In 1981, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel received the Nobel Prize for their research on cortical columns—vertical bands of neurons with similar functional properties. This success led to the view that “cortical column” refers to the basic building block of the mammalian neocortex. Since the 1990s, however, critics questioned this building block picture of “cortical column” and debated whether this concept is useless and should be replaced with successor concepts. This paper inquires which experimental results after 1981 challenged the building block picture and whether these challenges warrant the elimination “cortical column” from neuroscientific discourse. I argue that the proliferation of experimental techniques led to a patchwork of locally adapted uses of the column concept. Each use refers to a different kind of cortical structure, rather than a neocortical building block. Once we acknowledge this diverse-kinds picture of “cortical column”, the elimination of column concept becomes unnecessary. Rather, I suggest that “cortical column” has reached conceptual retirement: although it cannot be used to identify a neocortical building block, column research is still useful as a guide and cautionary tale for ongoing research. At the same time, neuroscientists should search for alternative concepts when studying the functional architecture of the neocortex. keywords: Cortical column, conceptual development, history of neuroscience, patchwork, eliminativism, conceptual retirement.

1981 年，David Hubel 和 Torsten Wiesel 因对皮质柱（具有相似功能特性的神经元垂直带）的研究而获得诺贝尔奖。这一成功导致了这样一种观点，即“皮质柱”是指哺乳动物新皮质的基本组成部分。然而，自 1990 年代以来，批评者质疑“皮质柱”的构建模块图，并争论这个概念是否无用，是否应该被后续概念取代。本文探讨了 1981 年之后的哪些实验结果挑战了积木图景，以及这些挑战是否值得从神经科学话语中消除“皮质柱”。我认为，实验技术的普及导致了柱概念在当地适应使用的拼凑。每次使用都指不同的皮质结构，而不是新皮质的构建块。一旦我们承认了这种“皮质柱”的多样性图景，就没有必要消除柱的概念了。相反，我建议“皮质柱”已经到了概念上的退休：虽然它不能用来识别新皮质的构建块，但柱研究仍然可以作为正在进行的研究的指导和警示故事。同时，神经科学家在研究新皮质的功能结构时应该寻找替代概念。专栏研究仍然可以作为正在进行的研究的指南和警示故事。同时，神经科学家在研究新皮质的功能结构时应该寻找替代概念。专栏研究仍然可以作为正在进行的研究的指南和警示故事。同时，神经科学家在研究新皮质的功能结构时应该寻找替代概念。关键词：皮质柱，概念发展，神经科学史，拼凑，消除主义，概念退休。