Складывается занятная картинка по поводу становления прямохождения у человека (в онтогенезе). Центральную роль в этом играет голова. Если ребенок держит голову - пойдет, если нарушения с головой, не держит - не пойдет. Сначала там хаос движений, всё подвижно, и из этого хаоса прежде всего стабилизируется "держание головы", работают мышцы головы, шеи. Голова занимает фиксированную позицию по отношению к телу, она покоится при многообразных движениях. Ведь высшие отделы нервной системы в основном вытормаживают активность нижележащих центров, так что исходно имеется хаос движений, неупорядоченная активность - и важно, как именно в двигательный хаос вносится порядок. Оказывается, начинается с головы, она при любых хаотичных (и не слишком зависящих от воли) движениях тела - может оставаться в покое. Первых движений воли - зафиксировать голову - чтобы ее не мотало при беспорядочном движении - хватает вот на эту функцию. И тогда - потом - опираясь на "спокойную голову", выключенную из хаоса движений - могут развиваться закономерные движения конечностей. Можно развивать направленные согласованные движения рук, а потом развивать двуногость. Свобода и обладание произвольными (подвластными воле) движениями конечностей вырастают, как из зачатка - из спокойной, выключенной из общего хаоса непроизвольных движений головы. Центр покоя в движении, который и позволяет, опираясь на этот покой, перейти к произвольным движениям рук и ног.
Эта картинка, как из покоящейся головы, как из семени, вырастает произвольность движений и двуногость - отчего-то показалась очень характерной и интересной. Отчего-то так эта тема не излагается - очень давно сложился другой шаблон изложения подобных результатов. Более аналитический.
Кажется даже, что сейчас - исходя из современности - такая феноменология вообще не может быть получена. Смотрят как-то иначе.
Это древние уже работы
Physiological study of the vertical stance of man FA Hellebrandt, EB Franseen - Physiological Reviews, 1943
Magnus R. Kijrperstellung. Berlin, 1924.
de Kleijn A. Roy. Sot. Med. Proc. Sot. Otol. 17: 6, 1924
Steindler A. Mechanics of normal and pathological locomotion in man. Springfield, Ill., C.C. Thomas, 1935.
Morton D.J. The human foot. New York, Columbia U. Press, 1935.
Basler A. Der Schwerpunkt des lcben den Menschen. Canton, 1931.
Bernstein N. Biodynamik des Ganges des normalen erwachscnen Hanncs. MOSCOW, 1935
Мне стало интересно, как сейчас цитируют эти старые результаты, чт говорят. Изложенного выше резюме про вырастание произвольных движений из покоящейся головы я не нашел. То, что я нашел, было совсем о другом. Сейчас классические результаты голландских врачей исследуются на предмет этичности. Резюмируют так:
Rudolf Magnus’ work on postural reflexes included experiments in which he investigated the influence of neck and labyrinth reflexes upon body posture following lesions of the brainstem, nerves, labyrinth, and cerebellum. His studies resulted in his well-known book K"orperstellung (“Body Posture”; R. Magnus, 1924). Magnus had a number of coworkers. Otolaryngologist A. de Kleijn took care of the experimental labyrinthectomies (since 1912). Their work on body posture was repeated and verified several times. The eponym “Magnus & De Kleijn reflexes” has been used frequently since (Shevell, 2009). Gijsbertus Rademaker joined Rudolf Magnus’ group in Utrecht in 1922 (see Fig. 1). The surgical skills of this “man with the gold hands”19 was welcomed. He did not only succeed in operating upon brainstem and cerebellum in animals but, with the help of his wife Maria Stolz, he also managed to keep the animals alive for a considerable period after surgery. Rademaker’s work resulted in his thesis The Significance of the Red Nucleus and the Remaining Mesencephalon for the Muscle Tone, Body Posture and Labyrinthine Reflexes (1924, in Dutch originally) and his book Das Stehen (Rademaker, 1924, 1931). The book was translated into English in 1981, accompanied by an introduction by Derek Denny-Brown (1901–1981) (Rademaker, 1981).
For the purpose of this article, we studied the biographies of Magnus and Rademaker (Magnus, 2002; Hogenhuis, 2009) as well as their textbooks (R. Magnus, 1924; Rademaker, 1931). In none of these books references were found ethical issues with respect to animal experiments. However, from the methods section in some of the experiments in K"orperstellung, it is clear that animals were operated on “in tiefer "Ather- oder Chloroformnarkose” [in deep ether or chloroform narcosis] or “Katze in Chloroformnarkose” [Cats in chloroform narcosis] (R. Magnus, 1924, pp. 36, 58). In addition, it is suggested that the animals that were operated upon by Rademaker received particular care from his wife, which resulted in relatively long survival. A reference to these results was found in the Winkler-Monakow correspondence, where Winkler noted that “[... er von] Rademaker zwei Hundehirne erhalten habe. Der eine hat 189 Tage ohne Kleinhirn gelebt und nachher sind erst die linke, sp"ater die rechte Hemisphaere extirpiert” [... he had received two dog brains from Rademaker. One had lived without cerebellum for 189 days after which first the left and later the right hemisphere were removed] (letter of July 13th, 1927; see Koehler & Jagella, 2001a and 2001b).
...Much later, this was also recognized by Denny-Brown (1981): “With the help of his devoted wife he was able to keep decerebellated dogs and cats in good condition for as long as six years and decorticate dogs for eighteen months, an extraordinary feat before antibiotics and modern neurosurgery.” Remarkably, the caring role of Rademaker’s wife is strongly emphasized. As a consequence, the care for animals is taken out of the domain of the scientifically objective (Rademaker himself) and pulled into the domain of the female, the weak, the caring, and even the domestic; the caring person is not just any woman but the doctor’s wife. This way Rademaker’s role is still that of the strong, objective, positivistic, and reliable (i.e., no extra sentiments for the animals that might blur his vision) scientist.
...From the material above, it is clear that Magnus as well as Rademaker were concerned about ethical issues with respect to their animal experiments. The arguments for this statement were not found in their publications but were obtained indirectly from newspaper articles on their work. The fact that ethical issues were not mentioned explicitly, but turned up in newspapers, probably points to the implicit ethical codes that did not need explicit mentioning in papers but were discussed in public debates. Cinematography again seems to have played a role with this respect. Magnus and Rademaker used cinematography for demonstrating the results of their research into body posture and standing at international congresses and the Amsterdam Society for Neurologists. In the present article, we learned that the use of cinematography was expanded to the reduction of animal experimentation in student education, at least in the case of Rademaker. This happened in a period of increasing criticism by antivivisectionist movements, in which, at least in the Netherlands, physicians and university professors were taking part increasingly and of further legislation by the Both Magnus and Rademaker were concerned about the fate of the experimental animals and, from the material we investigated, it can be deduced that this was probably a part of their usual professionalism. In a period of increasing pressure from antivivisectionist movements, medical cinematography that was applied by both physiologists to demonstrate their results at congresses and in books (stylized as film frames) became also useful for replacing animal experimentation by medical students. However, it would take another few decades before physiological experiments were banned from medical education.authorities. It was also interesting to notice how Rademaker not only took part in a committee to advise the government but also cooperated with the antivivisectionist movement to find a solution or at least to reduce the number of unnecessary experiments.
...Both Magnus and Rademaker were concerned about the fate of the experimental animals and, from the material we investigated, it can be deduced that this was probably a part of their usual professionalism. In a period of increasing pressure from antivivisectionist movements, medical cinematography that was applied by both physiologists to demonstrate their results at congresses and in books (stylized as film frames) became also useful for replacing animal experimentation by medical students. However, it would take another few decades before physiological experiments were banned from medical education.
источник
PJ Koehler, B Lameris The Magnus-Rademaker Scientific Film Collection: Ethical Issues on Animal Experimentation (1908–1940) Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 2016
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0964704X.2015.1072019?casa_token=o0AXHaZY7w4AAAAA:ZN_pq0nBwbfqKFtN1HSjiqYIXX--YU6sc7-YjyPjty1b6UVVUdE00Bf2OqH4-dW8-sGg16_PuEQDe4MВ общем, собачек почти не мучили, после операций жена врача выхаживала животных.
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2307386.html
(C) 
zh3l
(c) 
zh3l
(c) 
zh3l
(c) 
zh3l
(c) 
zh3l 
(c) 
(c) 
zh3l
(C) 
(C)