Advertisement

Mass Action and Equipotentiality Reconsidered

  • Bryan Kolb
  • Ian Q. Whishaw

Abstract

Two conceptual views of cortical function have evolved and been used a number of times over the past 150 years to explain puzzling effects of brain damage: mass action and equipotentiality. The mass action hypothesis asserts that the entire cortex participates in every behavior. Thus, removal of any cortical tissue produces a behavioral change that is proportional to the amount of tissue removed. The equipotentiality hypothesis states that each portion of any given area is able to encode or produce the behavior normally controlled by the entire area. Thus, incomplete damage within a zone is compensated for by the remaining area. These concepts were debated extensively for the first half of this century and now are still invoked periodically as explanations for recovery of function. We revisit the concepts by briefly looking at the history before considering their current forms. We then examine the question of whether they are useful concepts to consider as explanations of recovery of function.

Keywords

Mass Action Maze Task Serial Lesion Entire Cortex Cytoarchitectonic Area 
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.

References

  1. Bayer, S.A., Yackel, J. W., and Puri, P. S., 1982, Neurons in the rat dentate gyrus granular layer substantially increase during juvenile and adult life, Science 216:890–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bucy, P. C., Keplinger, J. E., and Siquerira, E. B., 1964, Destruction of the “pyramidal tract” in man, J. Neurosurg. 21:385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cotman, C. W., 1985, Synaptic Plasticity, Guilford Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Doty, R. W., 1969, Electrical stimulation of the brain in behavioral context, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 20:289–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finger, S., and Stein, D. G., 1982, Brain Damage and Recovery: Research and Clinical Perspectives. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Geschwind, N., 1965, Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man, Brain 88:237–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glees, P., and Cole, J., 1950, Recovery of skilled motor functions after small repeated lesions of motor cortex in macaque, J. Neurophysiol. 13:137–148.Google Scholar
  8. Glick, S.D., and Greenstein, S., 1972, Facilitation of recovery after lateral hypothalamic damage by prior ablation of frontal cortex, Nature (New Biol.) 239:187–188.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, S.A., and Nottebohm, F., 1983, Neuronal production, migration, and differentiation in a vocal control nucleus of the adult female canary brain, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 80:2390–2394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goltz, F., 1892, Der Hund ohne Grosshirn. Siebente Abhandlung uber die Verrichtungen des Grosshirns, Pflugers Arch. 51:570–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenough, W. T., and Volkmar, R. F., 1973, Pattern of dendritic branching in occipital cortex of rats reared in complex environments, Exp. Neurol. 40:491–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kolb, B., 1987, Factors affecting recovery from early cortical damage in rats. 1. Differential behavioral and anatomical effects of frontal lesions at different ages of neural maturation, Behav. Brain Res. 25:205–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolb, B., and Whishaw, I. Q., 1981, Neonatal frontal lesions in the rat: Sparing of learned but not species-typical behavior in the presence of reduced brain weight and cortical thickness, J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 95:863–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolb, B., and Whishaw, I. Q., 1985a, Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, 2nd ed., Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Kolb, B., and Whishaw, I. Q., 1985b, Earlier is not always better: Behavioral dysfunction and abnormal cerebral morphogenesis following neonatal cortical lesion in the rat, Behav. Brain Res. 17:25–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolb, B., Nonneman, A. J., and Whishaw, I. Q., 1978, Influence of frontal neocortex lesions and body weight manipulation on the severity of lateral hypothalamic aphagia, Physiol. Behav. 21:541–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lashley, K. S., 1929, Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawrence, D. G., and Kuypers, H. G. J. M., 1968, The functional organization of the motor system in the monkey. 1. The effects of bilateral pyramidal lesions, Brain 91:1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merzenich, M. M., Nelson, R. J., Stryker, M. P., Cynader, M. S., Schoppmann, A., and Zook, J. M., 1984, Somatosensory cortical map changes following digit amputation in adult monkeys, J. Comp. Neurol. 224:591–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oakley, D. A., 1979, Cerebral cortex and adaptive behavior, in: Brain, Behavior and Evolution (D. A. Oakley and H. C. Plotkin, eds.), Methuen, London, pp. 154–188.Google Scholar
  21. Passingham, R. E., Perry, V. H., and Wilkinson, F., 1983, The long-term effects of removal of sensorimotor cortex in infant and adult rhesus monkeys, Brain 106:675–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powley, T. L. and Keesey, R. E., 1970, Relationship of body weight to the lateral hypothalamic feeding syndrome. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 70:25–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rakic, P., 1984, Defective cell-to-cell interactions as causes of brain malformations, in: Malformations of Development (E. S. Gollin, ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 239–285.Google Scholar
  24. Rasmussen, T., and Milner, B., 1977, The role of early left-brain injury in determining lateralization of cerebral speech functions, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 299:355–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson, T. E. (ed.), 1983, Behavioral Approaches to Brain Research, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. St. James-Roberts, I., 1981, A reinterpretation of hemispherectomy data without functional plasticity of the brain, Brain Lang. 13:31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider, G. E., 1973, Early lesions of the superior colliculus: Factors affecting the formation of abnormal retinal projections, Brain, Behavior and Evolution 8:73–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider, G. E., 1979, Is it really better to have your brain lesion early? Revision of the Kennard principle, Neuropsychologia 17:557–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steele-Russell, I. S., 1982, Some observations on the problem of recovery of function following brain damage, Hum. Neurobiol. 1:68–72.Google Scholar
  30. Teuber, H.-L., 1975, Recovery of function after brain injury in man, Ciba Found. Symp. 34:159–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Vanderwolf, C. H., Leung, L. W. S., and Stewart, D. J., 1985, Two afferent pathways mediating hippocampal rhythmical slow activity, in: Electrical Activity of the Archicortex (G. Buzsaki and C. H. Vanderwolf, eds.), Akademiai Kiado, Tokyo, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
  32. Whishaw, I. Q., and Kolb, B., 1983, “Stick out your tongue”: Tongue protrusion in neocortex and hypothalamic damaged rats, Physiol. Behav. 30:471–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whishaw, I. Q., and Kolb, B., 1984a, Decortication abolishes place but not cue learning in rats, Behav. Brain Res. 11:123–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whishaw, I. Q., and Kolb, B., 1984b, Behavioral and anatomical studies of rats with complete or partial decortication in infancy, in: Early Brain Damage (C. R. Almli and S. Finger, eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 117–137.Google Scholar
  35. Woods, B. T., 1981, The restricted effects of right-hemisphere lesions after age one: Wechsler test data, Neuropsychologia 18:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan Kolb
    • 1
  • Ian Q. Whishaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations