Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PHILLIPS, C. G.
Right arrow Articles by BARLOW, H. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by PHILLIPS, C. G.
Right arrow Articles by BARLOW, H. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Brain, Vol. 107, No. 1, 328-361, 1984
© 1984 Oxford University Press

research-article

LOCALIZATION OF FUNCTION IN THE CEREBRAL CORTEX: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

C. G. PHILLIPS1, S. ZEKI2 and H. B. BARLOW3

1Department of Human Anatomy South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QX 2Department of Anatomy, University College London Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT 3Physiological Laboratory Cambridge CB2 3EG

At a famous meeting of the International Medical Congress held in London on August 4, 1881 Goltz of Strassburg (as it was then spelt) confronted Ferrier of London on the subject of the localization of function in the cerebral cortex. In the first part of this paper the events of that meeting are recalled. Goltz was reluctant to accept the idea of localization because of the restitution of function after injury to the cortex, and because of the general rather than specific residual disabilities of his lesioned dogs. On the other hand, Ferrier's monkeys with cortical lesions demonstrated convincingly that local lesions can produce loss of specific functions.

One hundred years later a meeting was held in Oxford on the same topic, and the discussions that took place are summarized in the second part of this paper. No-one doubted the doctrine of localization, namely that different parts of the cerebral cortex normally perform different specialized roles. However, there was no unanimity about how to separate or count the number of different parts of the cortex, nor about the nature of the specialized roles of the parts, nor about any common characteristics of the functions of different parts. In other words, though localization was agreed upon, precisely what the functions are that are localized remained obscure.

The third section of this paper advances some speculations on this point. Is a theory of cortical function that would encompass the diverse roles of different parts perhaps within sight, which might even explain the plasticity that must underline the restitution of function that so impressed Goltz one hundred years ago?

Received May 19, 1983.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.