Reply: The myth of a myth

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

At face value, Professor Black's claim for “one of the most enduring myths in science” appears correct. The use of a “bell” as a conditioned stimulus (CS) is not listed in Pavlov's primary English translation [1xPavlov, I.P. See all References[1]. Yet even the most current neurobiology textbooks describe a bell in Pavlov's prototypical experiment [2.xCarew, T.J. See all References, 3.xSee all References]. This discrepancy seemed odd to me, motivating another venture into scientific history.In apparent contrast to Black's characterization, Thomas [4xCorrecting some Pavloviana regarding “Pavlov's bell” and Pavlov's “mugging”. Thomas, R.K. Am. J. Psychol. 1997; 110: 115–125CrossrefSee all References[4] clearly states “…Pavlov's use of a bell CS was reported in English-language journals as early as 1906, and the bell's effectiveness as a CS was reported widely in well-known English language publications in the 1920s” (p.118). Granted, Thomas' citation of scientific journals in English was lacking, but does this permit Black to conclude “These are the sole references known of the use of this stimulus by Pavlov in salivary conditioning”? I decided to dig a little deeper.Clarification of this issue likely would reside in Pavlov's Russian publications. To penetrate this language barrier, I asked my Russian colleagues about “the myth”. Rusiko Bourtchouladze was educated and trained in the Pavlovian tradition at the P.K. Anohkin Institute of Normal Physiology and Sechenov's First Medical Institute in Moscow; she is now Director of Model Systems at Helicon Therapeutics, Inc. and recently has published a wonderful book on the history of memory research [5xBourtchouladze, R. See all References[5]. Bourtchouladze's response to my query was “Debates about a ‘mythical bell’ are silly, because Pavlov used bells. The problem lies with translations to English”. I also directed my query to Professor Pavel Balaban at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity, Moscow, and Professor Konstantin Anokhin the P.K.Anokhin Institute of Normal Physiology and Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. They agree with Bourtchouladze that Pavlov used two “bells” in some of his experiments (Anokhin has documented this).The Russian word for “a cup-shaped metallic or glass instrument to ring when struck” is “kolokolcheak” when referring to small bells like doorbells. “Electric ringers” also were used as doorbells in Pavlov's day and were referred to as “zvonok”. These stimuli are clearly indicated in protocols from published experiments, at least one of which was translated into English [6xA contribution to physiology of the hypnotic state of dogs. Pavlov, I.P. Char. Personal. 1934; 2: 189–200Crossref | Scopus (1)See all References[6]. I went back to the 1927 translation and noted that Pavlov described “(a) dog has two … conditioned stimuli firmly established, one to the sound of a metronome and the other to the buzzing of an electric bell” (p. 34). In the ensuing table entry – and several other entries throughout the book – “buzzer” is listed rather than “bell”. Perhaps this is the elusive explanation for the missing bell in Pavlov (1927).