The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines

Why do neurons have dendritic spines? This question— the heart of what Yuste calls the spine problem— presupposes that why-questions of this sort have scientific answers: that empirical findings can favor or count against claims about why neurons have spines. Here we show how such questions can rece...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sarah eMalanowski, Carl F. Craver
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnana.2014.00095/full
id doaj-53ed7906b68f43269c7adf8d23527d70
record_format Article
spelling doaj-53ed7906b68f43269c7adf8d23527d702020-11-24T21:42:16ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Neuroanatomy1662-51292014-09-01810.3389/fnana.2014.00095107423The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spinesSarah eMalanowski0Carl F. Craver1Washington University in St. LouisWashington University in St. LouisWhy do neurons have dendritic spines? This question— the heart of what Yuste calls the spine problem— presupposes that why-questions of this sort have scientific answers: that empirical findings can favor or count against claims about why neurons have spines. Here we show how such questions can receive empirical answers. We construe such why-questions as questions about how spines make a difference to the behavior of some mechanism that we take to be significant. Why-questions are driven fundamentally by the effort to understand how some item, such as the dendritic spine, is situated in the causal structure of the world (the causal nexus). They ask for a filter on that busy world that allows us to see a part’s individual contribution to a mechanism, independent of everything else going on. So understood, answers to why-questions can be assessed by testing the claims these answers make about the causal structure of a mechanism. We distinguish four ways of making a difference to a mechanism (necessary, modulatory, component, background condition), and we sketch their evidential requirements. One consequence of our analysis is that there are many spine problems and that any given spine problem might have many acceptable answers.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnana.2014.00095/fullDendritic Spinesfunctionmechanismsfunctional attributioncausal-mechanical explanation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sarah eMalanowski
Carl F. Craver
spellingShingle Sarah eMalanowski
Carl F. Craver
The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
Dendritic Spines
function
mechanisms
functional attribution
causal-mechanical explanation
author_facet Sarah eMalanowski
Carl F. Craver
author_sort Sarah eMalanowski
title The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
title_short The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
title_full The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
title_fullStr The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
title_full_unstemmed The spine problem: Finding a function for dendritic spines
title_sort spine problem: finding a function for dendritic spines
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
issn 1662-5129
publishDate 2014-09-01
description Why do neurons have dendritic spines? This question— the heart of what Yuste calls the spine problem— presupposes that why-questions of this sort have scientific answers: that empirical findings can favor or count against claims about why neurons have spines. Here we show how such questions can receive empirical answers. We construe such why-questions as questions about how spines make a difference to the behavior of some mechanism that we take to be significant. Why-questions are driven fundamentally by the effort to understand how some item, such as the dendritic spine, is situated in the causal structure of the world (the causal nexus). They ask for a filter on that busy world that allows us to see a part’s individual contribution to a mechanism, independent of everything else going on. So understood, answers to why-questions can be assessed by testing the claims these answers make about the causal structure of a mechanism. We distinguish four ways of making a difference to a mechanism (necessary, modulatory, component, background condition), and we sketch their evidential requirements. One consequence of our analysis is that there are many spine problems and that any given spine problem might have many acceptable answers.
topic Dendritic Spines
function
mechanisms
functional attribution
causal-mechanical explanation
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnana.2014.00095/full
work_keys_str_mv AT sarahemalanowski thespineproblemfindingafunctionfordendriticspines
AT carlfcraver thespineproblemfindingafunctionfordendriticspines
AT sarahemalanowski spineproblemfindingafunctionfordendriticspines
AT carlfcraver spineproblemfindingafunctionfordendriticspines
_version_ 1725917921096499200