Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9h5t2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T08:52:43.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signaling in the Brain: In Search of Functional Units

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rosa Cao
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the functional units of the brain? If the function of the brain is to process information-carrying signals, then the functional units will be the senders and receivers of those signals. Neurons have been the default candidate, with action potentials as the signals. But there are alternatives: synapses fit the action potential picture more cleanly, and glial activities (e.g., in astrocytes) might also be characterized as signaling. Are synapses or nonneuronal cells better candidates to play the role of functional units? Will informational signaling still be the best model for brain function if we move beyond the neuron doctrine?

Information

Type
Signaling Theory in Biological and Cognitive Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 5 , December 2014 , pp. 891 - 901
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Peter Godfrey-Smith, Nick Shea, Jared Warren, and participants in the symposium for helpful comments and feedback. Thanks also to Christopher Moore for discussions on a series of earlier versions.

References

Allen, Nicola J., and Barres, Ben A.. 2009. “Neuroscience: Glia—More Than Just Brain Glue.” Nature 457 (7230): 675–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araque, Alfonso, Parpura, Vladimir, Sanzgiri, Rita P., and Haydon, Philip G.. 1999. “Tripartite Synapses: Glia, the Unacknowledged Partner.” Trends in Neurosciences 22 (5): 208–15.10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01349-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullock, Theodore H., Bennett, Michael V., Johnston, Daniel, Josephson, Robert, Marder, Eve, and Fields, R. Douglas. 2005. “The Neuron Doctrine, Redux.” Science 310 (5749): 791–93.. 10.1126/science.1114394CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, Rosa. 2012. “A Teleosemantic Approach to Information in the Brain.” Biology and Philosophy 27 (1): 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Francis S. 1999. “Medical and Societal Consequences of the Human Genome Project.” New England Journal of Medicine 341 (1): 28–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2012. Review of “Signals: Evolution, Learning, and Information,” by Brian Skyrms. Mind 120 (480): 1288–97.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul. 2001. “Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory.” Philosophy of Science 68 (3): 394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haydon, Philip G., and Carmignoto, Giorgio. 2006. “Astrocyte Control of Synaptic Transmission and Neurovascular Coupling.” Physiological Review 86 (3): 1009–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
London, Michael, and Häusser, Michael. 2005. “Dendritic Computation.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 28:503–32.10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135703CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayford, Mark, Siegelbaum, Steven A., and Kandel, Eric R.. 2012. “Synapses and Memory Storage.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a005710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyama, Susan. 1986. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rieke, Fred, Warland, David, van Steveninck, Rob de Ruyter, and Bialek, William. 1999. Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian. 2010. Signals: Evolution, Learning, and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turrigiano, Gina. 2012. “Homeostatic Synaptic Plasticity: Local and Global Mechanisms for Stabilizing Neuronal Function.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a005736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar