Advertisement

The bulletin of mathematical biophysics

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 151–160 | Cite as

A reinterpretation of the mathematical biophysics of the central nervous system in the light of neurophysiological findings

  • N. Rashevsky
Article

Abstract

The fundamental equations for the interaction between neurons used in mathematical biophysics seem at first incompatible with the actual neurophysiological findings on the synaptic transmission. It is shown, however, that those equations may be readily interpreted in terms of accepted neurophysiological views. What has been termed “synapse” in mathematical biophysics must be regarded as a complicated network of internuncial neurons. It is shown that, under rather conditions, the number of those interneurons willstatistically vary with time according to the differential equation postulated for the excitatory and inhibitory factors. The latter are thus interpreted as the number of excitatory and inhibitory interneurons.

Keywords

Synaptic Transmission Inhibitory Interneuron Closed Circuit Mathematical Biophysics Synaptic Delay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Adrian, E. D. 1932.The Mechanism of Nervous Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adrian, E. D., McKeen Cattell, and H. Hoagland. “Sensory Discharges in Single Cutaneous Nerve Fibers.”Jour. Physiol.,72, 377–391.Google Scholar
  3. Bothe, W. 1926. “Der Radioaktive Zerfall.”Handbk. d. Physik, herausgegeben von H. Geiger und K. Scheel,22, 179–221. Berlin: J. Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bronk, D. W. 1939. “Synaptic Mechanism in Sympathetic Ganglia.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,2, 380–401.Google Scholar
  5. Cattel, McKeen and H. Hoagland. 1931. “Response of Tactile Receptors to Intermittent Stimulation.”Jour. Physiol.,72, 392–404.Google Scholar
  6. Foulton, J. F. 1943.Physiology of the Nervous System. New York-London-Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Galambos, R. and H. Davis. 1943. “The Response of Single Auditory Nerve Fibers to Acoustic Stimulation.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,6, 39–57.Google Scholar
  8. Hartline, H. K. 1934. “Intensity and Duration in the Excitation of Single Photoreceptive Units.”J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.,5, 227–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartline, H. K. 1938. “The Discharge of Impulses in the Optic Nerve of Pecten in Response to Illumination of the Eye.”J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.,11, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartline, H. K. and C. H. Graham. 1932. “Nerve Impulses From Single Receptors in the Eye.”J. Cell. Comp. Physiol.,1, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Householder, A. S. and H. D. Landahl. 1939. “Neuron Circuits: The Self-Exciting Neuron.”Psychometrika,4, 255–267.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Householder, A. S. and H. D. Landahl. 1945.Mathematical Biophysics of the Central Nervous System. Bloomington: The Principia Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Landahl, H. D. 1938. “A Contribution to the Mathematical Biophysics of Psychophysical Discrimination.”Psychometrika,3, 107–125.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landahl, H. D. 1939. “Contributions to Mathematical Biophysics of the Central Nervous System.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,1, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Landahl, H. D. 1941. “Theory of the Distribution of Response Times in Nerve Fibers.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,3, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landahl, H. D., W. S. McCulloch, and W. Pitts. 1943. “A Statistical Consequence of the Logical Calculus of Nervous Nets.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,5, 135–137.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd, D. P. C. 1941. “A Direct Central Inhibitory Action of Dromically Conducted Impulses.”J. Neurophysiol.,4, 184–190.Google Scholar
  18. Lorente de Nó, R. 1935a. “The Effect of an Antidromic Impulse on the Response of the Motoneurone.”Amer. Jour. Physiol.,112, 595–609.Google Scholar
  19. Lorente de Nó, R. 1935b. “Facilitation of Motoneurones.”Amer. Jour. Physiol.,113, 505–523.Google Scholar
  20. Lorente de Nó, R. 1935c. “The Summation of Impulses Transmitted to the Motoneurones Through Different Synapses.”Amer. Jour. Physiol.,113, 524–528.Google Scholar
  21. Lorente de Nó, R. and H. T. Graham. 1938. “Recovery Cycle of Motoneurons.”Amer. Jour. Physiol.,123, 388–399.Google Scholar
  22. Lorente de Nó, R. 1938a. “Limits of Variation of the Synaptic Delay in Motoneurons.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,1, 187–193.Google Scholar
  23. Lorente de Nó, R. 1983b. “Synaptic Stimulation as a Local Process.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,1, 194–207.Google Scholar
  24. Lorente de Nó, R. 1938c. “Analysis of the Activity of the Chains of Internuncial Neurons.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,1, 207–244.Google Scholar
  25. Lorente de Nó, R. 1939. “Transmission of Impulses Through Cranial Motor Nuclei.”Jour. Neurophysiol.,2, 402–464.Google Scholar
  26. McCulloch, W. C. and W. Pitts. 1943. “A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,5, 115–133.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews, B. H. C. 1931a. “The Response of a Single End Organ.”Jour. Physiol.,71, 64–110.Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, B. H. C. 1931b. “The Response of a Muscle Spindle During Active Contraction of a Muscle.”Jour. Physiol.,72, 153–174.Google Scholar
  29. Matthews, B. H. C. 1933. “Nerve Endings in Mammalian Muscle.”Jour. Physiol.,78, 1–53.Google Scholar
  30. Pecher, C. 1939. “La Fluctuation d'Excitabilite de la Fibre Nerveuse.”Arch. Internal. Physiol.,49, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rashevsky, N. 1938.Mathematical Biophysics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Rashevsky, N. 1940.Advances and Applications of Mathematical Biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Rashevsky, N. 1945. “The Mathematical Biophysics of Some Mental Phenomena.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,7, 115–131.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Rashevsky, N. and V. Brown. 1944a. “A Contribution to the Mathematical Biophysics of Visual Perception and Aesthetics.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,6, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rashevsky, N. and B. Brown. 1944b. “Contributions to the Mathematical Biophysics of Visual Aesthetics.”Bull. Math. Biophysics,6, 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The University of Chicago Press 1945

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Rashevsky
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations