Schilder and Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity

In the late 1920s, the Viennese psychoanalyst Paul Schilder, after performing a conditioning experiment with human subjects, criticized I. P. Pavlov’s concept of “experimental neurosis.” Schilder maintained that subjective reports by conditioned human subjects were more informative than the objectively observed behavior of conditioned dogs. In 1932, Pavlov published a rejoinder to Schilder’s critique in theJournal of the American Medical Association. Pavlov maintained that Schilder misunderstood the value and implications of the scientific, objective method in the study of experimental neurosis. In 1934, Schilder subjected Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity to an incisive critique in a 1935 article inImago. Schilder objected to Pavlov’s narrow, reductionist conceptualization of the conditional reflex. Schilder reiterated his view that the psychological, subjective explanation of the conditional reflex is preferable to the physiological, objective explanation, and that the inference of cortical phenomena from experimental findings might be improper. Neither Pavlov nor any of his disciples replied to Schilder. The author provides an apology for the Pavlovian position, suggesting that Schilder was unfamiliar with early and late writings of Pavlov.     

Pavlov's position toward American behaviorism

Pavlov's development of the conditional reflex theory coincided with the rise of American behaviorism. Substituting an objective physiology for a subjective psychology, Pavlov saw in the rise of American behaviorism a clear confirmation of his method and theory. But in the early 1930s, Lashley attacked Pavlov's theory of specific cerebral localization of function, proposing instead the concept of an internal cerebral organization; Guthrie objected to Pavlov's centralist interpretation of conditioning, proposing instead a peripheralist interpretation; while Hull challenged Pavlov's theory of sleep and hypnosis as the manifestations of inhibition. Pavlov replied with critiques of Lashley's, Guthrie's, and Hull's views, and, convinced that Lashley and Guthrie misunderstood his position, repeated his method's and theory's basic propositions. Yet, Pavlov never gave up the expectation that American behaviorism would accept his conditional reflex theory and saw in Hunter's 1932 statements a support of his assumptions.     

Pavlov and the Pavlovians in the laboratory

The general character of the Pavlovians and their role in the experimental investigation of conditioned reflexes is discussed. From 1897 to 1936, Ivan P. Pavlov had at least 146 co-workers and he was closely involved in their experimental work. The social background, nationality, and gender of the Pavlovians are described together with the daily routine in the laboratories. It is pointed out that, despite Pavlov's authoritarian style, the Pavlovians characterized him as the epitome of a scholar and an admirable human being. It is concluded that the work in the laboratories was truly a cooperative effort between Pavlov and his co-workers.     

Interaction of dominant focus and conditional reflex as a functional unit of behavior organization

The interaction of two fundamental phenomena—the dominant focus and the conditional reflex—discovered and introduced by A. A. Ukhtomsky and I. P. Pavlov lay at the basis of behavior. According to E. A. Asratyan, the backward conditioned connection is a specialized dominant focus in the functional structure of the consolidated conditional reflex. It makes the behavior goal-directed and active. The dominant focus and conditioned reflex play the same role in the adaptive behavior of the individual as does variability and selection in the process of evolutional adaptation. That is why it is impossible to agree with Popper and Eccles that hypothesis theory has to replace Pavlov’s theory of the conditional reflex. Imprinting and psychonervous activity by images (I. S. Beritashvili) are two special exemplars of conditional reflexes after one coincidence. The so-called “elementary reasoning activity of animals” (according to L. V. Krushinsky) is a kind of the instinctive inherited behavior.     

The impact of Pavlov on the psychology of learning in English-speaking countries

The translation of Pavlov's lectures (Pavlov, 1927) provided English-speaking psychologists with access to the full scope of Pavlov's research and theoretical ideas. The impact this had on their study of the psychology of learning can be assessed by examining influential books in this area. This reveals that Watson (1924) had been highly effective in promoting the misleading idea that Pavlov was a fellow S-R theorist. This assumption was not questioned by Tolman (1932), Hilgard and Marquis (1940) or by Hull (1943). However, this mistake was not made by Skinner (1938), who also provided the strongest arguments against Pavlov's belief that behavioral effects required explanation in terms of physiological processes. Post-1927 most learning research in the English-speaking countries continued to use instrumental, rather than Pavlovian, conditioning procedures. Nevertheless, many of the issues addressed by this research were ones that Pavlov had been the first to raise, so that his major influence can be seen as that of defining a research program for subsequent students of learning.     

Pavlov's view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as it relates to theses concerning scientific change

Pavlov's position on the inheritance of acquired characteristics was used to test selected theses of Laudan et al. (1986) concerning scientific change. It was determined that, despite negative experimental findings, Pavlov continued to accept the possibility of the inheritance of acquired habits. This confirms the main thesis I that, once accepted, theories persist despite negative experimental evidence. Pavolv's adherence to the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics might possibly be explained by his early experiences. Adolescent readings of a popularized version of Darwin's theory, which included the concept of inheritance of acquired characteristics, profoundly influenced Pavlov's subsequent intellectual life. Overwhelmed by the theory, as originally presented, Pavlov was unable to alter his views in light of contrary findings.     

Pavlov and the Nobel Prize award

When Pavlov was first nominated for the Nobel Prize, he was well recognized by physiologists, especially those concerned with digestion. It appears unlikely that psychological interpretations of his conditional reflex findings had begun to penetrate deeply into the discipline of psychology. The selection in 1904 of Pavlov for the award in physiology or medicine attracted the attention of a broader range of scientists. American psychologists, in particular, probably became more aware of the advantages of incorporating his “objective” conditional reflex method into their investigations. General biographical aspects relating to the award and the effect of the award upon the acceptance of the conditional reflex method by American psychologists are developed in this presentation.     

Pavlov and the concept of association

I. P. Pavlov was profoundly influenced during his youth by the writings of D. I. Pisarev and I. M. Sechenov. Sechenov explained the voluntary act in terms of the formation of associations among sensory impressions and motor responses. Apparently under Pisarev’s influence, Pavlov studied the physiology of the circulatory and digestive systems. In explaining the formation of the conditional reflex (CR), Pavlov rejected the Wundtian, anthropomorphic conceptualization of CR as suggested by A. T. Snarskii. However, using the objective CR method, the Pavlovians experimentally investigated the formation in the cortex of neural connections, which were equated with associations.     

A comparative analysis of the conditional reflex discoveries of pavlov and Twitmyer,and the birth of a paradigm

Research on conditional reflex (CR) in Pavlov’s Physiological Laboratory has preceded Twitmyer’s work on conditioning at the University of Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 years. The events in Pavlov’s laboratory lead toward the postulation of a new paradigm that rejected the Cartesians conceptualization of the reflex as a mechanistic response to stimuli by replacing it with the Darwinian notion of the organism’s adaptation to the environmental conditions. The Pavlovian paradigm rejected the Wundtian method in favor of the objective, conditional reflex method.     

Pavlov,psychoanalysis, and neuroses

Pavlov’s discovery of experiment neurosis was serendipitous, yet it was made under the influence of Breuer and Freud’s case of Anna O. In 1914, Pavlov’s disciple N. R. Shenger-Krestovnikova, exploring the limits of visual discrimination in dogs, noticed that when the discrimination was difficult, the dogs’ behavior became disorganized. Pavlov drew an analogy between the condition of Shenger-Krestovnikova’s dogs and their disorganized behavior with Anna O.’s situation and her neurotic reaction. Pavlov concluded that he had demonstrated in the laboratory the elements of neurosis in animals and human alike. Schilder’s criticism of his position, his later study of human neuroses in clinical settings, and the views of Janet may have induced Pavlov to differentiate between animal and human neuroses.     

I. V. Zavadskii and the beginnings of behavioral pharmacology: an historical note and translation.

I. V. Zavadskii, who worked in Pavlov's laboratory between 1907 and 1909, performed a study that has many of the characteristics of modern behavioral pharmacology. He studied the effects of alcohol, morphine, cocaine and caffeine on the conditioned salivary reflex. A translation of his paper and some brief comments on his life are presented.     

A note on Skinner and Pavlov's physiology

These short notes describe the way in which Skinner considers and resolves his differences with Pavlov in the question of the relation between psychology and physiology as forms of knowledge. After establishing his viewpoint in the general epistemological issue, Skinner is concerned about linking his study of behavior to the work of Pavlov, who considered it to be of a physiological nature. Skinner contrasts Pavlov's empirical and theoretical work and characterizes the latter in terms of the notion of the "Conceptual Nervous System."     

Pavlov's position on the effects of decortication on conditional reflexes.

This paper examined D. Joravsky's (1989) hypothesis that I.P. Pavlov dogmatically refused to acknowledge that classical conditioning can be mediated by subcortical regions of the large cerebral hemispheres. Decortication literature from 1901 to 1936 was reviewed. The early studies available to Pavlov, who died in 1936, showed that decortication does not allow the establishment of new or retaining of old conditional reflexes (CRs). G.P. Zeleny?'s later experiments(1930) suggested that the establishment of primitive CRs in decorticated dogs was possible. Pavlov never denied this possibility but cautioned that Zeleny?'s experiments could have been methodologically flawed. Although Joravsky's original hypothesis on Pavlov's position on the relation between decortication and the establishment of CRs is by and large accepted, it must be stressed that Pavlov's theory of higher nervous activity was primarily concerned with the function of the brain in the higher organism's struggle for existence. Within this context the cortical, rather than subcortical, processes play the decisive role in the organism's adaptation to the changing external environment.     

Pavlov as a psychologist

American psychologists are informed on Pavlov’s work on conditional reflexes but not on the full development of his theory of higher nervous activity. This article shows that Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity dealt with concepts that concerned contemporary psychologists. Pavlov used the conditioning of the salivary reflex for methodological purposes. Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity encompassed overt behavior, neural processes, and the conscious experience. The strong Darwinian element of Pavlov’s theory, with its stress on the higher organisms’ adaptation, is described. With regard to learning, Pavlov, at the end of his scholarly career, proposed that although all learning involves the formation of associations, the organism’s adaptation to the environment is established through conditioning, but the accumulation of knowledge is established by trial and error.     

The Pavlov Department of Physiology: a scientific history

The scientific adventure of the Ivan Pavlov Department of Physiology is traced from Pavlov's and his students pioneer work on "psychic salivation" to the times of the Biological Station at Koltushi. The development of the Department after Pavlov's death is described and the research trends of the three present laboratories (Neurobiology of Integrative Brain Functions, Psychophysiology of Emotions, and Neurodynamic Correction of Psycho Neurological Pathology) are discussed.     

Hypnosis and inhibition as viewed by heidenhain and pavlov

About 1880, Rudolf Heidenhain, then Professor of Physiology and Histology at the University of Breslau, experimentally studied hypnotic phenomena. Heidenhain explained hypnosis physiologically, in terms of cortical inhibition. Subsequently, I. P. Pavlov, who in 1877 and again in 1884 was Heidenhain’s student at Breslau, encountered hypnotic phenomena during conditional reflex experiments. In 1910, Pavlov described hypnotic states and explained them (as had Heidenhain three decades earlier), in terms of partial inhibition of the cortex. As the concepts of inhibition and excitation are cornerstones of Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity, it is of historical interest to search for influences that led Pavlov to incorporate the concept of inhibition into his theory. It is most likely that Pavlov first encountered the concept of central inhibition in the 1860s when reading I. M. Sechenov’sThe Reflexes of the Brain (1863/1866) and that the importance of the concept was augmented by Heidenhain’s use of it in explaining hypnotic phenomena.     

Eponymy,obscurity, Twitmyer,and Pavlov

The discovery of the conditioned reflex is generally credited to Ivan P. Pavlov. So closely is Pavlov associated with this phenomenon that it is commonly referred to as the Pavlovian conditioned reflex. Edwin B. Twitmyer independently discovered the conditioned reflex at approximately the same time and reported the finding in 1904 at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. Unlike Pavlov's, Twitmyer's data had little impact on psychology. There have been various hypotheses to explain the failure of the field to recognize Twitmyer's discovery. These explanations are criticized and modified to reflect an emphasis on Twitmyer's and Pavlov's respective social and intellectual contexts.     

Pavlovvs. Köhler

During the 1920s, I. P. Pavlov’s scholarly interests broadened to consider problem-solving. Distrusting Wolfgang Köhler’s Gestalt explanation of the problemsolving process and its interspecies aspects, Pavlov performed, from 1933 to 1936, a number of experiments, including a replication of Köhler’s building experiment, using chimpanzees as subjects. Confirming Köhler’s findings, Pavlov explained the problemsolving process in terms of unconditional reflexes and the establishment, by Pavlovian conditioning and the Thorndikian method of trial and error, of temporary neural connections identical, on the psychological level, to associations. In contrast to Köhler’s “structural” explanation, Pavlov emphasized the processes of analysis and synthesis. According to Pavlov insight is achieved progressively—as the result of the organism’s problem-solving behavior—contradicting Köhler’s thesis of a sudden subjective reorganization of the environmental situation. Pavlov explained interspecies differences among higher organisms in terms of the range of a species behavior, with the second signal system as the main distinguishing characteristic between human and nonhuman species.     

Roots of the Pavlovian Society''s Missions of the Past and Present: The Pavlov Dimension

This paper offers an interpretation of the relation between Pavlov's life and work and the missions of the Pavlovian Society, both past ("observation and observation") and present ("interdisciplinary research on the integrated organism"). I begin with an account of Pavlov's life and his influence on contemporary thought. I then indicate the relation of some of Pavlov's attitudes (e.g., his motto, his epistemological stance) to the Society's past mission. In the concluding and most controversial section, I argue for six guiding principles derived from Pavlov, to be applied to the Society's mission. These are: (a) a confident methodological behaviorism; (b) a significant role assigned to both physiological and psychological factors in the prediction and control of the integrated organism; (c) approximately equal taxonomic precision of physiological and psychological explanatory concepts; (d) distrust of teleological explanatory concepts; (e) rejection of psychology's instrumentalist "cognitive paradigm shift"; and (f) rejection of the representational theory of knowledge.     

The etymology of basic concepts in the experimental analysis of behavior

The origins of many of the basic concepts used in the experimental analysis of behavior can be traced to Pavlov's (1927/1960) discussion of unconditional and conditional reflexes in the dog, but often with substantial changes in meaning (e.g., stimulus, response, and reinforcement). Other terms were added by Skinner (1938/1991) to describe his data on the rate of lever pressing in the rat (e.g., operant conditioning, conditioned reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and response induction and differentiation) and key pecking in the pigeon (shaping). The concept of drive, however, has largely disappeared from the current literature.