A consideration of Hunter's criticism of Lashley

The authors argue that Hunter's attack on Lashley's theory of equipotentiality misses the issues, for (1) his statement of current neural reflex arc theory is inadequate to contrast with Lashley's position; (2) current neural theory is inadequate to face the fundamental problems of ne...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological review 1931-01, Vol.38 (1), p.27-41
Main Authors: Bartley, S. H, Perkins, F. T
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Brain
Human
Neurology
Reflexes
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The authors argue that Hunter's attack on Lashley's theory of equipotentiality misses the issues, for (1) his statement of current neural reflex arc theory is inadequate to contrast with Lashley's position; (2) current neural theory is inadequate to face the fundamental problems of neurology; (3) he has misinterpreted Lashley's theory of equipotentiality as homogeneity; (4) his distinction of multiplicity versus simplicity of stimuli is irrelevant; (5) he has failed to mention relearning after cerebral injury; (6) he has made an unjustified dichotomy between "center" and "periphery"; (7) he uses the engram concept inconsistently; and (8) he misinterprets Gestalten as central processes.
ISSN:0033-295X
1939-1471
DOI:10.1037/h0070831