MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400913552 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404953

The Pavlovian interpretation of speech and aphasia: Alexander Luria and Wilder Penfield

2024· article· en· W4400913552 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAphasiaInterpretation (philosophy)Cognitive psychologyCognitive sciencePsychoanalysisLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses a neglected aspect of the historiography of aphasia, the role that Pavlovian conditioning played in Alexander Luria's and Wilder Penfield's understanding of the acquisition, expression, and loss of spoken and written speech. Luria was born into a bourgeois family in Tzarist Russia and pursued his research on speech and aphasia under the Soviet regime. Luria's work was condemned in the last years of Stalin's rule, but it received international acclaim in the West after Stalin's death. Penfield was conversant with Pavlov's writing having had a working relationship with one of Pavlov's foremost students, Boris Babkin, who came to McGill University and later to the Montreal Neurological Institute after being jailed and exiled from the Soviet Union for lack of revolutionary fervor. Both Luria and Penfield, the latter as early as 1935, saw in Pavlovian conditioning mediated by specific areas of the human cerebral cortex the basic neurophysiological mechanism underlying speech and thought, and in Penfield's' case, memory, perception, self-awareness, and purposeful behavior. It is concluded that Luria and Penfield independently arrived at a general hypothesis, based on Pavlovian conditioning, that united the localization of speech, the syndromes caused by damage to speech-competent regions, and the putative neurophysiological mechanisms that they believed to underlie speech and higher cortical functions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207