2019 Volume 56 Issue 2 Pages 64-69
Principles of autonomic nervous system (ANS) physiology were systematized by Langley and Cannon, but I am aware that their descriptions contain serious doubts. I describe on alternative theories with those of Langley and Cannon. (1) ANS and emotion: Emotional alteration accompanies change in ANS activity; James (1884) and Lange (1885) argued that emotion was produced in the ANS. Oppositely, Cannon (1927) and Bard (1928) stated that the ANS was under the influence of emotion, which occurred within the diencephalon. The Cannon-Bard theory had long been accepted, because Langley (1898) incorrectly defined ANS as peripheral nerves only. It is, however, proved that the diencephalon was just an upper part of the central autonomic network, and recent psychological experiments supports the James-Lange theory rather than the Cannon-Bard theory. (2) Spinal parasympathetic nerves: During the times of Langley, it was debated whether parasympathetic vasodilator nerves were present. While Langley (1905) denied the presence of spinal parasympathetic nerves, Kuré succeeded to demonstrate them. Kuré et al. (1928) cut the dorsal roots of dogs, and investigated the central stump after keeping dogs alive long. Large myelinated fibers were completely lost, but small myelinated fibers were well-preserved, indicating that the latter fibers were centrifugal (parasympathetic). (3) Denervation supersensitivity: Eppinger and Hess (1909) claimed that patients with sympathetic hyperactivity showed supersensitivity to administered adrenaline. Oppositely, Cannon (1959) proposed the term of denervation supersensitivity. Since Eppinger and Hess’s cases were not autonomic failure, it is incorrect to criticize Eppinger and Hess from the view-point of denervation supersensitivity theory.
