To start off, we plot the terms "Gregor Mendel", just "Mendel", "Mendelian" as well as the genus of the garden pea Mendel worked with, "Pisum".
Not surprisingly, the years 1866 and 1900 (or there around) stand out markedly.
Showing posts with label Ngrams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ngrams. Show all posts
July 22, 2011
A quick Mendel follow-up
As a footnote to my previous post about Gregor Mendel, I offer these interesting Google NGrams.
To start off, we plot the terms "Gregor Mendel", just "Mendel", "Mendelian" as well as the genus of the garden pea Mendel worked with, "Pisum".
Not surprisingly, the years 1866 and 1900 (or there around) stand out markedly.
To start off, we plot the terms "Gregor Mendel", just "Mendel", "Mendelian" as well as the genus of the garden pea Mendel worked with, "Pisum".
Not surprisingly, the years 1866 and 1900 (or there around) stand out markedly.
May 07, 2011
Update/A melatonin NGram
March and April disappeared in a daze and didn't lend me much time to spend on blogging. Finishing my teaching and course assistant duties for our undergraduate neurobiology course while re-working and re-submitting a research paper (now accepted in Endocrinology) took up most of March. Then to top things off I contracted a nasty Mycoplasma infection that left me floored with pneumonia for three weeks, including three days of hospitalization, so there went most of April. And the start of the year is a busy time for me as it is! I'm still a bit off-colour, but back to work!
I had started a big post about melatonin sometime in March to coincide with my lecture on biological rhythms on our neurobiology course, but as stuff happened I never actually finished it. As things have it though, I was asked to cover for another teacher lecturing last week about melatonin and the pineal gland for second term medical students, so I got a reason to re-visit melatonin and the blog post. I hope to have it up soon, but I haven't recovered completely and I'm still taking it easy with my work load so blogging is not really a priority right now. But as a short preface to that post, I thought we could take a look at what information we can extract about melatonin and the pineal gland from Google NGrams.
Melatonin is a hormone related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Most people may have heard about it in the context of jet-lag or insomnia and perhaps different supplements or medications one might take to counteract them. Indeed melatonin is secreted when it's dark by the pineal gland in the brain as a general "night-time signal", although it doesn't stimulate sleep by itself.
We can see very clearly in the ngram above that "melatonin", "pineal gland" as well as the general term "pineal" have had a clear rise since the start of the 1960's. This makes perfect sense since melatonin was first isolated in 1958 from cow pineal glands. It was named and some of its effects were described in a 1960 paper by the same researchers. However, it was already known since the start of the 20th century that pineal gland extracts had some biological effects, before the hormone was isolated. This is detectable in another ngram, but could it also be related to the sharp peak in the term "pineal" that we see in the first decades of the 1900's in the ngram above?
The terms "pineal" and "pineal gland" go back quite far, reflecting the fact that the pineal gland has been known anatomically, and to some extent functionally, for quite a long time. The term "pineal body" is a bit of a curiosity since you often see it in old literature, but it doesn't seem to be as old or to reach the same prominence as "pineal gland" at all, which is surprising, at least to me. I thought that "pineal body" would be the older term and that it was eventually replaced by "pineal gland". Not so apparently.
I had started a big post about melatonin sometime in March to coincide with my lecture on biological rhythms on our neurobiology course, but as stuff happened I never actually finished it. As things have it though, I was asked to cover for another teacher lecturing last week about melatonin and the pineal gland for second term medical students, so I got a reason to re-visit melatonin and the blog post. I hope to have it up soon, but I haven't recovered completely and I'm still taking it easy with my work load so blogging is not really a priority right now. But as a short preface to that post, I thought we could take a look at what information we can extract about melatonin and the pineal gland from Google NGrams.
Melatonin is a hormone related to the neurotransmitter serotonin. Most people may have heard about it in the context of jet-lag or insomnia and perhaps different supplements or medications one might take to counteract them. Indeed melatonin is secreted when it's dark by the pineal gland in the brain as a general "night-time signal", although it doesn't stimulate sleep by itself.
We can see very clearly in the ngram above that "melatonin", "pineal gland" as well as the general term "pineal" have had a clear rise since the start of the 1960's. This makes perfect sense since melatonin was first isolated in 1958 from cow pineal glands. It was named and some of its effects were described in a 1960 paper by the same researchers. However, it was already known since the start of the 20th century that pineal gland extracts had some biological effects, before the hormone was isolated. This is detectable in another ngram, but could it also be related to the sharp peak in the term "pineal" that we see in the first decades of the 1900's in the ngram above?
The terms "pineal" and "pineal gland" go back quite far, reflecting the fact that the pineal gland has been known anatomically, and to some extent functionally, for quite a long time. The term "pineal body" is a bit of a curiosity since you often see it in old literature, but it doesn't seem to be as old or to reach the same prominence as "pineal gland" at all, which is surprising, at least to me. I thought that "pineal body" would be the older term and that it was eventually replaced by "pineal gland". Not so apparently.
February 11, 2011
Some more history of neuroscience visualized through Google NGrams
This is the second post where I take a look at Google NGram visualizations of the history of neuroscience. If you haven't seen the first one, you probably should before continuing to read this one.
In my previous post I completely ignored a large number of the cells in the brain: glial cells! It's often said they outnumber neurons by a ratio of 10:1, a truth that is still open for modification, but at the very least in some brain regions they are just as many as the neurons. Let's plot some different general terms for these cells against the terms "neurons", "nerve cells" and "nerve fibres" as references. In plural just because I've already plotted the singular forms in the previous post.
We can see that mentions of "neuroglia" go back to roughly the same period as "nerve cells" and "nerve fibres", some 2-3 decades before "neurons". Around this time "neuroglia" was a general term referring to the "connective tissue" of the nervous system, according to the OED, as opposed to the fibres which were considered the actual nervous tissue. The word neuroglia literally means "cement of the nerves". Nowadays it's known that they have so many other functions than providing support and nutrients for neurons, including very important modulations of signaling in the brain.
The use of simply "glia" starts taking off around the same time as "neuron", showing the co-incidence of the neuron doctrine and the characterization of the actual cells that made up this previously so vague "connective tissue". To find the first use of "glial cells", which is quite a common term nowadays, we have to fast forward to the 1940's and 50's. If you take a look at this following NGram there's some indication that both the plural "glial cells" and the singular "glial cell" are more commonly used than "neuroglia", but the differences are not very big.
In my previous NGram post I plotted the more general terms "neurology, "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" against each other, but what if we add as many sub-fields of neuroscience and neurobiology as we can come up with to see it it's possible to see how the field has diversified and developed? I include "neurology" as well for reference.
I notice a couple of really interesting things instantly. First of all, "neurology" does seem to be the oldest term by far, and many of the more specialized terms seem to predate "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" as well (see the first post). I propose that the diversification of the field seems to have happened in three "bursts" (arrows) during the 20th century! "Neuropathology" seems to be quite old, but together with "neurophysiology", "neurosurgery" and "neuroanatomy" it forms a cluster that starts going up during the 1930's. The second burst was during the mid 1950's to mid 1960's when "neurochemistry", neuropharmacology, "neuroendocrinology" and "neuropsychology" start going up (the latter two practically overlap). Sort of associated in time to this cluster is "neurolinguistics", that for some reason strikes me as a true child of the 70's.
The last burst is perhaps less certain, but we see the marked increase in the use of "neuroimaging" during the 1980's, showing the awesome technological development of the late 1900's. "Cognitive neuroscience" also forms part of this later burst and seems to be intimately associated with the rise of neuroimaging technologies. The NGram viewer wouldn't allow me to add more terms, but in this ngram you can see that "neuroethology" has a small little bump around the same time.
It's remarkable how you can really read the development of the field, from an early focus on the "mechanics" and "physics" of the nervous system to a subsequent discovery of the chemistry of the brain, when else but in the 60's!, and a progressive realization that it affects our cognition and behaviors, paired with technological advances.
What are then the terms of the future? What are the neuro-terms on the rise? After doing several experiments, I came up with these: "neuroethics", "neurotechnology", "neuromarketing", "neuroeconomics" and "neurotheology".
"Neurotechnology" is not surprising. But perhaps what we're seeing here more than anything are the growing attempts to reconcile or explain questions of morality, spirituality and philosophy with neuroscience as well as a growing obsession with the cognitive and neurobiological processes behind money-making/spending. Seems like a weird and wonderful future.
In my previous post I completely ignored a large number of the cells in the brain: glial cells! It's often said they outnumber neurons by a ratio of 10:1, a truth that is still open for modification, but at the very least in some brain regions they are just as many as the neurons. Let's plot some different general terms for these cells against the terms "neurons", "nerve cells" and "nerve fibres" as references. In plural just because I've already plotted the singular forms in the previous post.
We can see that mentions of "neuroglia" go back to roughly the same period as "nerve cells" and "nerve fibres", some 2-3 decades before "neurons". Around this time "neuroglia" was a general term referring to the "connective tissue" of the nervous system, according to the OED, as opposed to the fibres which were considered the actual nervous tissue. The word neuroglia literally means "cement of the nerves". Nowadays it's known that they have so many other functions than providing support and nutrients for neurons, including very important modulations of signaling in the brain.
The use of simply "glia" starts taking off around the same time as "neuron", showing the co-incidence of the neuron doctrine and the characterization of the actual cells that made up this previously so vague "connective tissue". To find the first use of "glial cells", which is quite a common term nowadays, we have to fast forward to the 1940's and 50's. If you take a look at this following NGram there's some indication that both the plural "glial cells" and the singular "glial cell" are more commonly used than "neuroglia", but the differences are not very big.
In my previous NGram post I plotted the more general terms "neurology, "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" against each other, but what if we add as many sub-fields of neuroscience and neurobiology as we can come up with to see it it's possible to see how the field has diversified and developed? I include "neurology" as well for reference.
I notice a couple of really interesting things instantly. First of all, "neurology" does seem to be the oldest term by far, and many of the more specialized terms seem to predate "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" as well (see the first post). I propose that the diversification of the field seems to have happened in three "bursts" (arrows) during the 20th century! "Neuropathology" seems to be quite old, but together with "neurophysiology", "neurosurgery" and "neuroanatomy" it forms a cluster that starts going up during the 1930's. The second burst was during the mid 1950's to mid 1960's when "neurochemistry", neuropharmacology, "neuroendocrinology" and "neuropsychology" start going up (the latter two practically overlap). Sort of associated in time to this cluster is "neurolinguistics", that for some reason strikes me as a true child of the 70's.
The last burst is perhaps less certain, but we see the marked increase in the use of "neuroimaging" during the 1980's, showing the awesome technological development of the late 1900's. "Cognitive neuroscience" also forms part of this later burst and seems to be intimately associated with the rise of neuroimaging technologies. The NGram viewer wouldn't allow me to add more terms, but in this ngram you can see that "neuroethology" has a small little bump around the same time.
It's remarkable how you can really read the development of the field, from an early focus on the "mechanics" and "physics" of the nervous system to a subsequent discovery of the chemistry of the brain, when else but in the 60's!, and a progressive realization that it affects our cognition and behaviors, paired with technological advances.
What are then the terms of the future? What are the neuro-terms on the rise? After doing several experiments, I came up with these: "neuroethics", "neurotechnology", "neuromarketing", "neuroeconomics" and "neurotheology".
"Neurotechnology" is not surprising. But perhaps what we're seeing here more than anything are the growing attempts to reconcile or explain questions of morality, spirituality and philosophy with neuroscience as well as a growing obsession with the cognitive and neurobiological processes behind money-making/spending. Seems like a weird and wonderful future.
February 06, 2011
A brief history of neuroscience in Google NGrams
In the days and weeks following the release of Google's NGram Viewer I got completely addicted and started plotting everything between heaven and earth, just like everyone else. The scientific merits of Google's NGram Viewer have been discussed over and again, especially the term "culturomics", and some of its inherent errors have been revealed, and some fixed. These discussions notwithstanding, I'm amazed at the course of events that actually can be visualized and analyzed in this way. Just take a look at these NGrams applied to the history of neuroscience. Click on the images to see the original graphs on the Google NGram Viewer.
To start out, let's see if we can trace the origin of the field's object of study, the neuron. I've included the two accepted spellings "neuron and "neurone" as well as "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre".*
We see that the last decades of the 19th century were absolutely decisive in the history of neuroscience. What we're really seeing is the emergence of the neuron doctrine; the idea that the nervous system is made up by discrete but interconnected cellular components, or neurons. This revolution was made possible by the works of Santiago Ramón y Cajal and Camillo Golgi (among others, but these two were the heavy hitters and received the Nobel prize in 1906), and the anatomist Heinrich Waldeyer-Hartz was the first to formally propose the doctrine in 1891. Do you see how clearly the use of "neuron" practically started around 1891? Incredible!
The fact that there are two spellings, with or without a terminal e, is a cool curiosity. We can see how the use of "neurone" sinks after the 1930's, but the two alternative variants really competed there. The use of "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre" seem to predate both of them, but their origin is definitely after 1850 and they don't rise in the same way as the 20th century comes along.
The name "Waldeyer" also has a peak before 1890. Names are always tricky, but what if we include the general prefix "neuro" in the analysis together with "Waldeyer", "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre"?
The field was clearly developing in the decades before the neuron doctrine in the 1890's, and Waldeyer seems to have been prominent in that development. We see that the use of neuro-related terms has an upward slope that follows Waldeyer's almost exactly. Waldeyer was a very prominent general anatomist and histologist of the time, so if we add the term "histology" to the analysis we can probably confirm the incredible development that lead to the emergence of modern neuroscience: the ability to chemically stain tissues and individual cells in preparation for the study under the microscope.
Much of this development seems to have had it's start in the 1850's.
Next I want to find out when the collective terms for the field like "neurology, "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" came up. Let's add those to the general "neuro"-prefix and "neuron" as references.
Although the foundations of modern neuroscience and neurobiology were laid in the late 19th century, the terms themselves don't show up until well into the 20th century! "Neurology" seems to be a much older term, perhaps indicating that the arrangement and disease states of the nervous system were under study well before the underlying mechanisms were understood. Or maybe that it used to be a more general term? It's an interesting question. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "neurology" goes back to 1681 meaning something like "systematic arrangement of nerves".
There are some more interesting experiments one could do, but this is enough for now.
*) Including "nerve" doesn't add anything useful since it's such a common word. According to the OED it goes back to the 1400's, originally meaning sinew or tendon.
To start out, let's see if we can trace the origin of the field's object of study, the neuron. I've included the two accepted spellings "neuron and "neurone" as well as "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre".*
We see that the last decades of the 19th century were absolutely decisive in the history of neuroscience. What we're really seeing is the emergence of the neuron doctrine; the idea that the nervous system is made up by discrete but interconnected cellular components, or neurons. This revolution was made possible by the works of Santiago Ramón y Cajal and Camillo Golgi (among others, but these two were the heavy hitters and received the Nobel prize in 1906), and the anatomist Heinrich Waldeyer-Hartz was the first to formally propose the doctrine in 1891. Do you see how clearly the use of "neuron" practically started around 1891? Incredible!
The fact that there are two spellings, with or without a terminal e, is a cool curiosity. We can see how the use of "neurone" sinks after the 1930's, but the two alternative variants really competed there. The use of "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre" seem to predate both of them, but their origin is definitely after 1850 and they don't rise in the same way as the 20th century comes along.
The name "Waldeyer" also has a peak before 1890. Names are always tricky, but what if we include the general prefix "neuro" in the analysis together with "Waldeyer", "nerve cell" and "nerve fibre"?
The field was clearly developing in the decades before the neuron doctrine in the 1890's, and Waldeyer seems to have been prominent in that development. We see that the use of neuro-related terms has an upward slope that follows Waldeyer's almost exactly. Waldeyer was a very prominent general anatomist and histologist of the time, so if we add the term "histology" to the analysis we can probably confirm the incredible development that lead to the emergence of modern neuroscience: the ability to chemically stain tissues and individual cells in preparation for the study under the microscope.
Much of this development seems to have had it's start in the 1850's.
Next I want to find out when the collective terms for the field like "neurology, "neuroscience" and "neurobiology" came up. Let's add those to the general "neuro"-prefix and "neuron" as references.
Although the foundations of modern neuroscience and neurobiology were laid in the late 19th century, the terms themselves don't show up until well into the 20th century! "Neurology" seems to be a much older term, perhaps indicating that the arrangement and disease states of the nervous system were under study well before the underlying mechanisms were understood. Or maybe that it used to be a more general term? It's an interesting question. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "neurology" goes back to 1681 meaning something like "systematic arrangement of nerves".
There are some more interesting experiments one could do, but this is enough for now.
*) Including "nerve" doesn't add anything useful since it's such a common word. According to the OED it goes back to the 1400's, originally meaning sinew or tendon.
December 20, 2010
Playing with Google NGram Viewer: Evolution vs. creationism
I've been having fun with Google's new NGram viewer, which allows you to mine data from about 5 million books scanned by Google books and trace the use of different concepts in literature from the last 500 years. I've been plotting a few evolutionary concepts and comparing them with creationism to see what kind of information showed up, and the results are quite cool! Click on the images below to see the original graphs on the Google NGram page.
Starting out, I plotted evolution (initial lowercase e), Evolution (initial uppercase E), Darwinism and natural selection. What do you see in the resulting graph?
Even though the use of the word evolution predates the 1850's, we see a sharp increase after 1859, the year of publication of On the Origin of Species. Incredible right!? But not surprising. The rise of evolution as a concept becomes clearer when we plot Evolution with an initial uppercase E, as an indication of the use of the word in titles. We also see the emergence of Darwinism and natural selection as concepts after 1859. The impact of Origin really is unmistakable.
Starting out, I plotted evolution (initial lowercase e), Evolution (initial uppercase E), Darwinism and natural selection. What do you see in the resulting graph?
Even though the use of the word evolution predates the 1850's, we see a sharp increase after 1859, the year of publication of On the Origin of Species. Incredible right!? But not surprising. The rise of evolution as a concept becomes clearer when we plot Evolution with an initial uppercase E, as an indication of the use of the word in titles. We also see the emergence of Darwinism and natural selection as concepts after 1859. The impact of Origin really is unmistakable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)