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. Zelenyi’s later experiments(1930) suggested that the establishment of primitive CRs in decorticated dogs was possible. Pavlov never denied this possibility but cautioned that Zelenyi’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 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.     

Schilder and Pavlov's theory of higher nervous activity. A critique and apologia

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 the Journal 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 in Imago. 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.     

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.     

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 in Spain

Reflexology has been present throughout Spanish science since the last third of the nineteenth century and its importance can be seen in the works of authors such as Martín Salazar, Ramón y Cajal, Gómez Oca?a, Simarro and Turró. The most important research in Reflexology in Spain takes place a) at the Schools of Neurophysiology and Psychology in Barcelona and Madrid, b) with a group of authors specializing in pathological medicine and c) in the Military's Health Department, Pavlov's work was received in Spain with special interest. Fernández-Espa?a, who could be considered the "first Spanish Pavlovian," emphasized Pavlov's work in a series dedicated to the study of objective psychology which was published between 1914 and 1924. Planelles was the first investigator to develop a program in pavlovian experimentation, presenting his results in 1935. The Civil War (1936-1939) ended these and many other Spanish projects in psychology. After the war, interest in Reflexology and Pavlov's theories slowly rose again, first through psychosomatic medicine and then in the 60's because of the works of such authors as Monserrat-Esteve, Rof Carballo and Colodrón. The progressive inclusion of psychology in the Schools of Philosophy and Arts after 1968 marked the beginning of a new era.     

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'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.     

Early pavlovian studies on the effects of starvation

This communication is based on the pioneering studies performed by I. P. Pavlov’s associates, Yu. P. Frolov (in 1918) and I. S. Rozental’ (in 1918/1919) at the Institute of Experimental Medicine, in Petrograd. The changes in the “independent variable”—the dogs’ diet—were not planned but were the consequences of severe shortages of food for man and beast. The principal generalization concerns the order in which different forms of “complex nervous activity” were impaired: the order is opposite to the order in which they emerge in the process of ontogenesis. First to suffer was “internal inhibition,” as documented by the failure of stimulus differentiation. This was followed by the decrease in the magnitude of well-established conditional responses (CRs). As a result of a more severe impairment of the excitatory processes, it became difficult or impossible to establish new CRs. In time, previously established CRs to artificial stimuli, visual and acoustic, disappeared totally. The CRs to natural conditional stimuli (CSs) were maintained fairly well but, eventually, they too decreased markedly. In the terminal phase of starvation, the unconditional salivary reflexes continued to function, although their magnitude was depressed.     

I.P. Pavlov as a youth

Ivan P. Pavlov's youthful relations with parents and siblings, formal education, and social activities in Riazan' are described. The Pavlovs, a highly achievement-oriented family descending from a lowly serf, improved their social status by serving the Russian Orthodox Church. Pavlov, the son of a priest, studied in the 1860s at the Riazan' Ecclesiastic Seminary for priesthood. The turbulent 1860s' decade was a period of social and political reforms. Western ideas and science were introduced to Russia. The ambitious and idealistic I.P. Pavlov was influenced by popular essays written by the journalist D.I. Pisarev, the works of the German physiologist J. Moleschott, the English writer G.H. Lewes, the German zoologist C. Vogt and the physiologist M.I. Sechenov. Losing his religious faith, Pavlov abandoned the traditional goal of becoming a priest, and, convinced that science was a road to truth and progress, left Riazan' to study natural science at the University of St. Petersburg.     

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.     

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 conceptualization of unconditional reflexes,or instincts,within the framework of the theory of higher nervous activity

According to I. P. Pavlov’s theory of higher nervous activity, the establishment and dissolution of conditional reflexes enhances the higher organism’s adaptation to the external environment. Pavlov asserted that, ontogenetically, conditional reflexes are based upon innate, unconditional reflexes (UR) or instincts. Pavlov did not distinguish between URs and instincts, but he preferred the former term. Phylogenetically the URs emerged out of well-established conditional reflexes during the development of higher organisms. An outgrowth of the experimental conditioning procedure, developed during the second decade of this century, was the observation and delineation of new URs. While studying human nervous and psychiatric disorders in the 1930s, Pavlov elucidated other URs. Pavlov identified 13 major URs, but he failed to formulate an exhaustive classification scheme of URs.     

Notes from "Pavlov's Wednesdays": sensory preconditioning.

Sensory preconditioning was first demonstrated in Pavlov's laboratory in 1931/32, rather than discovered by Brogden in 1939. Pavlov included nonassociative controls, forward pairing of the indifferent stimuli before reinforcing the second one with shock, and he avoided the development of inhibition to the compound by using a moving visual stimulus and a sound like that of scurrying mice, which both had persistent orienting reactions. Pavlov concluded that the indifferent stimuli were associated by temporal contiguity similar to human associations between successively spoken works. He did not consider the possibility of mediation via the orienting reactions.     

Pavlov and the demise of the influence of Gestalt psychology in the Soviet Union

Summary The demise of the influence of the classical Gestalt psychology in the Soviet Union has been linked to I.P. Pavlov's negative stance toward Gestalt tenets. Actually, Pavlov's attitude toward Gestalt psychology was by no means uniform. Pavlov was receptive to, as well as critical of a number of substantive issues. He acknowledged the Gestalt interpretation of transposition, but criticized the Gestalt rejection of association and learning by trial and error. Pavlov's strongest objection to Gestalt psychology centered on the philosophical issues of causality, methodology, and on the problem of mind and body. Despite these objections, no direct evidence links Pavlov's criticism of Gestalt theses to the weakening of their influence on Soviet psychology. Instead, the demise of classical Gestalt psychology in the Soviet Union should be attributed to political exigency. Soviet authorities, in a period of political crises, were intent upon the elimination of all traces of bourgeois psychologies.     

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.     

On the theoretical foundations of Soviet psychology

Conclusion We are now in a position to examine the claim that Pavlovian physiology and Marxist-Leninist philosophy form two complementary systems.There is certainly a similarity between the Leninist theory of reflection and Pavlov's theory of higher nervous activity. Both present so-called psychic phenomena as a reaction of the organism to the stimuli of the outer world and both insist that this reflection is not a passive reception of impressions but is an active response on the part of the organism.Again both systems are monist; they are united in excluding the possibility of having recourse to a non-material substance as the basis for psychic phenomena. But for Pavlov this exclusion is a scientific axiom while for Marxism-Leninism it is founded on philosophical materialism. However, the most important difference between Pavlov's theories and Marxism-Leninism on this point is that Pavlov's approach to psychic is fundamentally mechanistic and reductionist whereas that of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical and consequently anti-reductionist and anti-mechanist. Soviet psychology is, in consequence, founded partly on a mechanist system which is not materialist in the full sense of the word, and partly on a materialist system which is definitely not mechanist. From this point of view there is a definite discrepancy between the two traditions on which Soviet psychology is founded and which goes a long way towards explaining many of the inconsistencies in Soviet psychological theory.     

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.     

Consciousness eclipsed: Jacques Loeb, Ivan P. Pavlov, and the rise of reductionistic biology after 1900

The life sciences in the 20th century were guided to a large extent by a reductionist program seeking to explain biological phenomena in terms of physics and chemistry. Two scientists who figured prominently in the establishment and dissemination of this program were Jacques Loeb in biology and Ivan P. Pavlov in psychological behaviorism. While neither succeeded in accounting for higher mental functions in physical-chemical terms, both adopted positions that reduced the problem of consciousness to the level of reflexes and associations. The intellectual origins of this view and the impediment to the study of consciousness as an object of inquiry in its own right that it may have imposed on peers, students, and those who followed is explored.     

Ivan P. Pavlov's view on vivisection.

Pavlov's points of view on vivisection are analyzed and compared with the modern ethical conception of carrying out experiments on animals. It appears that Pavlov's points of view are largely in accordance with modern ethical requirements for experimenting on animals.