory characteristics. The anticipationscope and the anticipatory profile. In: Iantovics, B., Kountchev, R. (eds.) Advanced Intelligent Computational Technologies and Decision Support Systems, Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, New York (2013)
Kryukov, V.I. (Igumen Feofan): A model of attention and memory based on the principle of the dominant and the comparator function of the hippocampus. Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. (35)3 (2005)
O’Leary, T., Wyllie, D.J.: Neuronal homeostasis: time for a change? J. Physiol. 589(20), 4811–4826 (2011)
Marder, E., Goaillard, J.M.: Variability, compensation and homeostasis in neuron and network function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7(7), 563–574 (2006)
Maffei, A., Fontanini, A.: Network homeostasis: a matter of coordination. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 19(2), 168–173 (2009)
Mizumori, S.J., Jo, Y.S.: Homeostatic regulation of memory systems and adaptive decisions. Hippocampus 23(11), 1103–1124 (2013)
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Lucia P. Pavlova for helpful materials and discussions on Ukhtomsky and his scientific school. Naturally, any possible inaccuracies remain solely the responsibility of the author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kurismaa, A. (2015). Perspectives on Time and Anticipation in the Theory of Dominance. In: Nadin, M. (eds) Anticipation: Learning from the Past. Cognitive Systems Monographs, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19446-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19446-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19445-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19446-2
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)