Translational Imaging of the Brain in the Twentieth Century: Patterns and Trends in EEG, CT, and MRI devices
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Manchester
Department Name: School of Biological Sciences
Abstract
There has been a move within the humanities and social sciences towards a 'neuro-criticism', to analyse and problematize the discourse and debates surrounding the neurosciences (Cooter 2014; Chodhury & Slaby, 2012). This 'neuro-criticism' avoids futurism, instead arguing that the neurosciences are a historically-situated enterprise contextualised in a web of cultural and political-economic forces (Chodhury & Slaby, 2012; Scott Vrecko, 2010). I build upon this discourse through a historical study of neuroscientific translational research in the 1900s.
Objectives and Research Questions:
Translational research is defined as the aim to develop basic research from which innovations of therapeutic and diagnostic benefit are derived (Brosnan & Michael, 2014). I follow current trends in neuro-criticism to ground translational research in a historical context. What are the historical conditions that have made the current culture of translational research possible? Have prior models of translational research had a tangible result? Is there a conceptual underpinning that runs through the various models of translational research?
The context of 3 technologies that have been used to measure, define, and diagnose physiological and biological functions of the brain via graphical representation will be studied: Electroencephalographs (EEG), Computerised Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This focus on neuroimaging allows for a model that shows the evolution of such technologies and the translational practices that were structured around them.
Research Framework:
Drawing on distinct and little studied archives will show how each technology was envisioned and used in basic research. Using these and the records of the Medical Research Council, I examine how basic research was translated into clinical policy.
The papers of the Burden Neurological Institute will be the basis to explore EEG research in the 1940-60s (BURD, and the Isherwood papers for both CT Research in the 1970s and MRI research in the late 1970s-80s, for which the papers of Brian Worthington (PBW) and Peter Mansfield (PMP) will also be used.
Literature Review:
The lack of an appropriate model in contemporary neuroscientific discourse is noted by Borck (2012). Whereas prior models and metaphors of mind had defined and shaped neuroscientific activities, contemporary neuroimaging has become the 'medium and message' (Borck 2012, 129) of neuroscientific discourse. Neuro images are a self-supporting justification of themselves, making them difficult to critique. (Borck 2012; Cooter 2014). This allows for a mobility and interpretive flexibility that allows for conclusions regarding the neuro that often go beyond what EEG, CT, and MRI are capable of accurately measuring (Dumit 2004; Borck 2016). Defining a clearly outlined model of the neuroscientific brain will open a collaborative space.
Methodology:
Building on Hacking's ideas of "calibration/validation" (1995, pp. 98-99) provides a conceptual basis for the research planning. In this model, new technologies that measure or quantify a phenomenon, typically undergoes a process where they are checked against previously established judgements, measurements or experimental results. Viewing neuroscience through this lens helps to show what judgements neuroimaging has been calibrated against. In doing so, the categories of brain used in translational research can be more clearly outlined with solid boundaries. This can then be extended using Hacking's "classificatory looping"; a process by which new neuroscientists interact with the categories after they have become accepted (Chodhury & Slaby 2012, p. 8). As well as highlighting the legacy of working practices in areas of the neuroscience, such as translational research, the model of looping is a starting point from which to derive the current neuroscientific model from the accepted categories and methods of neuroscientific investigation.
Objectives and Research Questions:
Translational research is defined as the aim to develop basic research from which innovations of therapeutic and diagnostic benefit are derived (Brosnan & Michael, 2014). I follow current trends in neuro-criticism to ground translational research in a historical context. What are the historical conditions that have made the current culture of translational research possible? Have prior models of translational research had a tangible result? Is there a conceptual underpinning that runs through the various models of translational research?
The context of 3 technologies that have been used to measure, define, and diagnose physiological and biological functions of the brain via graphical representation will be studied: Electroencephalographs (EEG), Computerised Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This focus on neuroimaging allows for a model that shows the evolution of such technologies and the translational practices that were structured around them.
Research Framework:
Drawing on distinct and little studied archives will show how each technology was envisioned and used in basic research. Using these and the records of the Medical Research Council, I examine how basic research was translated into clinical policy.
The papers of the Burden Neurological Institute will be the basis to explore EEG research in the 1940-60s (BURD, and the Isherwood papers for both CT Research in the 1970s and MRI research in the late 1970s-80s, for which the papers of Brian Worthington (PBW) and Peter Mansfield (PMP) will also be used.
Literature Review:
The lack of an appropriate model in contemporary neuroscientific discourse is noted by Borck (2012). Whereas prior models and metaphors of mind had defined and shaped neuroscientific activities, contemporary neuroimaging has become the 'medium and message' (Borck 2012, 129) of neuroscientific discourse. Neuro images are a self-supporting justification of themselves, making them difficult to critique. (Borck 2012; Cooter 2014). This allows for a mobility and interpretive flexibility that allows for conclusions regarding the neuro that often go beyond what EEG, CT, and MRI are capable of accurately measuring (Dumit 2004; Borck 2016). Defining a clearly outlined model of the neuroscientific brain will open a collaborative space.
Methodology:
Building on Hacking's ideas of "calibration/validation" (1995, pp. 98-99) provides a conceptual basis for the research planning. In this model, new technologies that measure or quantify a phenomenon, typically undergoes a process where they are checked against previously established judgements, measurements or experimental results. Viewing neuroscience through this lens helps to show what judgements neuroimaging has been calibrated against. In doing so, the categories of brain used in translational research can be more clearly outlined with solid boundaries. This can then be extended using Hacking's "classificatory looping"; a process by which new neuroscientists interact with the categories after they have become accepted (Chodhury & Slaby 2012, p. 8). As well as highlighting the legacy of working practices in areas of the neuroscience, such as translational research, the model of looping is a starting point from which to derive the current neuroscientific model from the accepted categories and methods of neuroscientific investigation.