Reflections on the use of the concept of plasticity in neurobiology – Translation and adaptation by Bruno Will, John Dalrymple-Alford, Mathieu Wolff and Jean-Christophe Cassel from J. Paillard, J psychol 1976;1 : 33-47
Behavioural Brain Research. 2008-09-01; 192(1): 7-11
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.031
Lire sur PubMed
1. Behav Brain Res. 2008 Sep 1;192(1):7-11. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.031. Epub
2008 Jan 25.
Reflections on the use of the concept of plasticity in neurobiology. Translation
and adaptation by Bruno Will, John Dalrymple-Alford, Mathieu Wolff and
Jean-Christophe Cassel from J. Paillard, J Psychol 1976;1:33-47.
Will B(1), Dalrymple-Alford J, Wolff M, Cassel JC.
Author information:
(1)LINC UMR 7191, Université Louis Pasteur-Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, IFR de Neurosciences 037, GDR CNRS 2905, 12 rue Goethe, Strasbourg,
France.
After having underlined the ambiguities of the concept of plasticity and the
dangers of its purely metaphoric use in neurobiology, it is suggested that we
return to a more precise definition of the structure, the operating principles
and the function of the « systemic » unit or « integron » relevant to the particular
level of analysis in question. Any change can then be described as a modification
of function, a change in the operation principles, or an alteration of the
material structure of the system. It is suggested that the term plastic should be
restricted to describing, among the possible variations in the operating
principles or the function of a given system, any lasting alteration of the
connectivity network of the system under the influence of an external force or
environmental constraint. Therefore, systematic or random variations of
performance, functional flexibility or the vicarious(1) processes or strategies
that can be found in a rigidly wired system are not justified examples of
plasticity.
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.031
PMID: 18222007 [Indexed for MEDLINE]