Elsevier

Behavioural Brain Research

Volume 192, Issue 1, 1 September 2008, Pages 7-11
Behavioural Brain Research

Research report
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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.11.031Get rights and content

Abstract

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 vicarious1 processes or strategies that can be found in a rigidly wired system are not justified examples of plasticity.

Section snippets

The trap of semantics

Every linguistic term can be used with a specific meaning or in a metaphoric sense and people naturally use a given word for a given context. The interpretative connotations linked to the concept plasticity and of the qualifier plastic lead to ambiguities. It is necessary to start by pointing out these ambiguities.

The current Littré (a French reference)2 early restricts the proper meaning of the term plasticity to the “capacity of distortable bodies to change their

The trap of levels of organization

Obviously, living organizations are composed of a series of hierarchically interlocked substructures, organized in “systemic units” [1]. Each systemic unit (the “org” of Gerard [2], also called “integron” by Jacob [3]) can be defined by its interface structure with the higher level system, of which it is an element, and by its relation structure (or connectivity network) which generates cohesion among the interdependent elements or “sub-systems” of which it is made. Inputs and outputs of the

The trap of stability

Speaking about the “plasticity” of a system implies that there exists the possibility of identifying a change in its state, that is, its shape or properties. This state modification itself can only be defined by reference to a given invariant stability. The “plastic” change of a given structure expresses the transition from one state of stability to a final state of stability that can be distinguished from the initial state.

With respect to living systems, and even ignoring temporal and spatial

Arguments for restricting the concept of plasticity

The increasing trend of using the term plasticity in its general metaphoric sense generates the fear that it will rapidly become a source of interdisciplinary confusion. Such a metaphoric use will not easily prevent the interpretative connotations that are attached to this term. Will this connotation lead us to ascribe a change in function because of a change in the structure of the system that results either from the action of an external force or environmental constraints?

There are three main

Uncited reference

[9].

References (9)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

1

Vicarious process: “taking over the functions” of damaged tissue (note added by the translators).

View full text
Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.