INTERNAT IONA L SOCIETY FO R THE HISTORY OF THE NEU

1m ago
18 Views
0 Downloads
897.68 KB
76 Pages
Transcription

INTEERNATTIONAAL SOCCIETYFOOR THEE HISTTORY OOF THHE NEUUROSCCIENCCES((ISHN)188th Annnual MeetinMng18‐222 June 2013Sydneey Uniiversity, Ausstralia

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF THE NEUROSCIENCESSydney, Australia, 18‐22 June 2013TUESDAY, 18 JUNE 2013Lecture Theatre 101, New Law School Building, Eastern Avenue, University of Sydney8:00‐9:00Registration9:00‐10:00OPENING SESSION (chair: Paul Foley)WelcomeCello recital: David Pereira (see pp. 9‐10)Max Bennett (Sydney) Dendritic spines, neurofibrils and synapses in the 19thcentury10:00‐10:30THE FRANK CLIFFORD ROSE MEMORIAL LECTUREJohn Carmody (Sydney) Seeking a neurobiological understanding of history: “amodest proposal”10:30‐10:50Morning tea10:50‐12:40MIND, VISION AND MOTION (chair: François Boller)Stanley Finger (St. Louis, USA), Lawrence Kruger (Los Angeles, USA) Before theThesaurus: Peter Mark Roget, physician and scientist, and his forays into theneurosciencesJ. Wayne Lazar (New York, USA) Visual illustrations reflect developments innineteenth‐century neuroscienceNicholas J. Wade (Dundee, UK), Frans A. J. Verstraten (Sydney) Sigmund Exner andneural interpretations of motion phenomenaLorenzo Lorusso (Chiari, Italy), Antonia Francesca Franchini (Milan, Italy), BrunoFalconi (Breschia, Italy), Alessandro Porro (Breschia, Italy) Early motion pictureindustry and neurologySimon C. Gandevia (Sydney) Charles Darwin: An additional legacy12:40‐13:00POSTER PRESENTATIONS (chair: Sherry Ginn)Julien Bogousslavsky (Glion/Montreux, Switzerland), François Boller (Bethesda, USA)Jean‐Martin Charcot and artLorenzo Lorusso (Chiari, Italy), Bruno Falconi (Breschia, Italy), Antonia FrancescaFranchini (Milan, Italy), Alessandro Porro (Breschia, Italy) Neuroscientists in 19thcentury European caricature journals3

13:00‐14:00Lunch (Journal of the History of the Neurosciences board meeting)14:00‐14:40INVITED LECTURE (chair: Hans Pols)Nicholas Rasmussen (Sydney) Amphetamine, the first antidepressant, and themedical reasoning behind it 1930‐195014:40‐15:40DIVERSE (chair: Ian Steele‐Russell)Jyh Yung Hor (Penang, Malaysia), Yih Chian Yew (Penang, Malaysia), Kazuo Fujihara(Sendai, Japan) Devic’s neuromyelitis optica: Changing concept in diseaseunderstanding 100 years later – from Devic’s clinicopathological description toanti‐aquaporin 4 antibody discovery and new pathological classificationBrian Freeman & John Carmody (Sydney) Description versus experiment inautonomic development – cell migration as deus ex machina for the origin ofsympathetic gangliaRussell Johnson (Los Angeles) The gain in pain: Acquiring, preserving, and usingephemera in the John C. Liebeskind History of Pain collection15:50‐16:10Afternoon tea16:10‐17:30EARLY NEUROSCIENCE (chair: Lorenzo Lorusso)Jeremy C. Ganz (Ulverston, UK) Edwin Smith Papyrus, Case 8: Ipsilateralhemiparesis – A different explanationJeremy C. Ganz (Ulverston, UK) Herophilus and vivisection: Did it really happen?Michael Besser (Sydney) Galen and the origins of experimental neurology andneurosurgeryGül Russell (Bryan, USA) From Galenic “humoral function” to “anatomicalstructure”: illustrating the brain in Vesalius’ Fabrica17:30‐19:00RECEPTION: Rare Books – Neuroscience (Exhibition Space, Fisher Library, Level 2)WEDNESDAY, 19 JUNE 2013Lecture Theatre 101, New Law School Building, Eastern Avenue, University of Sydney9:00‐9:30THE CHRISTOPHER U. M. SMITH PRESIDENTIAL LECTURE (chair: John Carmody)Catherine Storey (Sydney) Queen Square – Finishing school for colonial neurologists9:30‐10:50NEUROSCIENCE AND THE ARTS (chair: Gül Russell)François Boller (Bethesda, USA), Anna Mazzucchi (Parma, Italy), Elena Sinforiani(Pavia, Italy) Influence of aging and of focal lesions on the artistic production andcreativity of famous painters4

Sherry Ginn (Concord, USA) “ The mere action of nerves and brain”: Neurology,psychology, and neuroscience in fiction of Anglo‐Irish author Sheridan Le FanuJulien Bogousslavsky (Glion/Montreux, Switzerland), Laurent Tatu (Besançon,France), François Boller (Bethesda, USA) The phantom limb phenomenon and theartsLorenzo Lorusso (Chiari, Italy), Bruno Falconi (Breschia, Italy), Antonia FrancescaFranchini (Milan, Italy), Alessandro Porro (Breschia, Italy) Madness in comic opera10:50‐11:10Morning tea11:10‐11:40INVITED LECTURE (chair: Yvonne Cossart)David Burke (Sydney) Microneurography and its introduction to Australia11:40‐13:00NEUROSCIENCE IN RUSSIA (chair: Paul Foley)Yuri Zagvazdin (Fort Lauderdale, USA) Meningitis in Russian literature: Myths andfearsBoleslav Lichterman (Moscow, Russian Federation) Surgical activity at MoscowInstitute for Neurosurgery (1929‐1941)Lilya A. Nazarova (Tashkent, Uzbekistan), Boleslav L. Lichterman (Moscow, RussianFederation), Olim Z. Akromov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) The role of neurologists inemergence of neurosurgery in Tashkent (1920‐1943)Leonid Likhterman, Genrietta Chekhomova, Boleslav Lichterman (Moscow, RussianFederation) First experience of the institution of the Museum of Moscow Institutefor Neurosurgery13:00‐14:00Lunch (International Society for the History of the Neurosciences board meeting)14:00‐14:25INVITED LECTURE (chair: Paul Foley)Manuel Graeber (Sydney) Alzheimer’s disease: History of the original histologicalslides14:25‐15:25EXTENDED BOUNDARIES OF CLINICAL RESEARCH: GERMAN NEUROLOGY ANDBIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY 1885 TO 1945 (chair: Frank Stahnisch & Paul Foley)Ian Steele‐Russell (College Station, USA) The legacy of Johann Bernhard Aloys vonGudden, his contributions to neuroanatomy and psychiatry in the mid‐nineteenthcenturyBrian Freeman & John Carmody (Sydney) Haeckel’s influence in developmentalbiologyBrian Freeman & John Carmody (Sydney) Re‐evaluating the ethics of thedermatomal maps of the eminent German neurologist and neurosurgeon, OtfridFoerster5

15:25‐155:35Afteernoon tea15:35‐166:45EXTEENDED BOUNDARIES OFF CLINICAL RESEARCH (coontinued, folllowed by paaneldiscuussion)Frannk Stahnisch (Calgary, Ca nada) Eugennics ideals, raacial anthroppology and thetemigration of German‐Ameerican psychiiatric geneticcist Franz Jossef Kallmann (1897‐1965)Paul Foley (Sydnney) Hugo Sppatz and Gerrman neuroppathology beetween the WorldWWarrs18:00‐199:30BEN HANEMAN MEMORIALL LECTURE 20013nds Room, MitchellMLibraaryFrienStannley Finger: BenjaminBFraanklin and thhe birth of medicalmelecttricityTHURSDATAY, 20 JUUNE 20133OLD QUARRANTINE STAATION, NORTTH HEAD (see appendix forf “How to get to QS”)12:00‐133:00Luncch: P27 – Governor Bourkke Ballroom13:00‐144:30INFEECTIOUS DISSEASE AND NNEUROSCIENNCE I (chair: YvonneYCosssart)Alisoon Bashford (Sydney) Hisstorical backkground of thhe Quaranti ne StationJennnifer Cooke (Sydney)(Cowws, cannibals and kuru: howh a crimee reporter stuumbledintoo the neuroscciencesWarrwick Brittonn (Sydney) Leeprosy14:30‐155:00Afteernoon tea15:00‐166:30INFEECTIOUS DISSEASE AND NNEUROSCIENNCE II (chair: Paul Lancastter)Paul Lancaster (SSydney) Dr MMillard and neoarsphenanamine theraapy for syphilisnne Cossart (Sydney) Pollio: a twentieth century phenomenoonYvonMarrgaret Burgess (Sydney) RRubella: its AustralianAcoonnections17:00Retuurn to CBD/CCamperdownn6

FRIDAYY, 21 JUNNE 2013ISSHN‐MOOVEMENTT DISORDDERS SOCIETY JOOINT SYMMPOSIUMM:HISTTORICAL ASPECTSS OF MOOVEMENTT DISORDDERSLLecture Theaatre 101, Neww Law Schoool Building, EasternEAvennue, Universsity of Sydneey9:00‐11::00MOVVEMENT DISSORDERS I (cchairs: C Storrey and M Sttern)Cathherine Story (Sydney) andd CG Goetz (Chicago,(USA) Welcomee/overview ofo dayStannley Fahn (Neew York, USAA) Dystonia from Oppennheim to thee presentFranncisco Cardoso (Belo Horrizonte, Brazil) Chorea – emergenceeffrom olla poodrida tomovvement disorderBranndon Barton (Chicago, USSA) War‐relaated injuriess and movemment disordeersJohnn Steele (Guaam) Historicaal lessons from Guamannian PD/ALS//dementia11:00‐111:30Morrning tea11:30‐133:00PARRKINSON’S DISEASED(cha irs: CG Goetzz and B Bartoon)Jennnifer Goldmaan (Chicago) Parkinson and Parkinson’s diseasePaul Foley (Sydnney) The histtory of levoddopaherine Storeyy (Sydney) Eaarly stereotaaxic THHER MOVEMMENT DISORDDERS (chairs: F Cardoso anda S Fahn)Marrtin Krause (SSydney) Juliuus Hallervordden and the value of lifeePadraic Grattan‐‐Smith (Sydnney) Hystero‐epilepsy: Prrofessor Gammgee’s account ofv to the SalpêtrièreS1 878his visit15:00‐166:00ARCCHIVAL FILMSS OF MOVEMMENT DISORRDERSPressented by G AubertA(Brusssels, Belgiumm) and CG Gooetz (Chicag o)16:00‐166:20Afteernoon tea16:20‐177:20ISHNN GENERAL BUSINESSBMMEETING19:00ISHNN ANNUAL DINNERD(Impperial Peking at the Rockss: see appenddix for map)7

SATURDAY, 22 JUNE 2013A CELEBRATION OF NEUROSCIENCE IN AUSTRALIAAND NEW ZEALANDClaffy Lecture Theatre, Level 1, Centre Block, Sydney Hospital, Macquarie Street9:00‐11:00AUSTRALIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH (chair: Catherine Storey)Catherine Storey (Sydney) Murder on Macquarie Street: Revisiting the scene of thecrimeJohn Carmody (Sydney) “Temps perdu”: is it a “foreign country”? Fifty years since J.C. Eccles won the Nobel PrizeJohn W. Perram (Sydney) How did Hodgkin and Huxley do their calculations?Janet McCredie (Sydney) The thalidomide story: History, neurology, and radiologyAnn Scott (Brisbane) God and Magog: William Richard Gowers 1845‐1915: therecruitment and career of ‘one of the greatest clinicians and teachers of clinicalmedicine in the nineteenth century’A. D. (Sandy) Macleod (Canterbury, New Zealand) Phylogenetic theories ofconversion hysteria during the Great War11:00‐11:20Morning tea11:20‐13:00NEUROSCIENCE IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: LOCAL ISSUES (chair: Hans Pols)Neil E. Anderson (Auckland, New Zealand) To include or not to include: theformation of a neurological society in New ZealandTherese Alting (Sydney) Huntington’s disease in Australia – “out of the darkness”Richard White and Martin McGee‐Collett (Sydney) Prefrontal lobotomy in a Sydneyteaching hospital, circa 1950Paul A. L. Lancaster (Sydney) Neuropathology from tropical Australia to Antarctica:John Burton ClelandIan Steele‐Russell (College Station, USA) Sir Grafton Elliot Smith: a neglectedpolymath8

SOLO CELLO RECITAL – DAVID PEREIRAProgram1. JS Bach: Sarabande from Suite No 5 in C minor2. Moya Henderson: Sorry Time3. Peter Sculthorpe: Threnody [In memoriam – Stuart Challender, † 1991]The cello has been described as “the ultimate sensual instrument” and today’s music has beenchosen to display that enticing, ruminative – even elegiac – quality of its music. Unsurprisingly, thereis an important tradition of works for solo cello. Indeed, this grew out of an earlier tradition of musicfor solo Viola da gamba, where the great name is the French composer and performer, MarinMarais. In the cello repertoire, the enduring name, though, is JS Bach. His six solo Suites are not onlymarvellous works, but they are considered by cellists who accept their challenge as the “Everest” ofthe instrument.It could also be said that they are similarly daunting for other composers who write for solo cello –one of the finest of whom was the German Max Reger. Interestingly, this challenge has, in recentyears, greatly enticed a number of Australian composers and today we will hear some of the finestresults of that attraction. In particular, a number of those works have been reflections on theappropriation, by the 1788 colonists, of the lands of the indigenous Australians.It is appropriate, therefore, that we first offer homage to Bach and that this should be with theSarabande from his 5th Suite (in C minor). Bach builds the music with a five‐note phrase and hereflects on its possibilities in a way which can put the listener in mind of someone considering apiece of sculpture from every possible aspect. “With its throbbing quavers, the Sarabande is like alament from a cantata or a Passion,” as one performer has written of the music.Moya Henderson is one of Australia’s most individual composers. The title of her short piece, SorryTime, is an expression which is taken from the Australian Indigenous cultures and is used to signify aperiod of time set aside for grieving. The music of grew out of an earlier work, In Paradisum (in fourparts for unaccompanied choir), which was written in memory of two of her brothers, who had dieda few years before Sorry Time was written. The cello piece falls into three main sections, eachframed by ethereal passages of harmonics. There are moments of intense lyricism as well as moreaggressive sections. It is a reflective piece: an expression of the grieving process evoking nostalgia,frustration and anger, emotional outbursts, remembering and final peace. It is dedicated to DianaCarmody.In today’s context it carries an additional emotional burden. It was commissioned in 1999 by JohnCarmody who wanted to celebrate the graduation of the young cellist, Clare Rowe, from the SydneyConservatorium. Her father, Mark Rowe, John Carmody’s great friend and colleague – further, aneuroscientist with a formidable international reputation ‐‐ was killed a couple of years ago in atragic cycling accident.

TUESDAY: OPENING SESSIONPeter Sculthorpe’s Threnody is also a lament and commemoration. In late 1991 the outstandingyoung Australian concert and operatic conductor, Stuart Challender, died of AIDS. Threnody isdedicated to his memory and was written for a Memorial Service which was held in the SydneyTown Hall, in Challender’s honour, shortly after his death. David Pereira was the cellist on thatoccasion.It, too, draws on an earlier piece: one of Sculthorpe’s major orchestral works, Kakadu. This theme is,in the composer’s words, “a free adaptation of an Aboriginal lament from Elcho Island, nearAustralia’s northern coast, in the Arafura Sea.” Although it is written in one continuous movement,the piece has four sections: Cantando, Con malinconia, Risoluto and Con rassegnazióne. Threnody iswidely considered to be one of the monuments of Australian instrumental music.John CarmodyDAVID PEREIRADavid Pereira is one of Australia’s most renowned cellists. He has led a number of our importantorchestras and was a long‐term member of the internationally‐renowned Australia Ensemble (whichwas based at the University of NSW in Sydney). He has made several solo and chamber‐music CDs,some of them featuring music which was especially composed for him. He has been a member of thestaff of the Canberra School of Music for many years.10

TUESDAY: OPENING SESSION INVITED LECTURESDendritic spines, neurofibrils and synapses in the 19th centuryM.R. BennettBrain and Mind Research Institute, University of Sydney ([email protected])Neurofibrils identified after staining, for example with Cajal’s reduced silver nitrate (1), were thoughtby many senior histologists in the latter half of the 19th century to conduct action potentials (2).There was no basis for this popular idea, although it was the impetus for intense study of the‘neurofibrillar network’ within neurons by Golgi, Cajal, Freud and others. The neurofibrils, shownwith the introduction of ultrastructural techniques to be composed of groups of neurofilaments,were found traversing the entire neuron, soma and dendrites, as expected if they carried actionpotentials. Although it was Golgi who determined the true structure of dendrites it was Cajal whoshowed that the dendritic spine was not an artifact of fixation and that spines were the one part ofthe neuron which neurofibrils did not enter (3). However it was Berkley who first convincinglyshowed that varicosities and boutons of axon collaterals come into very close proximity withdendritic spines and to suggest that this constituted the principal cortical synapse type (4). This leftthe major problem, never addressed in the 19th century, of how the action potential was transmittedfrom neurofibrils in the terminal varicosities and boutons to the neurofibrils in the dendritic shaft,given that they were taken to be separated by the spine. The rich 19th century literature onneurofibrils now seems irrelevant when considering the conduction and transmission of actionpotentials but the question is still not answered concerning the spatial relationship between theprincipal filament type in the spines, actin, and the neurofilaments and microtubules of the dendriticshaft (5). We still do not know how the filaments within the spine gain a footing on the filamentsystem of the dendrite shaft that allows for plasticity of the spine manifest in its growth andregression.1. Potter HD (1971) The distribution of neurofibrils coextensive with microtubules andneurofilaments in dendrites and axons of the tectum, cerebellum and pallium of the frog. Journalof Comparative Neurology 143: 385‐410.2. Ramon y Cajal S (1904) Histology of the Nervous System of Man and Vertebrates. Vol. 1. OxfordUniversity Press; p. 145.3. Ibid. p. 150.4. Berkley HJ (1895) Studies on the lesions produced by the action of certain poisons on the nerve‐cell. Medical News (New York) 67:225‐231.5. Bennett MR, L Farnell and W Gibson (2011) A model of NMDA receptor control of F‐actintreadmilling in synaptic spines and their growth. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 73:2109‐2131.11

TUESDAY: OPENING SESSION INVITED LECTURESTHE INAUGURAL FRANK CLIFFORD ROSE MEMORIAL LECTURESeeking a neurobiological understanding of history: “a modest proposal”John CarmodyDiscipline of Physiology, University of Sydney ([email protected]); and NSW WorkingParty, Australian Dictionary of BiographyHistory matters because memory matters: biological memory no less than psychological and socialmemory. We are, in several real senses, “made” by our history and may be destined to repeat atleast our biological history, irrespective of whether we “remember” it or not. When, as individuals,we do forget our history, in dementia for example, the effects are diverse and catastrophic – it is theloss of our true personal and communal selves.The younger generation may, fleetingly, believe otherwise, as it attempts to “kill off” its forbears inits efforts to build its own achievements. Their task is to secure the future, but an older generationwith more restricted future understandably feels the imperative to reassemble and reflect upon thepast. The ontological “turning point”, whenever it occurs, comes sooner than we realize, but thetruth is that – quite apart from its pragmatic implications – we are intellectually impoverished(professionally and personally) if we do not understand the reasons for how we live and labor; or if,as scientists and clinicians, we do not understand why our intellectual advances were so hard‐won,nor why they were considered so important when they achieved.So, if rational medicine – or, as it is now glibly termed, “evidence‐based medicine” – is a consideredapplication of our prudent and informed selection from the daunting mass of “the literature”, thenhistory is the ordering and evaluation of human memory. History “matters” profoundly because aperson or a society deprived of or disrespectful towards its memory is hardly any longer properlyhuman.This truth ineluctably raises the nettlesome problem of consciousness. Memory and consciousnessare intimately entwined in the human mind, but consciousness remains even more mysterious. Lackof understanding, however, has never diminished the importance of a phenomenon: it still matters.Not only does consciousness remain an intellectual mystery; so does how it is disrupted byanaesthetic and other drugs. In the present state of pharmacological knowledge we can say, at least,that the action of these agents must involve disruption of axonal or synaptic function, or both, mostlikely at sites on the membrane proteins which mediate either ionic conductance, ionic transport,transmitter release or synthesis – just as consciousness, itself, must be deeply associated with thoseproperties. It is historical fact that 100 years ago we could not even this – in particular, membranechemistry was far too primitive to allow anything more than speculation that the action of knownanaesthetic agents was on membrane lipids. Yet that speculation was valuable and is a reminderthat history can matter even when it is falsely understood. Without an understanding of that history,the anaesthetists, neurologists and psychiatrists are obliged to operate with a double handicap: thepharmacological and the conceptual. That may not greatly matter to the patient; to the thoughtfulclinician, such an historical lacuna should matter a great deal, if only because an unreflective doctorwill eventually become one of diminished skill.12

TUESDAY: MIND, VISION AND MOTIONBefore the Thesaurus: Peter Mark Roget, physician and scientist, and his forays into theneurosciencesStanley Finger a and Lawrence Kruger ba Department of Psychology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO 63130‐4899, USA([email protected])b Department of Neurobiology, The David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095,USA ([email protected])Peter Mark Roget is best remembered today for his eponymic Thesaurus, a project completed late inhis eventful life, after he had “retired.” Hardly remembered at all among historians of scvience isthat he had trained as a physician, practiced medicine, was interested in many branches of thesciences, and approached medical and scientific issues with the mind of a philosopher. More thananything else, Roget’s life was dedicated to systematizing knowledge and helping to organize andrun scholarly societies, the most notable being the Royal Society of London. He contributed to theneurosciences with short and long Encyclopaedia Britannica pieces, with his physiology books, withjournal articles, and with many popular‐press publications. In these venues he covered diversetopics, including phrenology, optics, aging, the sensory systems, and the nerves. Although not anempirical scientist or an experimentalist in the modern sense of the word, Roget even discovered avisual illusion of perceived movement that some motion picture historians have hailed as asignificant first step on the path to movies.13

TUESDAY: MIND, VISION AND MOTIONVisual illustrations reflect developments in nineteenth‐century neuroscienceJ. Wayne LazarNeuropsychologist, 155 Kensington Road South, Garden City South, New York 11530, NY, USA([email protected])David Ferrier displayed results of his earliest experiments on brain localization of function on linedrawings of brains by John Galton in 1873 and on line drawings of brains by Ernest Waterlow in1874/75. Ferrier turned the line drawings into brain maps by modifying both sets of drawings withcircles that indicated unique places on the brains where electrical stimulation was effective ineliciting specific movements. Each circle represented the results of many stimulations of severalanimals. Nonetheless, the circles had different meanings in the two sets of brain maps. The circles in1873 indicated “points” of effective stimulation. The circles in 1874/75 had much more meaning.They indicated areas of effective stimulation and represented two‐dimensional graphs with onlytheir centers as medians or places of central tendency.John Bell, who flourished at the end of the eighteenth‐and beginning nineteenth century, hadfigures that contrasted sharply with those of Ferrier. For Bell, the purpose of anatomical illustrationswas to aid in dissection and surgery. He argued for realistic drawings—faithful reproductions with allthe blood vessels and fascia intact. Bell argued against anatomically unnatural illustrations, explicitlydeprecating composite drawings concocted from multiple sources placed together on a standardskeleton to represent an anatomically correct body.Ferrier’s brain maps resemble Bell’s composites more than they resemble Bell’s drawings fromnature; for Ferrier’s brain maps were, in fact, concocted out of multiple stimulations all representedby a circle on a “skeleton” now known as a line drawing. Bell’s realistic drawings were accepted atthe beginning of the century while Ferrier’s brain maps were accepted at the end of the century.These comparisons merits attention because they reflect significant changes in acceptable medicalillustration and in anatomy and physiology during the nineteenth century.14

TUESDAY: MIND, VISION AND MOTIONSigmund Exner and neural interpretations of motion phenomenaNicholas J. Wade a and Frans A. J. Verstraten ba School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, United Kingdom([email protected])b School of Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia ([email protected])The waterfall illusion (or motion aftereffect) refers to the modification of motion perceptionfollowing prolonged observation of a regularly moving stimulus, like descending water. It wasdescribed in antiquity but in the last century and a half it has been interpreted in neural terms.Sigmund Exner (1846‐1926) added to the range of conditions under which motion perception can bemodified and he provided a neural network model to account for the illusory motion. On theexperimental side, he demonstrated that the motion aftereffect occurred in depth and thatadaptation to linear motions in opposite directions (vertical and horizontal) yielded a diagonalaftereffect. He adapted each eye with opposite motion (both with rotation and with linear motion)and found no motion aftereffect when viewing a stationary test pattern with two eyes, but oppositeones when viewing with each eye separately. Exner’s neural model was expressed in terms ofinfluences on eye muscles, but it could be interpreted more generally. Prolonged stimulation in agiven direction will lead to fatigue of certain cells but not others; this imbalance will be displayedwhen a stationary stimulus is subsequently viewed. Exner applied similar concepts to a wide range ofmotion phenomena, particularly stroboscopic and autokinetic motion. Using light sparks producedby electrical discharges he found that two slightly separated sparks, one appearing more than 50 msafter the other, appeared as a single light moving from one location to the other. On the basis of thisobservation, he contended that motion was a fundamental sensation that did not require combinedelements of location and time. Exner’s model of the motion aftereffect was the source of inspirationfor many subsequent interpretations and the same logic is applied in recent neurophysiologicaltheories involving adaptation of motion detectors in the visual system.15

TUESDAY: MIND, VISION AND MOTIONEarly motion picture industry and neurologyLorenzo Lorusso a, Antonia Francesca Franchini b, Bruno Falconi c and Alessandro Porro ca Neurology Department, Mellino Mellini Hospital, Chiari, Italy ([email protected])b Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health. Milan University, Italy([email protected])c Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health. BresciaUniversity, Italy ([email protected]; [email protected])Cinema played an important role for the development of the biomedicine, and there was a particularrelationship between the motion picture industry and the emerging neurosciences. Two importantmotion picture firms collaborated in the development of the application of cinematography inscience: Pathé Frères in Paris, and the Lubin Manufacturing Company in Philadelphia.In 1898 the Société Pathé Frères was founded by four brothers, Charles, Émile, Théophile andJacques Pathé. Pathé became the most important film equipment and production company in theworld, as well as a major producer of phonograph records. Another role played by this company wasthe establishment at the film studio in Vincennes of a small laboratory where different Frenchneuroscientists worked. An important Pathé collaborator was Jean Comandon (1877‐1970), who is aconsidered a pioneer of medical microcinematography. Others physicians, including Paul Sainton(1868‐1958) and André Thomas (1867‐1963), were involved in the study of neurological disordersusing Pathé’s tools.In the U.S.A., Philadelphia had the most representative domestic and international filmmakingempire: Lubin Manufacturing Company. The founder was Lubin Siegmund (1851‐1923), who in 1910began to collaborate with the neurologist Theodore H. Weisenburg (1876‐1934) in the production ofmedical and scientific films.These collaborations demonstrated the role of cinematography as a tool applied in neurology, andtheir technical and clinical improvement to have relied upon the best knowledge in both fields. InPhiladelphia and in Paris, these pioneers found the best condition to develop an importantinstrument that has changed our cultural and scientific perceptions, an instrument that still plays animportant role because it is based upon vision.16

TUESDAY: MIND, VISION AND MOTIONCharles Darwin: An additional legacySimon C. GandeviaNeuroscience Research Australia and University of New South Wales ([email protected])Charles Darwin is best known for his work on evolution through natural selection, a conceptpresented jointly with Alfred Wallace to the Linnean Society in 1858. However Darwin’s writingcovers a prodigious array of biological and also geological topics. His creative approach is oftenlauded as one simply of induction, with his mind a ‘machine for grinding general laws out of largecollections of facts’ (1). In reading Darwin’s ‘Autobiography’ (1) and some of his best‐known books,one is struck by his insightful observations not only about methodology and creativity in science butalso about the unwitting cognitive biases to which all of us are prey. Many of these types of bias anderror were documented by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (2) beginning in the 1970s, and theyhave been subsequently studied formally by many others. Darwin, often working (slowly) on severaldifferent projects at once, appears to have applied these insights in his approach. He was especiallymindful of hindsight bias, observing th