Jack Orbach (2000) Convergences and Divergences of Theory in Lashley and Hebb. Psycoloquy: 11(050) Lashley Hebb (18)

Volume: 11 (next, prev) Issue: 050 (next, prev) Article: 18 (next prev first) Alternate versions: ASCII Summary

Topic:

Article:

PSYCOLOQUY (ISSN 1055-0143) is sponsored by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Psycoloquy 11(050): Convergences and Divergences of Theory in Lashley and Hebb

CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES OF THEORY IN LASHLEY AND HEBB
Reply to Murre & Raffone on Orbach on Lashley-Hebb

Jack Orbach
Department of Psychology
Queens College
Flushing, NY, 11367
U.S.A.

Jorbach@worldnet.att.net.

Abstract

Comments on "neurons are not inert and static" and the neuropsychological origins of the reverberatory circuit in the cerebral cortex.

Keywords

cell assembly, central autonomous process, engram, equipotentiality, Hebb, Hebbian learning, Lashley, localization, memory trace, nativism, reverberatory circuit, Vanuxem Lectures

1. I thank Murre and Raffone (2000) for their stimulating review of my book on Lashley-Hebb (Orbach 1999, 2000). They focus on some similarities and differences between the theoretical positions of Lashley and Hebb, particularly regarding reverberatory circuits, memory traces and local versus global patterns in the brain. I have two brief comments:

2. "Neurons are not inert and static; it is. . . precarious to compare working brain circuits with electronic circuits" said Lashley (in the words of Murre and Raffone). But then they add, "the appropriate model-dependent simplification of neuronal interactions and properties is sometimes necessary to understand how neurons interact with each other" (para. 8). Perhaps so. But only if you build into your model the significant properties of living, metabolizing neurons, properties that include varying excitability, and varying synaptic cleft; the properties of excitation and inhibition, and spatial and temporal summation at the synapse. I am not aware that such a model has ever been proposed. For this reason, I believe that Lashley would continue to take a dim view of neural circuit model building.

3. In comparing and contrasting the theoretical positions of Lashley and Hebb, Murre and Raffone neglect what I believe to be a basic difference between the two: Lashley's focus on innate neural mechanisms and Hebb's empiricistic position. For example, for Lashley, the reverberatory circuit or neural lattice, as he called it, is hard-wired in the cerebral cortex, but for Hebb the cell assembly is acquired through experience in the course of growing up. I believe this to be a basic and perhaps irreconcilable difference between these two titans of neuropsychological theory.

REFERENCES

Beach, F. A., Hebb, D. O., Morgan, C. T. and Nissen, H. W. (1960) The Neuropsychology of Lashley. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Murre, Jaap & Raffone, Antonino (2000) Hebb and Lashley: Convergences and Divergences in the Light of Recent Neurophysiological Findings. PSYCOLOQUY 11(026) ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/ psyc.00.11.026.lashley-hebb.13.murre http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?11.026

Orbach, Jack (1998) The Neuropsychological Theories of Lashley and Hebb. MD: University Press of America.

Orbach, J. (1999) Precis of: The Neuropsychological Theories of Lashley and Hebb. PSYCOLOQUY 10(029) ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1999.volume.10/ psyc.99.10.029.lashley-hebb.1.orbach http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?10.029