Nikolai Bernstein: From Reflex to the Model of the Future

Citation preview

Josef M. Feigenberg

Nikolai Bernstein From Reflex to the Model of the Future

Studien zur Geschichte des Sports herausgegeben von

Prof. Dr. Wolfram Pyta (Universität Stuttgart) Prof. Dr. Giselher Spitzer (HU Berlin) Prof. Dr. Rainer Gömmel (Universität Regensburg) Prof. Dr. Jürgen Court (Universität Erfurt) Prof. Dr. Michael Krüger (Universität Münster) Band 17

LIT

Josef M. Feigenberg

Nikolai Bernstein From Reflex to the Model of the Future Translator: Julia Linkova Editors: Eberhard Loosch (Erfurt), Vera Talis (Moscow)

LIT

Cover image: Nikolai Bernstein. Submission: Personal photo archive of A. S. Bernstein. Printing with permission and courtesy of A. S. Bernstein.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-90583-3 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

L

© IT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien, Zweigniederlassung Zürich 2014 Klosbachstr. 107 CH-8032 Zürich Tel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05 Fax +41 (0) 44-251 75 06 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.ch

L

IT VERLAG Dr. W. Hopf Berlin 2014 Fresnostr. 2 D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-62 03 20 Fax +49 (0) 2 51-23 19 72 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.de

Distribution: In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: [email protected] In North America: International Specialized Book Services, e-mail: [email protected] In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 2 51-922 60 99, E-mail: [email protected] In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-ÖBZ, e-mail: [email protected] e-books are available at www.litwebshop.de

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................ VII Introduction for English Edition ............................................................. IX Publishers’ Preface ................................................................................. XII Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth ................................................ 14 The Cornerstones of Personality ................................................... 14 Family ........................................................................................... 14 Older Roots ................................................................................... 20 Childhood...................................................................................... 27 War................................................................................................ 32 Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path ......................................... 34 The Institute of Labor ................................................................... 34 Bernstein and Ukhtomsky ............................................................. 44 Movements as a Key to Understanding the Principles of Brain Functioning ..................................................................... 51 Bernstein and Vygotsky ................................................................ 54 Expanding the Scope of Research ................................................. 60 Science and Leisure ...................................................................... 73 Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov ........................................................... 82 The First Meeting.......................................................................... 82 The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period .................... 85 Starting Line................................................................................ 106 Chapter IV. Construction of Movements .............................................. 113 War Years (1941–1945) .............................................................. 113 “Dexterity” .................................................................................. 116 Difficulties in Movement Control ............................................... 123 The Sensory Corrections Principle ............................................. 127 Levels of Movement Construction.............................................. 133 The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Second Creative Period ............... 142 Chapter V. Physiology of Activity ........................................................ 145 The Stifling Atmosphere ............................................................. 145

VI

Content

Physiology on Trial ..................................................................... 147 The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity ........... 151 Physiology of Activity Gains Strength ....................................... 159 Contacts with Mathematicians .................................................... 170 Development of Bernstein’s Idea of the Model of the Future..... 174 Afterword .............................................................................................. 181 After Afterword ..................................................................................... 185 Appendix ............................................................................................... 188 Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein ....................................................... 191 The Main Methodological Principles of the Physiology of Movement (1949)........................................................................ 193 New Lines of Developments in Contemporary Physiology (1962) ....................................................................... 216 From the Preface to A. V. Napalkov and N. A. Chichvarina’s Brochure “Brain and Cybernetics” (1963) .................................. 225 Remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay “Mechanics in Biology” (1964) .......................................................................... 230 A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting (1966) .................... 236 From Reflexes to the Model of the Future (1966) ...................... 249

Introduction More than a hundred years have passed since the birth of Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein (1896–1966) – one of the most prominent scientists in the 20th century physiology. A skillful research scientist and a deep thinker, he laid the foundations for the contemporary biomechanics of human movements and theory of movement control; he was also the founder of physiology of activity. To this day his contributions to the fields of neurophysiology and psychology are highly valued by the international scientific community. He is considered to be the pioneer of cybernetics – the science that studies the systems of control and interactions in the complex living and non-living systems. His works on localizations and coordination of nervous system functions published in the mid-20s are still being cited in the most forefront research in physiology and psychology; they are studied by students and are reprinted in Russia and abroad. Only very few researchers who were ahead of their times and paved the way for the next generation of scientist, have been granted such fortune. Thinking about Nikolai Alexandrovich, I particularly wanted to note the courage that is often required from scientists. Lack of understanding from their contemporaries often translates into a “zone of silence”, belittling sneers and hateful mockery, annoyance and direct attempts to interfere with their scientific work. And only the firm belief in what they do can give the strength to continue on the chosen path. Nikolai Alexandrovich continued on his path to the very end despite his severe illness and inability to secure a stable group of colleagues for his research projects. This was a heroism even though it might be less obvious than a path of someone who chooses to conduct a risky experiment on himself. Nikolai Alexandrovich did not get carried away when he received the Soviet State Award nor did he become disheartened by ignorant and harsh “criticism”. He continued to work “not striving for the garland or fearful of pain”.

VIII

Introduction

And Pasternak’s poem read at his funeral by mathematician I. M. Gelfand was not a stretch of imagination: “The others following your footpath, Repeat the traces of your feet But you yourself should not distinguish Between a victory and a defeat.” Being gravely ill N. A. Bernstein continued to actively help all those, who were seeking his advice literally till the last days of his life. He knew how to listen patiently, critique hard, advice generously. People were attracted to him not only because of his intelligence but also his kindness, ability to enjoy the success of his colleagues, his gift to recognize and develop talants. His ideas on the functioning of the nervous system were not set in stone; he saw numerous possibilities for new discoveries. And often his response was not about what the truth was but how and where to look for it. The author would like to express his profound gratitude to all those who assisted in writing this book. In the first place my gratitude goes to Tatyana Sergeevna Popova – the wife of Nikolai’s beloved brother Sergei and Nikolai’s longtime colleague. With loving care she preserved everything associated with Nikolai Alexandrovich, including his correspondence and the railway car models he created when young. Bernstein’s adopted daughter, Tatyana Ivanovna Pavlova, provided courteous help along with very interesting materials. Significant help was also provided by Lev Vladimirovich Chkhaidze – the former colleague of Nikolai Alexandrovich. He preserved and shared with the author the lively memories of Bernstein, the copies of some of his drawings and a number of pictures. Valuable materials were provided by the staff at the archives in Moscow, Odessa and New York. This book would not have been written without the help of those who knew Nikolai Alexandrovich and preserved their memories of him.

Introduction

IX

Inessa Moiseevna Rubina provided invaluable help in preparing the text for publication. V. L. Lavrik and all members of Jerusalem Interdisciplinary Seminar provided helpful comments on the text. The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to all of them.

Introduction for English Edition Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein belongs to the classics of the 20th century science. His innovative insights into the problem of multilevel organization of movement in animals and human beings are among one of the greatest achievements of the world PHYSIOLOGY of the past century. N. A. Bernstein considered himself a physiologist. And he, indeed, was one of the most brilliant and profound physiologists of his time, the founder of the physiology of activity. However, the problem of the activity of living organisms, developed by Bernstein, became a cornerstone in building not only the physiology but the BIOLOGY of activity as well. Bernstein’s research work in this area laid the foundation for the major shift in paradigms – transitioning from the reflex biology (that has successfully developed starting with the works of Descartes and up to Pavlov’s research) to the biology of activity. The old paradigm only considered the past and the present – why and how animals’ reactions develop (the term “reaction” itself refers to actions in response to something that has already happened). The new paradigm, however, introduced into the scope of study future as well, by considering the purpose, the goal of actions. Animals’ actions are preceded by the creation of the neural model of the desired future. Thus, the previously impenetrable border between physiology and PSYCHOLOGY has been eradicated. The works of N. A. Bernstein are significant and present interest not only for physiologist but psychologists and biologists of various backgrounds as well. Using the construction of movements as a model, Bernstein studied a much broader problem – that of the CONSTRUCTION OF

X

Introduction

VARIOUS COMPLEX SYSTEMS AND THEIR MULTILEVEL CONTROL. This includes robotics, the economics management on a broad scale as well as the management of other complex systems that seem to be far removed from physiology – the immediate field of N. A. Bernstein’s research. Consequently, the publication of the English translation of this book (previously published in Russian and Chinese) is very important. English language became the international language of science (similar to Latin in the past). We hope that this publication will attract the attention of wide and diverse audience to the works of N. A. Bernstein. Bernstein’s life and creative journey was both joyous and tragic. Joyous because he clearly saw the results of his labor and understood their significance. Tragic because of the obstacles created by the Stalin’s system which was part of the time and the place of Bernstein’s life. Here we can mention the disbanding of his laboratories and the actual ban on his publications along with refusing this ingenious experimental scientist the opportunities to continue his scientific research and forcing him to make a living by translations and scientific reviews. The fact that he was able to achieve such tremendous results despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles constitutes his life’s feat that we would like to highlight through the publication of this book. The English publication is somewhat different from the original Russian one. The illustrations have been significantly modified and expanded; the content of the book has also been modified. A lot of efforts and love of my colleagues in different countries went into preparing this publication. First of all, we’d like to mention Vera Leonidovna Talis (Moscow). Her role in organization of this publication was crucial. She also has found significant and very interesting illustrations for the book which was not an easy task. The Institute for Information Transmission Problems (Russian Academy of Science) and its Director, Alexander Petrovich Kuleshov provided important help in the initial stages of preparation for translation. Julia Linkova (USA) made an excellent translation of the book. Professor Eberhard Loosch (Germany)

Introduction

XI

made significant contributions in the final stages of preparing for publication. Alexander Sergeevich Bernstein (Moscow), the nephew of Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein, provided numerous priceless illustrations for this publication that are being published here for the first time. The author’s sincere and warm gratitude goes to all of them. Professor I.M.Feigenberg, Jerusalem, May 25, 2014

Publishers’ Preface Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein (1896–1966) was one of the outstanding representatives of kinesiology and physiology. Even though only part of his works has been translated into English and German to this day, these works form the basis of his worldwide reputation. Much less has become known about his life and the conditions under which he worked. Until now, there have been great gaps in what would be a well-grounded biography of this important scientist. The book at hand closes those gaps and also contributes to a deeper understanding of his thinking und actions. Most of Bernstein’s works were created in the political regime of Stalinism. He worked in the Soviet Union throughout his life. With his ideas and conceptions about human movement and behaviour, Bernstein is regarded as one of Pavlov’s main opponents today. The theory of conditional reflexes used to be exploited and corrupted politically in an unparalleled way. In 1924, Pavlov himself declared education and learning a long series of conditional reflexes. This concept was eagerly picked up by the political elites of Stalinism. Bernstein never shared that view but pointed to the human-specific behavioural complexity and to the freedom of choice in terms of acting that goes beyond mere reflex. While he did not reject the theory of conditional reflexes as such, he did consider it to be unfit for a comprehensive explanation of human activities. His scientific resistance against Pavlov’s theory caused him considerable problems. Bernstein was attacked and persecuted several times. From 1949, he was deprived of his possibilities to work and publish for many years. All those events and biographic backgrounds are coherently described in the biography written by Josef M. Feigenberg. This book was published in Russian in Moscow already in the year 2004. Now it is available in the English translation and, thus, more readily accessible to the general public in the Western world.

Publishers’ Preface

XIII

With this publication, one particular concern of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Sportwissenschaft e.V. (DGGSpw; German registered Society for Sport Science History) is satisfied as well: to continue to maintain Bernstein’s heritage and to make progress especially in biographical research. After 1988 (Trassenheide) and 1996 (Zinnowitz) in Germany, the third International Bernstein Conference took place in Leipzig, in the year 2012, hosted by the DGGSpw. On the occasion of that conference, the accomplishments of East German sport scientists in the 1950’s and 1960’s concerning the early translation and editing of Bernstein’s works were recognised as well. The publishers support this translation of the first Bernstein biography and consider it an important milestone. At the same time, this publication ties in with the early positive Bernstein reception in Germany. Prof. Eberhard Loosch Prof. Jürgen Court Erfurt, September 2014

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth The Cornerstones of Personality Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein was born in 1896 to the family where parents dedicated much time and effort to the upbringing and education of their two children – Nikolai and Sergei. Nikolai Alexandrovich grew up to become a prominent scientist – a researcher and a thinker, a physiologist and a psychologist, a mathematician and somewhat of a musician (he not only played piano but also composed), a polyglot, an artist and a literary master, a poet and an expert in literature. In all these accomplishments his family of origin played a major part.

Family N. A. Bernstein’s father – Alexander Nikolaevich Bernstein (1870–1922) belonged to one of the most refined circles of Moscow intelligentsia of his time. He was a psychiatrist, a student and a colleague of Sergei Sergeevich Korsakov – the prominent Russian psychiatrist and humanitarian, who founded the Moscow School of Psychiatry and remained its leader for a number of years. While still a student, Alexander Nikolaevich attended Korsakov’s lectures; he later became his intern, and then an assistant in Korsakov’s clinic, the Psychiatric Clinic of the Medical Department of the Moscow Imperial University. Alexander Nikolaevich was not only a well-known Moscow physician but also a broadly educated scholar who laid the foundation for psychiatric specialization and advancement in Russia. On October 1, 1901 at the joint session of Moscow Psychological Society and the Society of Psychiatrists and Neurologists, Alexander Nikolaevich delivered a speech on the “Psychological and Philosophical Views of S. S. Korsakov” (and dedicated to the memory of his teacher). In it he pointed out that the main contribution of his teacher to the field of psychology came from his knowledge of “the human soul not as it is

Family

15

described in literature but as it actually is”. He referred to S. S. Korsakov as “the living consciousness” and “the teacher of life”; he also stated that Korsakov “described the human soul as it really is”. The emphasis of his speech was a reflection on the personality of its author. A. N. Bernstein was very well-educated and the scope of his interests was rather broad. In 1896 – the year his son Nikolai was born – a Moscow Psychiatric Clinic intern A. N. Bernstein published two articles. One of them was titled “The World of Sounds as the Object of Perception and Thinking”. It was a popular science essay that demonstrated the extent of his knowledge and professional interests. Here the reader could find information on physics of sounds, physiology of hearing, psychology of speech and music hearing, musical memory and the functioning and control of the vocal chords. “While physically reproducing a melody, in physiological sense we only repeat the sequence of innervations corresponding to the sequence of muscle sensations that accompany perception”. In this far-reaching multilevel approach one can already see the promise of what later fully unfolded in N. A. Bernstein’s (the contemporary of the essay) creative work. Another paper by A. N. Bernstein, published the same year (1896) in the “Doctor” journal was titled matter-offactly “Bed Regime in Psychiatrically Ill Patients”. The subjects of this paper were female patients at the Moscow Psychiatric Clinic which was directly supervised by Alexander Nikolaevich. In 1895–1896, through S. S. Korsakov’s initiative, the systematic bed regime for psychiatric patients was introduced there for the first time. The patients were no longer hold in isolation or placed on locked units. But the author’s thought does not stay within the small confinements of his clinic and his times. “If we ever try to define the impact of the current century on applied psychiatry, it can be described as the time when the understanding that psychiatric patients have an illness has developed and systematic application of the consequences of this understanding to real life has been introduced. As simple as this idea is, and as trivial as it sounds, it required a whole century for even the most enlightened minds to grasp it. And even to this day it is not, unfortunately, entirely understood by everyone”

16

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

– writes the author of the paper. He reminds that the French psychiatrist Pinel was the first to introduce it in revolutionary Paris: mentally ill should be free from shackles, chains and other prison attributes. “But, continues the author, though slowly and inconsistently these remnants of the old days were removed from the everyday life of hospitals and asylums; the instruments of psychiatric torture disappeared by chance – not as much the result of the understanding of how harmful and inappropriate they were as the testament to the compassionate hearts of physicians in charge of various psychiatric clinics. Only in 1839, half a century after Pinel’s death, Conolly made yet another step in the practical application of this approach, expressing his protest against the use of straitjackets and other, less popular but rather extended arsenal of methods of physical restraint. And only now, right in front of our eyes, the passionate struggle unfolds against physically restraining volatile mentally ill in the locked, secured rooms”. The paper ends with the following paragraph: “Keeping mentally ill in bed is the last motto in the century long battle for the freedom and human rights of these patients”. In 1900 Alexander Nikolaevich defends his thesis to become a Doctor of Medicine. He dedicates his manuscript to “the memory of unforgettable Sergei Sergeevich Korsakov”. The title of his thesis was “On the Clinical Significance of Muscle Cylinder in Mentally Ill”. The author of this work comes across not only as a clinician, but also as an expert in physiology who was able to merge together his theoretical knowledge and his clinical observations. “I only cared to connect it (the clinical information) to the physiological data without stretching it too far” – says the author about his approach to data analysis. In 1911 A. N. Bernstein’s book “Clinical Approach to Psychological Research of Mentally Ill. The Study of Experimental Clinical Semiotics of Intellectual Dysfunctions” was published. This volume made significant contribution to the development of methods for studying intellectual and emotional functioning in human subjects. The year is 1912, Nikolai is 16 years old. His father, A. N. Bernstein, an assistant professor and the founder and director of the Central Clinic

Family

17

for Mentally Ill in Moscow, publishes his manuscript “Clinical Lectures on Mental Illnesses”. To this day specialists in the field of psychiatry make references to this book. “Nosological understanding of mental illness as a principle, objective study of patients as a method – these are the slogans that modern psychiatry lives by”. These words by Alexander Nikolaevich are not only the testimony to the clarity of his thought but also to the passion he felt for promoting these radical ideas. After the October Revolution of 1917 Alexander Nikolaevich became a professor, and the assistant to the head of the Science Department of National Education Committee of the Russian Federation. His free time Alexander Nikolaevich dedicated to music. He liked to play and perform the opera arias he heard at the Bolshoi Theatre. Their house was frequently visited by many talented people, including Alexander Borisovich Goldenweiser – a prominent composer, piano player and music teacher. Young Nikolai played piano duets with him. N. A. Bernstein’s mother, Alexandra Karlovna Bernstein, nee Ioganson, was born in 1867 in the city of Tver. Her father, Karl Ivanovich Ioganson, was a lineman on the railway. Alexandra Karlovna was a remarkable, very strong woman. She longed to be independent and left her parents home to become a weaver in Tver. But this job did not satisfy her and she started working as a nursing assistant at a local hospital in exchange for housing. She soon became an operation room nurse. The surgeons at the hospital valued her hard work, intelligence and skilled hands. When a psychiatric colony was created in the town of Burashevo near Tver, she was offered a job there because of her skills, abilities and her love and care for her patients. Sergei Sergeevich Korsakov was in the habit of sending his students to psychiatric colonies where they could observe particularly severe cases of chronic mental illness. One of Korsakov’s students, Platon Vasilyevich Lunacharsky, was sent to Burashevo. He was the younger brother of Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky – a revolutionary and a comrade of Lenin, who, after the Revolution, became the head of the National Education Committee. Platon Vasilyevich noticed the young experienced nurse

18

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

and recruited her to work at the Korsakov’s clinic at the Devichye Pole in Moscow where she was also offered housing. There, in the early 1890s she met her future husband – a young doctor, Alexander Nikolaevich Bernstein. Alexandra Karlovna was a devoted mother to her son Nikolai (named after his recently deceased grandfather) and the younger one, Sergei. She understood the importance of speaking foreign languages as she did not know any and that bothered her. Nikolai Alexandrovich speaks well German, French, English, as also Italian, Polisch and Latin. After children were born she became a house woman, but her agile hands continued working. She was a skilled seamstress; she did embroidery and other household work. She also painted and glazed pottery. To be able to fully appreciate the spiritual and intellectual atmosphere of Nikolai’s family we have to mention another relative of his parents’ generation, Nikolai’s uncle, the younger brother of his father, Sergei Natanovich Bernstein (1880–1968). Like Alexander, Sergei was born in Odessa. Their father Nathan (Nikolai) Osipovich Bernstein (1836–1891) was a physician, an educator and a public figure. After graduating from high school in Odessa, Sergei moved to Paris where he studied mathematics in Sorbonne (1898–1902); he later continued his studies in Gttingen for about two more years. By the time he turned 25, he was already an advanced scientist. In 1904 he submitted his thesis to the committee where members included such prominent mathematicians as Émile Picard, Henri Poincar and Jacques Hadamard. What was this thesis about? Let me remind you that in 1900 the First International Congress of Mathematicians was held in Paris. There the great mathematician David Hilbert presented his famous paper on the 23 unsolved mathematical problems. Only four years later, a young mathematician from Russia – Sergei Bernstein – presented a solution to one of these problems (number 19). The result of this work was of fundamental importance to the theory of the partial differential equations. Several years later, already in Moscow, he solved another of Hilbert’s problems (number 20). S. N. Bernstein was highly valued at the University of Gttingen. One of the professors there

Family

19

– Edmund Landau – made an interesting statement about him. This incident was described by Constance Reid in her book “Hilbert”.1 Landau had a discussion with one of the students about the quality of a piece of amber (amber in German is “bernstein”). In his response Landau used the last names of two mathematicians who were at Gttingen at that time. He compared the amber to “Felix Bernstein”. But if he would have said “Sergei Bernstein”, it would have meant that the amber was of the highest quality, even though Felix Bernstein was a very well-known scientist in the field of statistical analysis and theory of insurance. However, at that time Sergei Bernstein already was considered one of the greatest Russian mathematicians. Sergei Natanovich had a very broad view of mathematics. Already in 1903 he began one of his papers by saying “All mathematicians and physicists agree these days that the limits of mathematical applications are no different than the limits of knowledge itself”. After the revolution of 1905 the young scientist returns to Russia. But his motherland did not care much for her son. Because of his Jewish origin he was banned from obtaining a university position and became a mathematics teacher in one of the schools in Kharkov. Only after the revolution of 1917 Sergei Natanovich became a professor and later, in 1929, was elected a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1955 he became a foreign member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. He also was awarded the USSR State Award. His works are widely known all over the world and he made a significant contribution to the development of mathematical science in the 20th century. He continued the tradition of the great Russian mathematicians P. L. Chebyshev, A. A. Markov, A. M. Lyapunov. Bernstein’s interpolation process, Bernstein’s method, Bernstein’s polynoms, Bernstein’s inequality, Bernstein’s theorem, Bernstein-Rogosinski´s summation method all became an integral part of contemporary science. He firmly believed that the methods of mathematics should permeate modern natural sciences. S. N. Bernstein was always opposed to the games of the 1

Reid, C.: Hilbert. Berlin–Heidelberg–New York: Springer 1970.

20

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

idle mind. All his works that were closely connected to the problems of natural sciences can be divided into three cycles: theory of differential equations; theory of functions’ approximation; theory of probability. It appears that his influence played a part in Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein’s interest and study of mathematics and the fact that his first two papers were written on that subject: one (from 1922) was titled “On perception of value (the role of exponential function e in value perception)”; the second (from 1923) – “Logarithm attributes of the musical instruments’ keyboards”.

Older Roots Bernstein’s grandfather on his father’s side, Nathan (Nikolai) Osipovich Bernstein (1836–1891), a physician, a physiologist and a social activist, was born in the town of Brody (Galicia). His father (Bernstein’s great grandfather), Ozias (Osip) Bernstein had three sons – Pius, Nathan and Herman. He was a smart and energetic man who owned a small store of colonial goods in Odessa and donated part of his money to build an orphanage there. Later, Herman took over his father’s business while Pius and Nathan obtained medical degrees. Pius left to go to Dresden, Germany where he worked as a doctor. Initially Nathan went to school in Poznan where he studied with his grandfather on his mother’s side, Solomon Ben Akiva Eger (1785–1852) – the chief rabbi of the Figure 1.1 Nathan Osipovich Bernstein (1836 – 1891) (courprovince of Poznan and the great grandtesy of A. S. Bernstein). father of Nikolai Alexandrovich.

Older Roots

21

The Egers family, starting as early as the second half of the 17th century, left a noticeable trace in the lives and memories of many people. Although he was born to the family of several generations of rabbis, Nathan Osipovich chose a different path for himself. In 1853, after he graduated from Odessa’s high school, Nathan Osipovich was accepted to the Medical Department of Moscow University. In 1857, while still a student, he was awarded a gold medal for his paper “Anatomy and physiology of the pneumogastric nerve”. In 1861 he defended his thesis and was awarded a Doctor of Medicine degree and returned to Odessa where he started a medical practice. On October 8, 1864 he became a doctor at the Richelieu gymnasium and on June 24th of next year – assistant professor in the Department of Anatomy and Physiology of the newly opened Novorossiya University in Odessa. Nathan Osipovich had not been baptized and therefore obtaining a job at any of the state agencies proved to be difficult in the past. But at that time the restrictions have eased up. There is a decree from the Department of National Education in Odessa archives issued on July 1, 1866 explaining that “Jews holding scientific degrees are allowed to serve in all departments and there are no foundations for rejecting their applications”. In 1871 a famous Russian physiologist I. M. Sechenov was offered a job at the Novorossiya University. Starting that year Bernstein passed on his physiology class to Sechenov but continued to offer classes in anatomy. In 1870 he was nominated by the University Board to receive an “extraordinary professor” award, however it was not granted because he “did not have a scientific degree in zoology”. At that time anatomy and physiology were considered part of zoology at the Department of Mathematics and Physics. In 1882 Nathan Osipovich was fired from the University due to “illness”. However, he soon was again elected a docent at the recommendation of the department, although the appointment was never confirmed by the Ministry of Education. This was the time of extreme conservatism and open anti-Semitism. What kind of “illness” got Nathan Osipovich fired – considering that he was offered the same position shortly afterwards? Some of the events that

22

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

occurred that year shed a light on this. In 1882 the famous Russian naturalist Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov was forced to leave Novorossiya University (and eventually the country) because of the Jewish roots on his mother’s side: he was the grandson of the first Russian Jewish publicist, play writer and philosopher Yehudah Leib ben-Noach Nevachovich (1776–1831), who was one of the early followers of philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. On April 14, 1882 I. M. Sechenov wrote to Mechnikov: “I condemn the state of affairs that puts restrictions on someone like you”. In 1888 Mechnikov, who continued to be persecuted by anti-Semites, left Russia and settled in Paris. Louis Pasteur invited him to join his institute where he continued to work for all the remaining fruitful years of his career. In 1908 he received a Nobel Prize for his achievements. The same year, 1888, another prominent microbiologist and epidemiologist, Vladimir Aaronovich Haffkine, was forced to leave Odessa for the same reasons. I was able to find in Odessa archives the correspondence with the office of the Mayor of Odessa dating back to 1882 where student V. A. Haffkine was accused of participating in student movement, organizing meetings and possessing illegal weapons. He was expelled from the University and was put under police surveilFigure 1.2 Pius and Nathan (Nikolai) lance. Haffkine moved to Paris Bernstein (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein). and later to India where he dedicated his efforts to fighting the epidemics of cholera and plague. The Institute of Bacteriology in Mumbai that he organized carries his name to this day. He also discovered the anti-cholera vaccine, tried it on himself

Older Roots

23

and broadly used it in India. His anti-plague vaccination campaign lowered mortality by 15 times. To this day he is considered a national hero in India and the memory of Dr. Haffkine is preserved countrywide. Alexandre Besredka, who graduated from Novorossiya University in 1892, also left for France. The son of a Jewish writer (E. Ish-Noomi) who wrote in Hebrew, and a Jew himself, the only way he could continue his career as a scientist in Russia was by converting to Christianity which he refused to do. He worked in Mechnikov’s laboratory at the Pasteur Institute and also became a well-known scientist. The reactionary atmosphere at Novorossiya University has been building up for a number of years. In March of 1873 Mechnikov and Sechenov’s joint attempt to secure a teaching position there for the prominent Darwinist biologist V. O. Kovalevsky failed as well. For no reason at all one of the professors at the University claimed that he did not pass his Master’s degree exam, although Vladimir Onufrievich passed it and with distinction. Nathan Osipovich was a practicing physician and an active member of the Odessa Physicians’ Society first as a secretary (making a significant contribution), then – for 8 years – as a Vice Chairman and later as a Chairman for 14 years. During Russia’s war with Turkey (1877–1888) he was the head of the unit at the Red Cross hospital. Along with that, Nathan Osipovich received an extensive training as a physiologist at the most advanced laboratories of that time: in 1866 he worked at the Du Bois-Reymon´s laboratory of physiology in Berlin and in 1868–1869 at Ludwig’s laboratory in Leipzig. In 1868 his book “Particular Physiology” was recommended for publication by Novorossiya University. Nathan Osipovich’s public service was not limited only to medicine. He was the voting member of Odessa City Duma and an honorable civil judge; he was also an active member of the Odessa Jewish Community. He initiated the expansion of Talmud Torah (a Jewish religious school) program to include general subjects. Nathan Osipovich advocated against Jewish cultural isolationism and dedicated a lot of time and effort to

24

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

introducing Jewish community to the Russian culture. As a co-editor (together with L. Pinsker) of the Russian-language journal “Zion”, which was published in Odessa until 1862, Nathan Osipovich wrote: “The ideal for the editors was the comparison of civil rights and responsibilities of the Jewish part of the population with the rest of the Russian Empire and promoting the involvement of Russian Jews in Russian culture”. In the issue #7 of the journal from August 18, 1861 he published his article “On the Physical Education of Children”. Nathan Osipovich was married to Mathilda Markovna Serebryannaya. Her highly educated family was related to Slonim, the Jewish philosopher who lived and worked in Odessa. Her brother, Yakov Markovich Serebryannyy, was a well-known lawyer in St.-Petersburg.

Older Roots

25

Figure 1.3 Upper row, from left to right: Nathan (Nikolai) Osipovich Bernstein, Alexander, Elizaveta, Mathilda Markovna. Lower row: Sergei, Margarita (approx 1882) (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

26

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

Figure 1.4 From left to right: Margarita, Sergei, Alexander, Elizaveta Bernstein, 1902 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Childhood

27

Childhood On October 5, 1896 a son was born to the family of Alexander Nikolaevich Bernstein, an attending physician at the Moscow Psychiatric Clinic. He was given the name Nikolai, after his grandfather. The family lived in the basement apartment on Zubovsky Boulevard. The mother of the child, Alexandra Karlovna, the active and energetic woman, quit her job as a nurse at the Moscow Psychiatric Clinic on Devichy Pole, and fully dedicated herself to raising her son. Her first child died in childbirth and she was anxious about her newborn. Soon the family moved to a better apartment on Novinsky Boulevard. In 1901, after Alexander Nikolaevich defended his thesis and got his medical degree, the family moved to a very nice apartment building in the Bolshoi Levshinsky Lane, 2nd floor, Apartment 3. Nikolai Alexandrovich lived at this address all his life and died there in 1966. The windows of the apartment overlooked a cozy mansion, where Peter Alexeevich Kropotkin was born in 1842 and also a Shtatny Lane where the Central Admitting Department for Mentally Ill was located. Alexander Nikolaevich was the head of this department. Soon Alexandra Karlovna gave birth to their second son, Sergei (1901) who possibly was named after Alexander Nikolaevich’s teacher S. S. Korsakov. Both parents were very dedicated to their sons’ upbringing and advancement. The children took music lessons and studied foreign languages. One of the games that the boys liked to play was called “Mechano”. It was similar to the contemporary game of building blocks and they showed great enthusiasm constructing vehicles, bridges and the model of the Eiffel Tower that captured the imagination at that time. Nikolai had very skillful hands, which he inherited from his mother and the ability to masterfully build from any materials at hand. He was mostly interested in railways. Together with his younger brother, they visited steam engine “cemetery” where he observed and made sketches of steam engines. His family still carefully preserves the index cards with the sketches of steam engines made by Nikolai Alexandrovich and several railway carriage models also made by him. Sergei and Nikolai’s interest

28

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

in bridges and railways was long lasting. They read extensively on both subjects, including English publications. And this interest did not fade away. Sergei Alexandrovich became an engineer specializing in structural mechanics as it applies to bridge building. He defended his doctoral thesis at the Military Engineering Academy and some years later became the head of the department at the Academy of Armored Troops. The brothers remained very close until Sergei’s death in 1958. Nikolai Alexandrovich did not abandon his fascination with bridges either. But, unlike Sergei – who went on to create them – Nikolai studied how humans interact with bridges. Later he conducted experimental research for the Scientific-Technical Committee of the People’s Commissariat of Transportation where, on behalf of Professor Rabinovich (a friend of Sergei Alexandrovich), he studied forces that develop when people cross bridges. In 1965 in the “Science and Life” magazine (#5) he published his article “Building the Syzran Bridge across Volga” and in 1966 in the same magazine (#2) the article “The Collapse of Tay Bridge”. Nikolai Alexandrovich made a very interesting sketch of Kirovsky Bridge across Neva River in St.-Petersburg. I am much obliged to Professor L. V. Chkhaidze who preserved the sketch and gave me its photocopy. Nikolai Alexandrovich was also fascinated with radio which was a novelty at the time. These were crystal receivers with headsets (there were no loudspeakers then). His hands could do anything, even embroidery. Both children attended the gymnasium of Ivan and Alexandra Medvednikov (8th Public gymnasium in Starokonyushenny Lane), one of the best in Moscow. The staff at the gymnasium was highly qualified and included several professors from the Moscow Imperial University. It had very well equipped chemistry and physics laboratories, a good gym. The hallways were decorated with the paintings by the well-known artists. The scope of Nikolai’s interests was extensive: mathematics, physics, mechanics, photography, music, literature and languages. We can easily imagine Nikolai’s home atmosphere: he grew up listening to discussions

Childhood

29

of the latest scientific discoveries, Hilbert’s mathematical problems and their solutions, stories about Sorbonne where Sergei Natanovich studied and defended his thesis. Sergei Natanovich would visit first from Kharkov and, later, after he was elected a member of the Academy, from Leningrad. Having returned from Borovoe where he evacuated (1941– 1943) and settled in Moscow, he often came to visit. Nikolai’s father also had interesting visitors, who discussed medicine, human psyche and its dysfunctions, social problems, art and music, which Nikolai’s father loved. The family was very close. Alexander Nikolaevich was a dedicated father who was invested in providing a broad education for his sons. The father and the sons played opera music and the boys performed various arias. At the gymnasium they studied foreign languages – Latin, French, German and English but also took private English lessons with a very good teacher named Radunsky. During his college years he also learned Polish and Italian. Nikolai had a deep interest in music. He played piano well and was fascinated with Scriabin’s compositions. Sometimes he improvised. There were "heavy" compositions, which were influenced by Scriabin. At that time Scriabin was the idol of the young generation. To quote Pasternak: Rings the bell Voice approaching – it’s Scriabin How do I run away From the steps of my idol and God! Nikolai’s mother used to say: “Oh, my son is playing Scriabin again, his mood is in minor”. In 1913 Nikolai graduated from the gymnasium with a silver medal and was accepted to the Department of History and Philology, he was interested in philology and philosophy. But in August of 1914 the war broke out.

30

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

Figure 1.5 Father of N. A. Bernstein, Alexander Nikolaevich Bernstein, 1889 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Figure 1.6 Mother of N. A. Bernstein, Alexandra Karlovna Ioganson (Bernstein), 1890 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Figure 1.7 A. N. Bernstein with his sons Nikolai and Sergei, 1916 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Childhood

Figure 1.8 Sergei and Nikolai Bernstein (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

31

32

Chapter I. Family, Childhood and Youth

War Together with the rest of the country the wave of patriotism swept the young generation of Bernstein family. Nikolai decided to quit his studies at the University and join the army. His decision terrified his father. And his mother told him the stories about the horrors of war, and deaths and sufferings of the wounded. “Instead of killing people you need to save them from death and sufferings” she told her son. The parents were finally able to convince Nikolai to transfer to the Medical Department of the University instead of quitting his studies all together. In the fall of 1914 Nikolai started a new school year as a medical student. The studies were very intense and concentrated, the front needed military doctors and Nikolai ended up completing the abbreviated course. At the Department of Medicine he met another medical student, Kekcheev, who later became a professor of physiology. They remained friends long after their days as students. While studying at the department Nikolai worked as a nurses’ aid at the hospital, taking care of the wounded. In the spring of 1919 he graduated from the 1st Moscow University, obtained his medical degree and was drafted in the Red Army as a doctor. He was sent to the Eastern front near Kazan where the Red Army was fighting Kolchak’s troops. He did not get along with his superiors and eventually was send out of the way to the military unit building the railway between the cities of Kazan and Ekaterinburg. The job was difficult and there he struggled at times to find the common grounds with his superiors. In the early spring of 1921, having been released from the army, Nikolai Alexandrovich returned to Moscow and began his scientific career in psychiatry and experimental psychology. He also tried to find the ways to expand his education and took a number of special courses at the Department of Mathematics of the 1st Moscow State University. His father helped him to get a job in the field; he became a physician at the Gilyarovsky Psychiatric Clinic. After his father’s death in 1922, he took over his practice. His mother was very happy about that as she wanted him to continue in his father’s steps. But Nikolai Alexandrovich

War

33

did not enjoy the medical practice. In fact, he disliked it so much that he eventually was forced to quit. He was interested in experimental research work. In March of 1921 he became an assistant at the Medical Pedological Institute. From this moment on Bernstein’s scientific path, which proved to be difficult yet fruitful, begins.

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path The Institute of Labor Having been discharged from the Red Army, Nikolai Alexandrovich became the intern at the Psychiatric Teaching Facility of the Medical Pedological Institute in Moscow. At the same time he worked at the Moscow Psychoneurological Institute as a Chief of the Department of Child Psychiatry. His interest in psychiatry was not accidental. First and foremost, we should point out the influence of his father – a professor of psychiatry. Nikolai Alexandrovich attended his father’s lectures in psychiatry through all his years as a student at the medical college; during his senior year in college he worked under his father’s supervision at a psychiatric clinic and a psychiatric sanatorium. From March 1921 to July 1922 Nikolai Alexandrovich worked at the Medical Pedological Institute. While there, he conducted experimental research on perception of various objects. He was able to demonstrate that brain had higher capacity for sensory perception of relations between objects than quantitative differences in numbers. His first published article contained a discussion of the results of this study. At the same time he conducted the preparatory laboratory work and literature research on the psychophysiology of hearing. This also was the extension of his father’s research. Earlier we mentioned the article that Alexander Nikolaevich had written on the psychology and physiology of hearing and published the same year his son Nikolai was born. In the winter of 1921, pursuing his interest in studying the process of hearing, Nikolai Alexandrovich worked at the Ear clinic of the 1st Moscow University. The desire to study exact sciences prompted Nikolai Alexandrovich to attend lectures on theory of functions, theoretical mechanics, differential geometry and the polynomial expansion of functions at the Mathematical Department of the 1st Moscow State University. At the same time the broad range of scientific interests of the young physician prompted him to seek collaboration with various scientific

The Institute of Labor

35

institutions and researchers. From July 1922 through January of 1923 he completed internship at the 2nd Moscow State University’s psychiatric clinic headed by Professor V. A. Gilyarovsky. From March 1922 to October 1923 he worked as a 2nd degree research scientist at the Moscow Psychological Institute where he participated in the workshop on the history of psychology. At that time his college friend, K. H. Kekcheev, worked at the Central Labor Institute (CLI). He told the founder and the director of the Institute, A. K. Gastev, about his gifted friend. Gastev, who needed talented young researchers, invited Bernstein to join his staff.

Figure 2.1 In the laboratory of Central Labor Institute, N. A. Bernstein in the center, 1923 (courtesy of Andrei Smirnov).

Gastev was a passionate romantic who greeted October Revolution with great enthusiasm. In anticipation of the future that he then thought to be the “happily ever after” of the working class he decided to establish CLI to standardize labor to make it both easy and efficient. Alexei Kapitonovich Gastev was one of the founders of scientific labor management in Soviet Union. He was born in 1882 in the town of Suzdal where his father worked as a teacher. In 1901 he joined the Russian Social Democratic Work Party, RSDWP as a Bolshevik. Because of

36

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

his involvement in the revolutionary activities he was expelled from the Moscow Teachers’ Institute. During the First Russian Revolution (1905– 1907) he was the Chairman of the Kostroma Workers Council and the head of the military squad there. In 1906 he was elected a delegate to the IV Congress of the RSDWP. Starting in 1906, he worked as a mechanic at the Union of Metal Workers. In 1908 he distanced himself from RSDWP but did not end his participation in the revolutionary movement and was subjected to numerous repressions. In 1917–18 he was the secretary of the Central Committee of All-Russian Union of Metal Workers. In 1920 he established CLI in Moscow under the auspices of the All-Union Council of Trade Unions. In 1924–26 while heading the CLI, Gastev became the first Deputy Chairman and later the Chairman of the Council for the Scientific Labor Management. Starting in 1904 Gastev began to publish his poems. The title of his book, “The poetry of workers blow”, is very indicative of the frame of mind of its author. The titles of his poems in prose were “We Grow from Iron”, “Sirens”, “Rails”, and “Towers”; they were very popular in the early post-revolutionary years. Gastev combined bold hyperbolic images with the pathos of scientific progress giving his publications titles like “How to Work” (1921), “Youth, Go Ahead!” (1923), “The Ammunition of Modern Culture” (1923), “The Rebellion of Culture” (1923), “New Cultural Attitude” (1923). In 1924 he published a manuscript titled “Labor Attitudes” which was dedicated to scientific labor management. CLI was located in downtown Moscow, in the large building that still occupies the corner of Petrovka street and Rachmanovsky side street. Kekcheev established a laboratory of biomechanics as part of the Institute and Bernstein started working there as a senior researcher. Very soon, together with Kekcheev, he was made the head of the laboratory and became an inspiration for the rest of the staff. In 1923 Bernstein invited the wife of his brother, a young mathematician Tatyana Sergeevna Popova, who graduated from the Mathematical Department of Moscow University, to join the laboratory. At first Bernstein, Kekcheev and Popova were the only three researchers at the laboratory.

The Institute of Labor

37

Soon Kekcheev together with A. N. Bruzhes switched to studying pneumatics, muscle activity and the change in the position of the center of gravity. Gastev entrusted Bernstein with the task of using cyclography to study a simple labor operation – hitting chisel with a peen hammer. But Bernstein significantly improved this method which originally was used by Fischer2 to study movements. Popova helped him in this work by conducting laborintensive calculations and data analysis. Bernstein’s modifications Figure 2.2 The wife of Sergei Bernstein, Tatjana Popova (Bernof cyclography later shaped it into a stein), the main assistant of Nikolai new method – cyclogrammetry. Bernstein since 1923 (1923) Cyclogram was a film recording (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein). of the trajectory of body part movements in human subjects. The lighting bulbs attached to the moving body parts left a trace on the film. Marey3 already used instant photography in his research on the physiology of movements but he later replaced it with recording movements of significant points. Braune4 and Fischer introduced simultaneous recording with several cameras which allowed for synchronized recording from different angles. The imperfections of these methods and the cumbersome research process stood in the way of extensive and precise study of movement. 2

3

4

Otto Fischer (1861–1916) was a German physiologist und mathematician. Together with W. Braune he studied the human gait, being published in the book „Der Gang des Menschen“ (1895–1904). Étienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904) was a French scientist and pioneer of photography and cinema. Christian Wilhelm Braune (1831–1892) was a German anatomist. He is known for his pioneer work in biomechanics.

38

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

In 1924 Bernstein created a new research method – kymocyclography. It consisted of intermittent synchronized recording of significant points of a moving body on the slowly and evenly moving film. In 1928–1929 Bernstein invented a “mirror method” which allowed to register movements in all three coordinates using just one camera. Instead of filming from three different directions using three cameras (i.e. three different projections) the filming was done with just one camera that recorded a movement from three different directions reflected in three mirrors. Thus, the ideal synchronization of three different positions of an object was achieved. That allowed for the precise three-dimensional recording of movements. The new stage in the recording of movements required new approaches to the analysis of the cyclograms that the new method generated. Bernstein managed to create them. The system of methods for movement recording and data analysis was called cyclogrammetry. Bernstein suggested the approach to mathematical analysis of cyclogramms. They were projected on a graph paper, all the points were traced with a pencil and the coordinates of the points were marked so that they can later be used for the analysis of movements. The calculations included vertical and horizontal coordinates and the speed of movement and acceleration. Based on this data it was possible to determine the amount of efforts exerted by workers’ hands. The efforts applied to the center of gravity were presented in the graphical form for each segment of the arm. This was a highly labor intensive approach. Tatyana Sergeevna Popova was Bernstein’s devoted collaborator. Together with him she later left CLI to continue their work at the Institute of Musical Sciences, Institute of Labor Preservation, and the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine. She also conducted research at the Institute of Child and Adolescent Health and became an expert in child’s motor development. Tatyana Sergeevna Popova and her husband Sergei Alexandrovich Bernstein shared the apartment with the family of Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein; the demarcation line between office and home was practically non-existent. Nikolai Alexandrovich married an employee

The Institute of Labor

39

of their research laboratory; however, his marriage to Anna Isaakona Rudnik was short-lived. In 1923 Nikolai Alexandrovich became a Deputy to the Research Inspector and the Chief of the CLI Laboratory of Neuromechanics where he launched extensive research project. While researching, at Gastev’s request, movements that occur when a worker hits a chisel with a peen hammer, Bernstein realized that the existing physiological methods do not allow for a thorough understanding of movements involved in the process of physical labor. Until that time physiology of movement remained the physiology of neuro-muscular specimens. Physiologists used nerve and muscle specimens obtained from animals (mostly frogs) to study muscles’ reactions to different nerve stimulations and registered these reactions using kymograph – the moving paper reel covered with soot. Another popular method of studying movements involved using animals with brain or spinal cord damage – decerebral or spinal animals. The great British physiologist Charles Sherrington used to say about this type of research: “We attempted to study the neural organization of animals but we thought of them only as some kind of puppets that were prompted to move by the environment in which they lived”. The first period of Bernstein’s scientific work started with his employment at CLI. Having realized the lack of methods adequate for studying the movements of human beings in the process of physical labor in natural environment, Bernstein developed and applied new methods (kymocyclography, cyclogrammetry with consequent mathematical interpretation of the observation results) proving himself an extraordinarily talented inventor. He created the original mathematical approach to the analysis of aperiodic oscillations that is used in neurophysiology to this day. Application of cyclogrammetry – experimental and mathematical analysis of movements – to the model of hitting a chisel with a peen hammer helped to discover the new general laws of physiology of movements.

40

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Thus, in July of 1923 Bernstein started his experimental research on general neural mechanisms of movement using cyclogrammetry. This was a new approach to studying “real time movements” in human subjects. Later Bernstein applied it to studying movements that occur in natural environment such as walking, running, jumping, swimming as well as the other types of movements occurring in the process of physical labor. Besides movements involved in cutting with a chisel, the research was also done on movements that take place while working with a file, postal stamping, writing and playing the piano. These research studies led Bernstein to very important generalizations. He realized that “real time movements” contain extensive data on the functioning of central nervous system. But there still remained a lot to be done to extract this data from the movement recordings. It became clear to Bernstein that without thorough understanding of the human motor organization it was impossible to study and “normalize” (as was Gastev’s plan) movements in the process of physical labor. But such profound understanding of human movements was lacking at that time; it was yet to be developed. Since Gastev wanted the staff at CLI to focus on applied research that could provide clear practical recommendations for workers, it created friction between him and Bernstein. Bernstein, on his part, realized that such practical recommendations are impossible to produce without understanding general mechanisms of movement organization. At the same time he also realized that using appropriate methods to study human movements can be a key to understanding the general principles of central nervous system functioning. The framework established by Gastev became too stifling for Bernstein and he started looking for other types of movements (besides labor movements) as the means to understand the general laws of movement organization in human subjects. From February of 1923 to December of 1924, in addition to his job at CLI, Bernstein worked as an assistant at the Department of Child Psychiatry of the Medical Pedological Institute under the guidance of Professor M. O. Gurevich. In 1923 Bernstein started teaching the “Biomechanics of

The Institute of Labor

41

Labor Movement” at CLI. From September 1923 to June 1925 he taught at the Department of Physiological Psychology of Medical Pedological Institute. In 1924 he taught biomechanics as part of the refresher training for the physicians at Glavsanupr.5 In 1925 he taught the same class at Glavprofotbor6 and at CLI as part of the series on scientific organization of labor. These courses became the foundation for the two manuals published in 1926: “General Biomechanics” and “Biomechanics for Teachers”. In 1924 Bernstein served as a member on the CLI Board and a member of the Council of Medical Pedological Institute. In the summer of 1925 he completed his manual on biomechanics. This substantial publication (more than 400 pages) titled “General Biomechanics. The Foundations of the Research of Human Movements” was published in 1926. In June – August of 1925 Bernstein taught the course in biomechanics as part of the retraining program for the instructors in industrial training at Moskprofotbor.7 A number of chapters from “General Biomechanics” (that the author planned as a first volume in the extensive guide on biomechanics) were modified and included in this course. In “General Biomechanics” using Newton’s laws of mechanics, Bernstein, for the first time, analyzed the general dynamics of interactions between muscles strength and external forces applied to the body parts during various movements. Along with “General Biomechanics” Bernstein worked on the book “Biomechanics for Instructors”. In 1926 it was released by the publishing house “Novaya Moskva” (New Moscow) in a small circulation of 5 thousand copies. This book included the transcript of Bernstein’s lectures with significant modifications by the author; Bernstein had important reasons to prepare this publication. “Biomechanics for Instructors” was not the replication of “General Biomechanics”. The latter was a comprehensive volume that used mathematical apparatus and terminology in Latin thus 5 6 7

Glavnoye Sanitarnoye Upravleniye (Main Sanitary Directorate). Glavnyiy Professionalnyiy Otbor (Main Occupational Selection). Moskovskiy Professionalnyiy Otbor (Moscow Occupational Selection).

42

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

requiring from the reader an extensive knowledge on the subject. Meanwhile Bernstein considered it necessary to give abbreviated and more general information on the foundations of biomechanics to a wider audience. “Biomechanics for Instructors” could be easily understood by anyone who knew the four basic mathematical operations and the foundations of mathematics and drafting. Two of the lectures contained the introduction to the methods of studying movements and the brief history of the research on this subject which was lacking from “General Biomechanics”. The results of the research on hammering movements were presented in the popular format for the first time. The drift between Bernstein and Gastev continued to grow. Gastev was infatuated with the “poetics of hammer strike”, his goal was to develop practical recommendations not to understand the problem in all its complexity. He thought that a strike should occur vertically although in reality it was three-dimensional. Gastev started the courses for industrial instructors where he taught them how to strike in such a way that the movement occurred in the vertical dimension only. This technique was created by a hammerer named Forge – a French immigrant who did not lift his arm behind his head but rather lift it straight up and from there “threw” it down hitting the anvil. Based on this technique Gastev charged Bernstein with the task of finding the optimal trajectory for the movement of a hammer so that workers could be trained to use it. Bernstein used two groups of subjects for his research – beginners and experienced workers. Participants from the beginners group had difficult time maintaining the precision while hammering the chisel; their hammers hit new trajectories on every strike. The experienced workers could hit the chisel with much greater precision however their trajectories were different on every strike as well; contrary to what Gastev had expected the one “optimal” trajectory did not exist. Bernstein realized that these results could be correctly interpreted only based on understanding the principles of movement organization and the regulation of movements by the central nervous system.

The Institute of Labor

43

Gastev was the “poet of revolution, the poet of new relationships between people, the poet of labor” while Bernstein, being a scientist, understood the complexity of the problem and the necessity for basic research. These differences eventually created a rift in their relationship which led to Bernstein, Kekcheev, Bruzhes and Popova leaving the CLI. Cyclography in CLI came to an end. But Bernstein and Popova had already launched research at a new facility – State Institute of Musical Sciences. There Bernstein began his studies of the movements of piano players’ right hand. Accomplished musicians (such as Konstantin Igumnov8 and the German pianist Egon Petri9) as well as beginners served as his subjects. Bernstein was invited to work at the State Institute of Musical Sciences (with beautiful abbreviation HYMN10) by Professor Grigory Petrovich Prokofiev, a renowned expert in teaching piano. Prokofiev was very interested in studying those students who were not successful in their musical careers and they became subjects for Bernstein and Popova in the studies conducted at the laboratory created specifically for the purpose of researching keyboard strokes. Bernstein designed and built a camera for photographic research of movements based on the new principle (kymocyclograph). Here he put to use his skills in design and photography acquired at a young age. Kymocyclograph allowed to obtain 500 images of a moving object in a second. Bernstein also invented a new method of calculating cyclograms – a graphical method. Kymocyclogram, the enlarged cyclogram of the movements of the musician’s hand playing piano, was drawn on a large piece of paper using magnifier. The movements were unfolded in time. The whole analysis was conducted graphically: first, the micro-speed was marked, then the speed and accelerations were calculated using slide rule, and graphs were built.

8

9

10

Konstantin Nicolayevich Igumnov (1873–1948) was a Russian pianist and the teacher of many Russian pianists. Egon Petri (1881–1962) was a classical pianist. He had a superb technique and a powerful sonority. Gosudarstvennyiy Institut Muzyikalnyiy Nauk, GIMN (HYMN).

44

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

These highly labor intensive work was conducted by Bernstein and Popova manually. Along with the practical applications the new data required new theoretical considerations.

Bernstein and Ukhtomsky As early as the beginning of 1920s Bernstein became familiar with the works of the prominent Leningrad physiologist, member of the Academy, Alexei Alexeevich Ukhtomsky. Ukhtomsky introduced to physiology the idea of a dominant as a mechanism that assures that the need of an organism prevalent at a particular moment gets satisfied. Ukhtomsky was led to this idea by the fact that so much was unclear “in the mysterious changeability of the reflex behavior in animals and human beings in the presence of the intangibly small changes in the environment and, conversely, the stubborn repetition of the same modus operandi under the totally new conditions”.11 Ukhtomsky, who regarded Pavlov’s work very highly and, in general, remained within the framework of the reflex paradigm, at the same time recognized the weak points of the latter and believed that the idea of dominant eliminates them to some extent. However, along with that, this notion already contained the idea of the animals’ independent activity and thus another step was made away from the framework of the reflex theory towards understanding behavior as a goal directed process. Bernstein was fascinated by Ukhtomsky’s research. Ukhtomsky, on his part, noticed the emergence of a new and impressive research trend in the field of physiology. In 1924–1926, while teaching a class at the Leningrad University, he noted: “A young Russian scientist N. A. Bernstein showed the striking example of how Fisher’s method can be used for the complete mechanical assessment of various

11

Ukhtomsky, A. A.: Collected works issued in 6 v., v. 1. Leningrad: Leningrad State University Press, 1950, p. 317.

Bernstein and Ukhtomsky

45

movements in the process of physical labor”. Here he was referring to Bernstein’s research that started with studying hammering movements and led to the creation of new methods for movements’ research (cyclogrammetry) and precise data analysis. A. A. Ukhtomsky continued: “Having registered the trajectory of a hammer in the process of manual labor, Bernstein calculated vectors of acceleration for different points of the trajectory and for different positions of the moving centers of gravity. Knowing kinetic energy in different sections of the trajectory makes it possible to figure out where the kinetic energy of the movement of the particular system in the direction of the trajectory will be the highest. Obviously, this will be the most favorable moment for the technical application of this particular manual labor movement. Besides the technical significance of such analysis of labor movements, it also presents an inspiring interest from the purely scientific point of view. Not one existing method of registering the motor reactions of organisms provides the extent of completeness and objectivity that cyclogrammographic method does. And not one of the existing methods of researching motor reactions possesses the visual representation and precision of the cyclogrammometric method. No doubt this method has a tremendous future”.12 Bernstein met with Ukhtomsky on several occasions and updated him on the progress of his research. He highly valued Ukhtomsky’s research on dominant and the preparatory-regulatory role assigned to nervous rhythms and their assimilation, all the more so because the significant part of the muscles’ tune up consisted of preliminary anticipatory set up. It appears that the mutual attraction of Ukhtomsky (who by that time had already become a world renowned scientist) and Bernstein (a relatively young physiologist) was not accidental. They both were creative and inquisitive scholars resistant to the “hypnosis” of recognized authority. They both had broad interests far surpassing the field of physiology. Both were inclined to contemplate on deep philosophical issues. They were

12

Ukhtomsky, A. A.: Collected works issued in 6 v., v. 3, Leningrad: Leningrad State University Press 1950, p. 161.

46

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

friendly, opened, tolerant to the differences of opinions and considered people to be creative and unique, deserving attention and respect. They were both deep thinkers and outstanding experimenters who had excellent command of their mind and their hands. Besides their main specialty, they both studied mathematics and applied this knowledge extensively in their research. Finally, early on in their lives they both assimilated the culture of the past generations of their respective families. In earlier chapters we talked about traditions of the Bernsteins-Egers family. Ukhtomsky came from a Russian aristocratic family whose roots went back to Rjurik (through Vsevolod the Big Nest, the son of the founder of the city of Moscow Yuri Dolgoruky). Three or four Count Ukhtomskys fell in the battle at the Kulikovo field when Dmitri Donskoy fought with the armies of the Golden Horde (1380). There were representatives of military, clergy and scientists among the generations of Ukhtomskys that came after. Alexey Alexeevich himself did not start as a physiologist. He first studied at the Cadet Military School, and later at the Theological Academy where he wrote a thesis titled “Cosmological Proofs of the Existence of God”. He joined the laboratory of Nikolai Evgenievich Vvedensky at the Leningrad University because of his interest in researching the natural structure of spiritual life. Ukhtomsky saw conscience as a physiological apparatus of cognition – prediction. And ability to predict “is based on the urge to know the essence of objects and events”13 (underlined by Ukhtomsky. – I. F.). There is a note that Ukhtomsky made in his notebook in the early 1920s: “Human truth….is the transformation of what is into what should be”14 (underlined by Ukhtomsky – I. F.) How in tune this note of Ukhtomsky is with Bernstein’s “model of the desired future”! Although Bernstein held Ukhtomsky in high regard, he did not fully accept all his ideas. During a personal conversation with Bernstein (most probably in June of 1934 in Moscow) Ukhtomsky stated that for him the 13

14

Ukhtomsky, A. A.: Intuitsiya Sovesti [The Intuition of Conscience]. St.-Petersburg 1996, p. 457. Ibid., p. 355.

Bernstein and Ukhtomsky

47

notion of dominant from genetic perspective is first and foremost connected with the cognitive theoretical problems, while the problems of behavioral physiology are secondary. Bernstein, on his part, was inclined to think “that this idea is most closely and exactly related to the current psychological notions and that Ukhtomsky was mistaken when he tried to tie together phenomena from the field of higher emotional-mental processes with phenomena of lower neurophysiology in this expansive philosophical generalization”.15 In 1933 Ukhtomsky published the overview of the advancements in physiology in the 15 years since the October revolution in the “I. M. Sechenov’s Journal of Physiology”.16 Several pages of this overview were dedicated to “the works of Professor N. A. Bernstein that are excellent both in design and completion”. Ukhtomsky emphasized that the solution to a physiological problem almost always started with the observation of some kind of a movement within the organism and attempts to find the cause of this movement. At the same time physiologists, with rare exception, did not have at their disposal the precise characteristics of real movements of different organisms and had to limit themselves to their approximate descriptions. Hence, the method of research and description of movements became the matter of great importance. Ukhtomsky compared the importance of the method created by Bernstein to the impact that microscopy invented by Levenguk and Malpighi had on the field of natural sciences. He wrote: “The discovery of the technique of microscopy led to the revolution in the field of natural sciences exactly due to the fact that instead of aggregated and approximate characteristics of living structures it became possible to know their smallest details as they existed in the natural environment. This was an

15

16

Bernstein, N. A. (Eds. I. M. Feigenberg & I. E. Sirotkina): Sovremennyie Iskaniya v Fiziologii Nervnogo Prosessa [Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process]. Moscow: Smysl 2003, p. 300. Ukhtomsky, A. A.: K 15-letiyu Sovetskoy Fiziologii [On the Fifteen Years Anniversary of Soviet Physiology]. Fiziologicheskiy Zhurnal SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova [I. M. Sechenov’s Journal of Physiology], 1933, v. XVI, issue 1.

48

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

exclusively anatomical microscopy used for forms not moving in space. The time is coming when science can begin the discussion on the “microscopy of time” as Bernstein put it somewhere, or the “chronotop’s microscopy” as we would say now. This microscopy is no longer anatomical but physiological: it is the microscopy not of motionless structures but rather of movements that occur in the fluidly changing structures in the course of their activity. And here we will experience a new revolution in natural sciences the consequences of which we are currently not able to realize just like the contemporaries of Levenguk and Malpighi were not able to foresee the changes that the invention of the microscope would bring to the future generations”.17 Here Ukhtomsky used the idea of chronotop pioneered by him. The word “chronotop” derives from the Greek roots – chronos, meaning time and topo, meaning place, space (topology is the science that studies space). By introducing the concept of chronotop, Ukhtomsky tried to tie together the ideas of contemporary physiology with the achievements in physics and mathematics; the three dimensional physical space was merged with time creating a four dimensional space (H. Minkovski, A. Einstein). The interest of scientists in the form and operational impact of muscle movements was not new. For a long time these problems attracted the attention of those anatomists who did not limit their scientific interests with observing and describing only the forms of the body (morphology). They (for example, P. F. Lesgaft) tried to build “physiological anatomy“. Being unable to study all the details of the movement trajectory in living beings, they started with the morphological structure of the functioning joint, trying to determine the direction of a movement of those muscle tractions that have a potential to affect this particular joint. From there they constructed “a priori” the type of movements that were possible in this joint. The proudly sounding rationalistic task to construct in theory 17

Ukhtomsky, A. A.: K 15-letiyu Sovetskoy Fiziologii [On the Fifteen Years Anniversary of Soviet Physiology]. Fiziologicheskiy Zhurnal SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova [I. M. Sechenov’s Journal of Physiology], 1933, v. XVI, issue 1, p. 47.

Bernstein and Ukhtomsky

49

and predict the behavior of a living organism based on the geometrical and mechanical premises that were derived from examining corpses replaced the procedurally impervious direct research of the trajectory of movement as it really occurs in living organisms in their natural environment. Reality was replaced by rational schemes attractive because of their beauty and simplicity. But for the contemporary naturalist the main issue was not how to move from the elegant but far-fetched description of a joint as an “ellipsoid of rotation”, “hyperboloid of rotation” or “tubular surface” to predicting the kind of trajectories required for the mobile link that is sliding or rolling on this surface. There are no ideal ellipsoids or hyperboloids in the actual skeleton. Nature always prefers more or less capricious, ever-changing forms – not perfectly steady but elastically flexible that mostly depend on the movements that occur in them. Contemporary natural sciences strive to understand the flow of reality as it is. That is why attempts are being made in the mathematical sciences themselves to move beyond the world of standard regular forms. As mathematician E. S. Ventzel later said: while an old classical mathematics did what was possible (in any way necessary), the contemporary applied mathematics does what is necessary (in any way possible). The need is not to “sterilize“ reality for the sake of subjecting it to the simplified mathematical formula but to find new mathematical means that would advance our understanding of the actual course of events. Ukhtomsky cited Bernstein’s article “The Study of the Biomechanics of the Strike Using Light Recording“ (1923) stating that biomechanics built in a natural way by registering specific movements in order to ultimately express them mathematically without any attempts to squeeze them into the pre-prepared standards is not a mechanical discipline. It strives to study the reality of the physiological working movement in the most complete way. The most suitable objects of research are complex, highly automated and well biomechanically researched movement conglomerates, for example walking with or without a load; running or making highly coordinated rapid industrial movements. This was exactly how Bernstein’s research unfolded.

50

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Figure 2.3 Cover page of the Vvedensky’s book. The book is signed by Ukhtomsky and dedicated to Bernstein.

In June of 1934 Uchtomsky visited Moscow and met with Bernstein. Towards the end of the meeting Ukhtomsky gave him a book affectionately signed: To my dear and highly esteemed Professor Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein as a sign of sincere appreciation. A. Ukhtomsky. This book was a recently published by the Leningrad University manuscript of N. E. Vvedensky “On Correlations between Stimulation and Activation in Tetanus”. This was a thesis written by Vvedensky in the mid-1880s and presented to his teacher Ivan Mikhaylovich Sechenov. Ukhtomsky – Vvedensky’s student, who replaced him at the Department of Physiology of the Petrograd University after his death in 1922, – edited this publication. The gift was certainly symbolic: Ukhtomsky published his mentor’s work and gave it with a warm inscription to Bernstein.

Movements as a Key to Understanding the Principles of Brain Functioning

51

Vvedensky (1852–1922), Ukhtomsky (1875–1942), Bernstein (1896– 1966) – three prominent figures belonging to the three generations of Russian physiologists. I cherish this book given to me by Bernstein’s daughter after his death. It is like a relay baton passed along by three generations of physiologists.

Movements as a Key to Understanding the Principles of Brain Functioning Development of research methods became the first step in Bernstein’s long and difficult journey – a journey that despite the external difficulties is characterized by surprising integrity. He never tried to adjust to the environment but rather changed it to achieve his scientific goals. In the end, this journey brought about the results that did not fit into the traditional paradigm of physiology. Human movements turned out not to be broken into “quantums” or bits and pieces, they emerged as an integrated unified act of a complex system governed by a goal, by the image of a final result of this movement. The object of research turned out to be not a neuro-muscular specimen and not even a moving limb (as in classical physiology) but rather a human neural apparatus possessing its own goals and able to put together plans for their achievement and realization. In the end the analysis of movement became not only a research project but the means to understand the laws of central nervous system functioning. N. A. Bernstein thought that “…human motor system can and should become an excellent indicator that can be used for studying processes that occur in the central nervous system“.18 Bernstein emphasized that this “motor indicator of higher nervous system” is characterized by great expressiveness and ability to reflect fast-moving brain processes. “Movement no longer interests us from the purely external, phenomeno18

Bernstein, N. A.: Voprosyi Koordinatsii Dvizheniy i Motornogo Polya [The Issues in Coordination of Movement and Motor Field]. In: G. P. Konradi, A. D. Slonim, V. S. Farfel: Fiziologiya Truda [Physiology of Labor]. Moscow 1935, p. 449.

52

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

logical perspective. We already realized that it contains the richest data on the activity of central nervous system. Even though this information presents itself in the codified form, there is no code that cannot be deciphered given enough attention and persistence, enough will “.19 The distinctive feature of N. A. Bernstein’s approach to studying brain mechanisms that control movement was his entirely new at that time understanding of the attributes of the object of control. It is impossible to understand the ways to execute control without detailed analysis of the properties of the system that is being controlled. It requited a lot of effort to obtain the necessary data on the biomechanics of the locomotor apparatus.20 Emphasizing the complexity of this apparatus, its multiple links and the abundance of the degrees of freedom, nonlinear features of the main characteristics of the skeletal muscles, Bernstein paid special attention to the absence of the univocal connection between innervation commands and the resulting movement. The first experimental work on the biodynamic analysis of hammer strikes already showed the complexity and variability of any natural movement and the significant impact on its execution of the forces of the non-muscular origin – the forces of external inertia and reaction.21 For this reason the central nervous system needed to utilize certain original means of governance to assure that the significant section of the trajectory of the working point (for example, hammer) remained unchanged every time even in the presence of a changing environment. At the same time Nikolai Alexandrovich established contacts with his colleagues abroad. In July – August of 1924 he went to Prague as a member of the Soviet delegation to the 1st International Congress on Scientific Labor Organization with the presentation titled “Normalization of Movements”. He became acquainted with the research conducted at the

19 20 21

Ibid., p. 450. Bernstein, N. A.: Obschaya Biomehanika [General Biomechanics]. Moscow 1926. Bernstein, N. A.: Issledovaniya po Biomehanike Udara s Pomoschyu Svetovoy Zapisi [Studies in Biomechanics of Strike using the Light Recording]. Issledovanija CIT [CLI Studies]. Moscow 1923, v. I, issue 1, pp. 9–79.

Movements as a Key to Understanding the Principles of Brain Functioning

53

Laboratory of Labor of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Akademie and Psychotechnical Laboratory Piorkowski in Berlin. Bernstein was gradually becoming a recognized expert in the field of physiology and psychophysiology of movement. In October of 1924 he was elected as a member of the State Institute of Experimental Psychology and the chief of the Laboratory for Movement Research. He was invited to organize a similar laboratory at the State Institute of Physical Training. The work began in January of 1925 but had to stop soon due to the lack of financial support. At the Laboratory of Movement Research of the State Institute of Experimental Psychology, Bernstein participated in the number of projects on biomechanics of walking. But his scientific interests went beyond that of the institute. With the help of the toolkit available at his laboratory he conducted research at other institutions where he also served as a consultant. In 1926 he was invited to the Scientific Technical Institute of the Peoples Committee of Transportation as a consultant for a research project on the dynamics of walking and running. The work on the project was completed in 1927. In 1926 Bernstein was invited to the State Institute of Labor Preservation as a biomechanics consultant. The goal of the project was to increase the workplace efficiency for the Moscow streetcar drivers. This research was later used in designing the workplace for Moscow subway operators. Another research conducted at the same institute under his direction was focused on the miostatics of women’s labor when carrying heavy loads. Bernstein continued to perfect his research methods. During 1926– 1927 he designed a method for the analysis of aperiodic trigonometric sums. He presented the results of this work at the 5th Physics Congress and at the Lebedev´s Physics Society. This method was also used for the analysis of physiological curves. Bernstein’s methods attracted attention of experts from a number of different fields at the State Electrotechnical Institute and at the Ear Clinic of the 2nd Moscow State University. When it became necessary (and with the invention of the new methods also possible) to research human movements during different types of

54

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

labor Bernstein was invited as a consultant to a number of institutions involved in the study of movements in norm and pathology, for example, Professor Gilyarovsky’s Psychiatric Clinic of the 2nd Moscow State University and Professor Rossolimo’s Neurological Clinic of the 1st Moscow State University. The new “front” of research was launched with the common goal of understanding how nervous system organizes human movements. The cases of abnormal functioning of the nervous system became a useful model for such inquiry. The intensity and diversity of this research required broad discussion of the results. In 1921–1927 Bernstein presented 62 papers at different scientific seminars and congresses.

Bernstein and Vygotsky While working at the Institute of Psychology Nikolai Alexandrovich developed close relationship with Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky who later became one of the most prominent psychologists of the 20th century while Bernstein himself became one of the most prominent physiologists. But at the time of their first meeting the fate brought together two unknown energetic young scientists who were bursting with creative ideas. Bernstein and Vygotsky were contemporaries – both were born in 1896. Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky was “gaining altitude” steeply as though he had a premonition of his untimely and tragic death. While living in the town of Gomel, where he spent his childhood and teenage years, he developed a serious interest in literature, and at 19 years of age wrote an outstanding research paper on Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet”. At the beginning of 1924 Vygotsky moved to Moscow where in the course of 10 years he accomplished everything that made him a classic figure in psychology. In 1934, in the middle of the steep “take-off”, his life was cut short by tuberculosis. The text under the working title “Spinoza” that he considered one of the most important work remained unfinished.

Bernstein and Vygotsky

55

It was to remain in the form of a manuscript for several decades before it was finally published. Nikolai Alexandrovich had a slower “take-off”. In the beginning of his career he studied a number of disciplines that seemed to be far removed from his profession and created methods for conducting research on human movements. The scope of his interests included both humanities and exact sciences, learning photography techniques, making handmade articles and various models. He changed the place and the type of work relatively often and with each change he learned something essential that he will use in the future – in the 40s, 50s and the first half of the 60s when his creative work reached its peak. Bernstein lived as though he knew that the future awaited him, that he needed to prepare for it, to “gain strength”, that he had time at his disposal. During the 1920s both Vygotsky and Bernstein lived in Moscow and worked at the Institute of Psychology which was founded by G. I. Chelpanov and starting in 1923 was led by K. N. Kornilov. Vygotsky and Bernstein would meet at the institute (where the former not only worked but lived for a while in a small room in the semi-basement) both during and after work in front of the chess board. Bernstein was very interested in the research that was conducted by Vygotsky’s group. He greatly appreciated Vygotsky’s work and considered him something of a genius. Since his youth Bernstein was fascinated by photography and cinema and he was able to help Vygotsky record some of his research data on children. Alexander Romanovich Luria, the closest colleague of Vygotsky at the Institute of Psychology, became Bernstein’s close friend. They remained friends until Nikolai Alexandrovich’s death. The kind of relationship that Bernstein, Vygotsky and Luria had at that time can be seen from the poem written by Bernstein in 1924.

56

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

“For future drinking brotherhood of Vygotsky and Luria”. “You” and “Thou” We-Gotsky, Luri-Ah! That's how it's always been going. My Lord, will timid dreams come true? What we know is similar and boring; Shall we exclaim: "You-Gotsky!“, „Luri-you!" The words about “similarities” in Bernstein’s poem are clearly not accidental; in fact they are somewhat prophetic. Vygotsky died from tuberculosis in 1934, at a very young age. Bernstein and Luria lived for a long time. And their lives showed how closely connected their ideas and scientific convictions really were. Years later Alexander Romanovich Luria told me that in his lifetime he was fortunate to know three geniuses – Vygotsky, Bernstein and the film director Sergei Eisenstein. At that time some of the staff at the Institute of Psychology assembled a manuscript titled “Practicum in Experimental Psychology” with K. N. Kornilov as a chief editor which was published in 1927. Vygotsky and Bernstein (together with V. A. Artyomov, and A. R. Luria) co-authored this publication. Figure 2.4 “Practicum in Experimental Vygotsky wrote the chapters Psychology”.

Bernstein and Vygotsky

57

on “The Central Moment of Reaction (Complex Reactions)”, “The Effector Moment of Reaction”, “Associations” (together with A. R. Luria). Bernstein wrote the chapters on “The Receptor Moment of Reaction” and “Data Analysis of the Mass Psychological Measurements”. Bernstein’s high opinion of Vygotsky is clear, in particular, from his writings completed shortly after Vygotsky’s death: “The chronogenity of localization, namely, different localization relationships of the same function at different stages of its development are very vividly illustrated by Vygotsky’s observations and the profound law of development and disintegration of mental functions discovered by him. This remarkable scientist, who died so untimely, established that a very similar symptom of brain dysfunction can have different localizations in children and adults.” Further Bernstein cited Vygotsky who said: “And the opposite is true: the brain dysfunctions with the same localization in children and adults can lead to a completely different clinical presentation”.22 Bernstein then compared the views of Vygotsky and the German psychologist Kurt Goldstein on the clinical presentation of the local brain damage. Bernstein discussed Vygotsky’s views on chronogenity of localization in his book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process.” This book was written around 1935 and has been published 2003.23 The fact that some of Bernstein’s works have not reached the reader for decades also connects the fate of Bernstein’s and Vygotsky’s scientific legacies and reflects the complexity of their time. Spiritual closeness between Vygotsky and Bernstein that developed in the 1920s became evident in multiple parallels between the theory of mental activity that originated from Vygotsky’s research and the theory of the physiology of activity that was created by N. A. Bernstein in the last years of his life. The similarity between them primarily lies in the 22

23

Bernstein, N. A. (Eds. I. M. Feigenberg & I. E. Sirotkina): Sovremennyie Iskaniya v Fiziologii Nervnogo Prosessa [Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process]. Moscow: Smysl 2003, p. 317. Ibid.

58

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

fact that both of these theories were able to overcome the popular views on the nature of causal determination of behavior. Their ideas were based on the new type of determinism – determinism through a goal. For example, in his research Bernstein showed that the idea of “desired future” determines the real actions and condition of the subject. The most important contribution of Vygotsky to the field of psychology was his sociocultural theory of child’s mental development, the foundations of which were established in 1928–1931. The fundamental concept of this theory is that of activity. In the beginning of 1925 Vygotsky already was having extended discussions with his staff on the meaning of this term. Psychologist V. V. Davydov writes that “the notion of activity and the notion of action represent the fundamental basis of the entire scientific school of L. S. Vygotsky (L. Vygotsky, A. Leontiev, A. Luria, A. Zaporozhets, D. Elkonin, P. Galperin, etc.). In the 1930-s the representatives of this school already started to study in detail the vital functions of activity and actions as well as their structure and connections with psychology. They identified and described the most significant component of “task” which consisted of “goal” and the conditions of its achievement.24 These directions of research of Vygotsky’s school of psychology were very close to Bernstein’s research in physiology. Describing movements of humans and animals Bernstein emphasized the most important role of goal-directedness, achievement of goals, actions, motivation and activity. Before Bernstein these ideas were not considered a legitimate object of research in physiology. Bernstein’s concept of the “model of the desired future” introduced into neurophysiology the idea that it was necessary for a coded “model”, image of the result that the action strives to achieve to exist in the brain.

24

Davydov, V. V.: Vzaimosvyaz Idey Nauchnyih Shkol L. S. Vygotskogo i N. A. Bernsteina [The Interrelationship of Scientifical Schools of L. S. Vygotsky and N. A. Bernstein]. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy Kultury [Theory and Practice of Physical Culture], 1996, #11, pp. 10–14.

Bernstein and Vygotsky

59

This image anticipated the action and directed it; it caused the onset of the appropriate action. Bernstein asked the question: “Is it warranted to extrapolate the notion of goal beyond the scope of psychology – the only discipline that defined it with the full clarity?”25 For Bernstein the answer to this question was definitely positive: “Goal … determines the processes that should be united in the concept of goal-directedness. The later includes all motivations in the organism’s struggle to achieve the goal and leads to the development and strengthening of the relevant mechanisms of its realization. And all the dynamics of the goal directed struggle via the goal directed mechanisms represent a complex that can best be encompassed by the term activity”.26 After the death of its founder Vygotsky’s school (A. Luria, A. Leontiev, and D. Elkonin) relied on Bernstein’s research. For them Bernstein’s theory was a psychophysiological “foundation” for creating the general psychological theory of activity.

25

26

Bernstein N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow 1990, p. 454. Ibid., pp. 454–455.

60

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Expanding the Scope of Research In May of 1927 Bernstein was elected as a chief of the Physiology of Labor laboratory at the State Scientific Institute of Labor Preservation. Its name kept changing over the years as the scope of research expanded: first it was the Biophysics of Labor laboratory (as of 1929), then the Cabinet of Biomechanics (as of 1931), and, finally, the Biomechanical laboratory (as of 1932).

Figure 2.5 N. A. Bernstein in his office, fall 1931 (courtesy of T. I. Pavlova).

Bernstein expands and further advances his method of cyclogrammetry. He develops the applications of this method for various clinical and in-

Expanding the Scope of Research

61

dustrial goals (the method of static recording, the mirror recording of movements in space with nomographic processing, etc.). He also creates a number of other methods and devices in the field of dynamometry (for example, dynamometer to measure the pressure on the back of a chair, cyclo dynomometer), vibrography, etc. The new devices are constructed for planimetry and stereomicrometry.

Figure 2.6 N. A. Bernstein in the Laboratory of Biomechanics.

The scope of scientific projects at the laboratory is very broad. The expansive experimental research of the mechanics of walking (normal, loaded and fatigued walking) includes hundreds of experiments. Along with Bernstein, his colleagues T. Popova and P. Spilberg also participated in them. Associate Professor N. Vereschagin researches muscle tone in human subjects with N. A. Bernstein as an advisor; other staff at the laboratory (Z. Mogilyanskaya, I. Okuneva, L. Scheglova, E. Steinbach,

62

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

O. Salzgeber) conduct a number of research projects at different factories: analysis of punchers’ movements, research of static muscle tension when holding a load or during different work poses. Bernstein designs a radically new method to determine mass and positions of centers of gravity of different body parts in live human subjects. This method was used in an extensive research aimed at establishing correlations between body parts’ masses and centers of gravity on one hand, Figure 2.7 Alexander S. Sheves, emand with the anthropometric data ployee of N. A. Bernstein at the State on age, gender and constitution on Scientific Institute of Labor Preservathe other. Olga Leonidovna Salztion, plays the piano at home of Nikolai Alexandrovich, date 18.04.1930 geber and Natalia Alexandrovna (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein). Gurvich (second wife of Nikolai Alexandrovich) also took part in this research. Members of the laboratory (A. S. Sheves, N. Feigin, and V. Pervovsky) conducted research on the biodynamic of the piano strokes, the influence of learning on coordination and evolution of these movements. The broad scope of this research required participants to be well acquainted with the works of the best laboratories of physiology worldwide. In 1929 Bernstein travels abroad for three months. He visits Institut de Marey, Institut de Psychologic de la Sorbonne, Institut Pasteur – Laboratoire de Psychotechnique (Prof. Lahy), Laboratoire de l’Hospital St.Anne in Paris; Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut fur Arbeitpsychologie in Dortmund; Professor Bethe and Doctor Simonton’s laboratory in Frankfurt as

Expanding the Scope of Research

63

well as the best scientific laboratories in Berlin. In Paris and Dortmund Bernstein gave lectures (he knew eight foreign languages) and demonstrated the use of cyclogrammetry methods and devices.

Figure 2.8 The transfer of the middle finger of right hand for the octave (C2 and C3 and back) by the motion of forearm and hand, 1925 (courtesy of Andrei Smirnov).

In February of 1932 Bernstein was offered the position of the Chief of Biomechanical Laboratory of Central Institute of Labor for Handicapped at People’s Commissariat for Social Services. Together with Yu. Dementiev Bernstein invented the “speed down movie projector” for this laboratory. Together with I. Soboleva he studying the walking on the prosthetic legs in amputees. As we can see, Bernstein’s work expands to new laboratories, where multiple staff is involved in a number of research projects, however all of them follow the same course. In 1929 Bernstein becomes an Adjunct Professor of the Department of Labor Hygiene at the 1st Moscow State University. The practical applications of his ideas were numerable but with each of them he continued to pursue his main scientific goals that served as a “rod” on which he “threaded” all these investigations. In 1933 Bernstein established a Laboratory of the Physiology of Movements and a Laboratory of Pathophysiology of Movement at the

64

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (Wsesoyuznyiy Institut Experimentalnoy Meditsinyi, WIEM). Despite the small number of staff at the laboratories, the work they conducted was quite extensive. One’s scientific path can be measured in terms of the number of standard procedures rejected and incorrect assumptions and views “bred in the bone” from textbooks that were left behind. The confidence in the path that has already been travelled allows to look further ahead. The science of human movements was still very young: a number of questions awaited experimental research. Movements can be naturally divided into repeated (walking, chewing, etc.) and non-cyclical (writing, the majority of industrial movements – except the most primitive, etc.). The latter types of movements are more complex and more socially significant. But even the first group of movements that Bernstein’s colleagues started their research with, produced clear data on the movement structure of the act of walking and (for the first time in scientific literature) data on how the act of walking develops, its construction, the elements of the central nervous system engaged in this act and the parts of this act inherited by human beings from our closest relatives – mammals. In regards to non-cyclical, and especially voluntary, cortical movements, there was no scientific data on any of them until Bernstein. Even in regards to the simplest cyclical movements, science did not have any valid data on how they are influenced by any of the afferent pathways or structures of central nervous system or the symptoms of their damage. Bernstein, therefore, started his work at the Laboratory of Pathophysiology of Movements with the simple task: using clearly diagnosed clinical cases of certain diseases of nervous system he tried to record (using very precise methods that were available at the laboratory) all typical deviations from the normal movements and find among them those that are “pathogno-matic” to a particular disorder. Having studied those deviations on cases of moderate severity, the scientists could then move on to detecting the same deviations at the early stages of the disease, or in the less severe cases. This would immediately allow for the broad practical application in medical field as early diagnostics in some cases might

Expanding the Scope of Research

65

bring about successful and speedy recovery. Already in his 1928 article “Clinical Approaches in Modern Biomechanics” Bernstein presented this point of view and later defended it in the first volume of his work “Research in Biodynamic of Locomotion” published in 1935. Despite all the difficulties involved in selecting diagnostically solid cases (since WIEM did not have its own clinic), and the stringent process of selection (at times researches had to assess 10–15 patients with tabes dorsalis only to obtain usable data from one or two), they still were able to gradually collect enough data. Every new patient brought added confusions, riddles and contradictions. Bernstein turned away from easy cases in favor of moderate and severe ones; but the problems continued. Bernstein’s conviction that his approach was flawed, that he did not interpret the idea of organic dysfunctions and damaged units correctly or did not properly understand the projections of central abnormalities on movements was growing faster than the accumulation of the new data. And Bernstein stopped the ready for publication data on the pathology of walking and dedicated several self-critical pages in the second volume on the research of locomotion that he submitted to the publisher explaining the reason for doing this. Why the wide selection of clearly diagnosed clinical cases did not produce clear and stable pathognomic symptoms that Bernstein had hoped for? There are several reasons and Bernstein understood that they could potentially present a general theoretical interest as well. First of all, there are no known cases of an isolated loss of a function. If one of the organs or systems shuts down, it immediately creates the secondary, reflective disturbances (“diashizes” – splits) as well as broad functional restructuring and compensatory modifications within the system. Consequently, the picture that can be observed by researchers is never caused by the primary loss of a certain function or a local dysfunction only but rather by the whole complex of reactions that organism displays in case of an affliction, by the whole package of causes that interact inside the organism at this particular stage of its existence. What the researcher observes is not the symptoms of an illness but rather the

66

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

way the organism protests against it. The researchers were able to express their growing doubts in the appropriateness of existing division of nosological units (units of illness). The empirical research of their predecessors established certain types and standards of illness classifications but if the foundation of the established classification is questionable, the classification itself comes under the doubt. When that happens, then the mere fact, discovered by Bernstein, of the absence of stable parallels between the classical nosological units and their movement indicators is not a defeat but rather a victory that opens up new possibilities. It means, first of all, that Bernstein’s method allows to view the well-known illnesses familiar to everyone from the new and possibly unexpected points of view. Bernstein thought that our understanding of the norm also needs to be reconsidered since it can be viewed as the flip side of the “coin” of pathology. Are we clear on what the norm is? Should we base our understanding of it on the average statistical norm or something positive in the biological sense or a sub-threshold, “subliminal pathology”? If we compare the observed symptoms not with the average impersonal norm but with the controlled norm where certain preliminary control, based on the justifiable principles, was applied, then these symptoms can be viewed in a different, entirely new light, which, in turn, would help advance our understanding of a number of general issues in the field of pathology. The value of studying movements as a way to understand the dysfunctions of central nervous system and their dynamics lays in the fact that motor system is very flexible and has multiple possibilities, yet, at the same time, is very closely connected with the central nervous system. “We have not yet fully appreciated the fact that motion represents one of the very few biological variables which can be estimated not only in terms of “more or less” but which also possesses an unlimited number of qualities (as mathematicians would put it – contains an excessive number of parameters). That is why movements are promising to become, and in the very foreseeable future, important indicators of the functional state of the organism – healthy as well as diseased. And if, even now, it is becom-

Expanding the Scope of Research

67

ing quite clear that this is supposed to happen based on the principally new approach to classification and understanding of the “units of disease”, than it must motivate us even more to advance our research and connect it with the fundamental basic research in our institute” – wrote Bernstein in his report on the results of the work of the WIEM Laboratory of the Physiology of Movements. Bernstein’s research had as its foundation the new and complex research methodology, complex and labor intensive processing of primary experimental data, and used an elaborate mathematical approach. This caused misunderstanding, often irritation, which was already obvious during Bernstein’s employment at WIEM, and later followed him in different forms to other scientific establishments. The article titled “A Donkey, a Goat and a Club-foot Bear” appeared in WIEM newspaper, and later, on November 19, 1936 in the issue 26 (47) of this newspaper the article written by P. O. Spilberg, the member of the Laboratory of the Physiology of Movements, titled “On the Work of Comrade Farfel in the Department of the Physiology of Movements” was also published. Spilberg did not understand Bernstein’s research. As a result her pen created a false article that blamed the leadership of the Department of the Physiology of Movements for the staff’s inability to understand the results of the experimental research. Spilberg attributed her own inability to see to all the rest of the staff. The conflict at the laboratory cost Bernstein his health. He had to submit his explanations addressed to the Directors of the institute, Party bureau leaders and WIEM newspaper. The special commission which included P. K. Anokhin, K. M. Bykov, V. I. Lavrentyev and N. V. Raeva was established to resolve the conflict. The final “verdict” of the commission was far from objective and the situation was very painful for Bernstein. In 1937 the persecutions continued and it was particularly disturbing considering the political situation in the country at that time. An anonymous article appeared in the WIEM issue #11 (62) from March 28, 1937 and Bernstein had to write a detailed (10 typewritten pages) response to all the accusations presented in the article to the WIEM Directorship

68

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

explaining this article false nature. This was a very difficult political time in the USSR, the time of Stalinist terror, when any accusation could lead to a label of “saboteur” and an “enemy of the people”, arrest and conviction without investigation or fair trial. Many staff of WIEM ended up among those arrested. The author of the anonymous article couldn’t have been ignorant of the blow they were serving to Bernstein. Some rascals used this method (and not without success, unfortunately) to get rid of their scientific opponents and rivals. Bernstein’s line of thinking led him to the necessity to research the problem of coordination – overcoming of the excessive degrees of freedom. He defines the meaning of the word “co-ordination” as a cooperative action of separate elements. In his article “The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization” published in 1935 he wrote: “Coordination is the action that provides the unity and the structural integrity of a movement. It is based on the certain organization of the mutual activity of neurons”.27 Thus, having started with the study of biomechanics, Bernstein soon changed it from the object of study to its means, the model for resolving broader and more general issues of the work of the executive activity of the brain of higher organisms and human beings. Having designed the methods for precise assessment of biomechanical characteristics of various motor actions, Bernstein used the data obtained to conduct the original analysis of the organization of the control function of central nervous system. The nature of this organization is defined by the demands created by the structure of the peripheral object under control and by the characteristics of its activity. This approach accounted for the important role of deduction and theoretical analysis in Bernstein creative work and, due to the exceptional qualities of his intellect, in the mid-30s already led Bernstein to formulating the significant principal conclusions on the funda27

Bernstein, N. A.: The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization. In: N. A. Bernstein (Ed.), The Coordination and Regulation of Movements (pp. 15– 59). Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Original work published in Arhiv Biologicheskich Nauk [Archives of Biological Sciences], 1935, v. 38, issue 1).

Expanding the Scope of Research

69

mental characteristics of the brain control of activity, which only a decade later resurged in the works of the founders of cybernetics. Even now many of Bernstein’s ideas, formulated in the mid-30s, serve as a program of actions, a program of research. N. A. Bernstein formulated the most important thesis that the learning of new movement consists not in the repetition of the similar action rather in learning to resolve the motor task anew every time (the learning principle of “repetition without repetition”). One of his significant achievements was establishing the fact of a single-valued result of a movement of the operating point in accordance with the “model of the desired future” but indefinite ways to achieve this result and the indeterminate number of effector commands (depending on the circumstances). The stability of a highly significant factor (achieving the result of the action) is maintained through variations in the less significant factor (the ways to achieve the result). The congruity between the motor task and the real movement of the operating point (located either on the arm or on the tool) is achieved through obtaining the information on what has already been accomplished and comparing it with the model of the desired future. The coordination of motor acts is based on the principle of sensory corrections. This principle became one of the most important in the contemporary view of the animal and human behavior. Already in 1928, preceding the main principles of cybernetics and using as a foundation the ideas of I. M. Sechenov and A. A. Ukhtomsky, which he highly valued, Bernstein formulated the idea of feedback and sensory corrections, moving from the classical concept of the disconnected reflex arc to the idea of the closed regulatory system. Charles Bell and I. M. Sechenov noted the importance of afferent innervations in the regulation of muscle activity. But the principal of cyclical control based on feedback as it applies to the organization of movement, in other words, using the signals about already achieved results to achieve the desired one was experimentally formulated in 1929 in one of the early publications of Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein. The thirty three years old scientist wrote: “Every motor impulse, producing the

70

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

peripheral motor effect, thus causes proprioceptical, afferent innervations that, in turn, impact the course of the future motor impulses. Here we can see a kind of a cyclical connection of mutual conditionality that can be quantitatively traced to its finale”.28 N. A. Bernstein formulated the principle of “equal simplicity”: “For every structural scheme that can perform a number of basic processes belonging to some manifold, the line of equal simplicity corresponds to those directions on the manifold where the movement does not change either structural principles or the principles of functional scheme”. The integrity and the structural complexity of live movements noted by I. M. Sechenov and expressed in the A. A. Ukhtomsky’s idea of dominant, became the object of intense research by Bernstein. His views, based in the extensive experimental data, were outlined in his article “The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization“. The article published in 1935 in the journal “Archives of Biological Sciences” nowadays became a classic. This article summarizes the results of the first period of scientific research of N. A. Bernstein. The radically new (and unfortunately not well understood by his contemporaries) idea expressed in this article was the assertion that if the organism’s adaptive reaction forms through the process of constant sensory correction, then in central nervous system unavoidably should exist, in some coded form, the anticipation of the desired final result of this action – “the model of the desired future” as Bernstein himself called it. The main idea of the article can be expressed as following: “Based on the cyclographical analysis of the fine motor characteristics it was established that even the simplest motor reaction is not caused by some “preformed” fixed set of excitatory reactions but, on the contrary, is formed by impulses that developed in the course of the formation of this reaction and depend on: 28

Bernstein, N. A.: Klinicheskie Puti Sovremennoy Biomechaniki [Clinical Paths of Contemporary Biomechanics]. In: Sbornik Trudov Gosudarstvennogo Instituta dlja Usovershenstvovaniya Vrachey Imeni V. I. Lenina [The Collected Works of the Lenin’s State Institute of Physicians’ Advancement], Kazan 1929, v. 1, pp. 249–270.

Expanding the Scope of Research

71

A) Information about the situation at the motor periphery in that particular micro interval, carried along the afferent paths; B) Degree of discrepancy (i.e. what is now broadly defined in physiological research literature as “incongruity” between the situation and the goal of the movement). Thus, the formation of motor reactions occurs in the process of their constant sensory correction, persistent, more and more precise adjustment to the required final result”.29 Coordination – activity that proFigure 2.9 Cyclocamera with vides the unity and structural integrity obturator (front view). The disk of movements – is mostly based on with slits (obturator) is in front the certain organization of joint neuof camera lens. Through the ron functioning rather than processes slits of the rotating obturator the lighting bulbs attached to the that occur in separate neurons. Such moving body parts are filmed organization has to express itself (1930). anatomically with a particular localization. But Bernstein emphasized that one should not confuse localization with topology which refers to a certain brain area. In 1935 article he already formulated the ideas of sensory corrections (feedback) and reflex circle that replaced the traditional ideas of disconnected reflex arc and anticipated the ideas of cybernetics. Bernstein paved the way from Sechenov’s “control of movements through feelings” to cybernetics.

29

Bassin, V. F.: O Podlinnom Znachenii Neyrofiziologicheskih Kontseptsiy N. A. Bernsteina [On the True Significance of N. A. Bernstein’s Neurophysiological Concepts]. Voprosyi Filosofii [Issues in Philosophy], 1967, #11.

72

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Bernstein’s important accomplishment is the establishment of the fact that movements are determined by the “model of the desired future”. He was able to reveal the means that are used to resolve motor tasks and reach the necessary result on the periphery. The congruence between the motor task and the actual movement of the operating point in the presence of a wide variety of ways to achieve such congruence, variable conditions of its realization and unpredictable obstacles is achieved through obtaining the Figure 2.10 Cyclocamera with information on the already accomobturator (side view), 1930. plished and comparing it to the model of the desired future. Bernstein based the coordination of motor acts on the principle of sensory corrections that received wide recognition in the field of physiology of movements. N. A. Bernstein one of the first began to think of a movement control as the realization of a certain program that is stored in the coded form in central nervous system. The inherent unison of movements, their integrity in space and time presents a weighted argument in favor of the presence of “precise formulas of movements or their engrams” in central nervous system. Bernstein continues: “We can assert that at the moment when the movement started central nervous system already had at its disposal the whole collection of engrams necessary to see this movement through to the end. The existence of motor habits and automated movements proves the presence of such engrams within central nervous system”.30

30

Bernstein, N. A.: Ocherki po Fiziologii Dviženii i Fiziologii Aktivnosti [Outline of the Physiology of Movements and the Physiology of Activity]. Moscow: Medizina 1966, p. 62.

Science and Leisure

73

Among the new approaches introduced by I. M. Sechenov at the end of 19th century that advanced the understanding of central nervous system functioning was also his arguments against the “anatomical approach” and narrow “localizationism”. In his preface to the Lectures in Physiology of Nervous Centers presented to the group of physicians in 1889–1890 Sechenov wrote that most importantly he would like “to introduce physiological system to the description of the central nervous phenomena in place of the ruling to this day anatomical system, i.e. bring into the forefront not the form but the activity, not the topographical characteristics of organs but the formation of central processes into natural groupings”.31 This direction of Sechenov’s thought received a brilliant development in Bernstein’s research that completed the first period of his creative activity.

Science and Leisure In the 1920s young scientists spent time in scientific debates but they also enjoyed vacationing together. One of this vacation spots was the recreation place “Uzkoe”, near Moscow. The mid-1920s became a short period of time when the young generation of scientists, writers and artists was full of bright hopes for the future, when their spirits were uplifted and creative juices were flowing. Their vacation time together was full of laughter, jokes, games, and tricks they played on each other. This atmosphere was very typical of the young scientific and artistic intelligentsia of Moscow and Leningrad. It seemed they couldn’t get enough air of freedom as though anticipating adversities and the terror of 1930s that lay ahead.

31

Sechenov, I. M.: Fiziologiya Nervnyih Tsentrov [Physiology of Nervous Centers]. Selected works, v. 2. Moscow 1956, p. 662.

74

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Figure 2.11 Sergei Bernstein is leaving for the practical training. From left to right: S. A. Bernstein, T. S. Popova, N. A. Bernstein, K. Tisengausen, E. V. Okolovich, 1925 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

In Leningrad many gifted young people congregated around Mikhail Mikhaylovich Bakhtin. A lot of bright and talented people participated in these gatherings – musician Maria Veniaminovna Yudina, musicologist Ivan Ivanovich Sollertinsky, poet Nikolai Alexeevich Kluev, philosopher and literary critic Lev Vasilyevich Pumpyansky. Their friendly and cheerful gatherings and more serious “Kant seminar” ended in 1929 with Bachtin’s arrest. Young Moscow scientists spent vacation time together in Uzkoe. Bernstein came there as well. Jokes, poems, games of billiard, etc. were mixed with scientific discussions. Pyotr Petrovich Lazarev, the bright biophysicist, often set the tone and was the center of all the fun. He was called “PiPi” – by the first letters of his name. In December of 1922

Science and Leisure

75

Bernstein wrote a funny poem that conveys the spirit of Uzkoe where they vacationed after intense scientific work. The title of the poem was “From Fet”: Click of balls, the empty pockets, Old and torn out cloth, Gypsum muses in the sockets, Windows half verst32… Songs, the yelling of the players, Chain with chandelier, And Stepun, and Alexeev, And Pi-Pi, Pi-Pi! ... Grigory Samuilovich Landsberg – a young physicist – also vacationed there. Bernstein and Landsberg – a physician and a physicist – wrote a comic dialogue between a physician and a physicist in the form of a parody on the dialogues of antique philosophers. A Conversation of Two Antique Philosophers on the Refined in Medicine and Physics (Imitation of Kozma Prutkov) The Medic: Yes, I enjoy amidst laurels and rose Tricks of the dark-skinned satyrs! The Physicist: Yes I enjoy both Lesbos and Paros! The Medic: Yes, I enjoy the Propylaeas. The Physicist: Yes, I enjoy when the brilliant Stepun Soul my ignites with his genius! The Medic: Plica inflates me with joy like balloon, And weighty stone in the kidneys! The Physicist: Pleasure to see electricity croon, Streaming through cathode lamps safely! 32

Old Russian measurement of length, about 1km.

76

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

The Medic: Ductus Botalli in monkey baboons! The Physicist: Cyanide salts flashing gaily! Atoms of Niels Bohr! The Medic: Arsenobenzene! The Physicist: Rays of Roentgen’s recalcitrant! The Medic: Merciless shot of the stomach vaccine, Tertiary Syphilis resistant! The Physicist: Joyfully disintegrate nitrogen! The Medic: I love typhoid and cholera, Freak without brain drowned in formalin! The Physicist: Fingers’ law of the Ampere! The Medic: Cut off the chicken’s head this way and that! The Physicist: Measure constant in this manner! The Medic: Experiment with the dogs as subjects! The Physicist: Check Reserford’s theorems! The Medic: Torturing guinea pigs I love for sure! The Physicist: Honor the works of Albert Einstein! The Medic: Tear hypophysis! The Physicist: Gladly endure Bold spot of Kogan slash Bernstein! The Medic: Pleasure for me, like the spring month of May, Glanders together with twitches! The Physicist: Going to Nerydaj so I can play Play my life greatly enriches! (Look at each other contemptuously and go away)

Science and Leisure

77

Figure 2.12 A funny drawing by N. A. Bernstein (1927). Preparation of Gigantosaurus for cyclography. Fixing bulbs at the hind limb of Gigantosaurus. At the top – the general view. At the bottom – the details: Tatyana Sergeevna Popova is standing on the back of Nikolai Alexandrovich and is fixing a bulb to the hind limb of Gigantosaurus.

78

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

Figure 2.13 A funny drawing by N. A. Bernstein illustrating a notice that he has seen: “Persons who did not take down a child standing on the seat at the check taker’s demand would be inflicted to 25 rubles fine” – without punctuation marks. A check taker is standing on the child’s seat, and passengers shoot him by different cameras.

This was written in December of 1922 – four years before Landsberg´s pioneer research on the molecular dispersion of light in crystals. In another two years G. S. Landsberg together with L. I. Mandelstam discovered (independently from the Indian physicist Raman) the effect that was named after all three of them and that brought them the world fame. Later both Landsberg in 1941 and Bernstein in 1948 became the recipients of Stalin’s Award for the collection of their research work (the highest award in USSR at the time for achievements in science and art). But alarming sounds often disturbed their relaxing vacation time. Political events created fear among Bernstein’s friends.

Science and Leisure

79

The year is 1925. In his fight for unlimited power Stalin, after Lenin’s death, sets to eliminate Trotsky. Accusations – justified or not – of siding with Trotsky become very dangerous for many. And often the friends of the suspects attempt to save them by removing them from the presence of the “all-seeing eyes” of the persecutors. We see the reflection of this in some of Bernstein’s writings from February of 1925: OTTO SCHMIDT “OTTO SCHMIDT, accused of Trotskyism, is appointed as ambassador to Argentina”. “L. D. Trotsky, removed from his post for more than a year, is currently vacationing in Caucasian region”. Not the newspaper news. Buenos Aires means “good air” in Spanish. Winter’s passing, frost’s patina, Leafs and petals wither; OTTO SCHMIDT from Argentina Wants to be delivered. Writes to SCHMIDT party official From Soviet arena: „OTTO SCHIMDT, what is the problem In your Argentina?“ „No, my friend you need vacation And to heal from virus; OTTO SCHMIDT, the air is splendid In Buenos Aires!“

80

Chapter II. In Search of and Finding his Path

„ABC is surely worth it Nothing to complain of: Climate Southern is perfect For your various ailments!“ (Note of Bernstein: ABC – South American Union: Argentina, Brazil, Chile.)

Figure 2.14 Celebration in honor of N. A. Bernstein 24.02.1935. From left to right: T. S. Popova, N. A. Bernstein, Sobolev, V. I. Lavrentyev (playing piano), unknown, Znamenskaya (?), unknow (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Science and Leisure

Figure 2.15 N. A. Bernstein films the river Skhodnya, 1936 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein)

81

Figure 2.16 Sergei and Nikolai Bernstein, 1936 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Figure 2.17 Moscow’s suburb – Skhodnya. From left to right: N. A. Bernstein, Sasha (A. S. Bernstein – nephew of N. A. Bernstein), unknown boy, A. K. Bernstein, T. S. Popova (Sasha’s mother), 1934 (courtesy of A. S. Bernstein).

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov The First Meeting In April of 1924 Nikolai Alexandrovich travelled to Leningrad to visit the laboratories of physiology of I. P. Pavlov and V. M. Bechterev’s institute. He thoroughly studied their research and methodology, attended lectures on conditioned reflexes. Even then Bernstein already realized that the theory of conditioned reflexes cannot be applied to labor movements. This conviction was clear in his report “Labor Trainings and Conditioned Reflexes” presented at the seminar of Central Labor Institute on May 9, 1924. In Pavlov’s experiments animal subjects were kept in stalls, isolated from the rest of the world (“the tower of silence” in Koltushi), in other words, they were placed in artificial environment. The natural human movements, on the other hand, (including labor movements) are goal-oriented, they are directed by the goal actively established by the person and not by the external stimuli. Bernstein thought that “if extremely uncomplicated activity of salivary gland allowed to use it successfully to analyze the infinitely abundant data on the higher nervous activity of animals, then …human motor activity can and should turn out to be an excellent, promising indicator in studying the processes of central nervous system”.33 Already in his research on the hammer striking the chisel Bernstein showed that the movement trajectory can be variable, that the final result is achieved in a new way every time. In animal experiments with conditioned reflexes the reaction is always the same. “Repetition without repetition” – a significant aspect of goal directed movements of human beings – did not fit well into Pavlov’s system of conditioned reflexes. Bernstein realized that in active movements not all the parameters are important for

33

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologiya Dvizheniy [Physiology of Movement]. In: Konradi, G. P. et al. (Eds.), Obschie Osnovyi Fiziologii Truda [The Foundation of Physiology of Labor]. Moscow-Leningrad: BioMedGiz 1934, p. 449.

The First Meeting

83

fulfilling the motor task. In relation to those that are not important the movement can be variable. Each repetition of a movement does not reproduce the same solution but itself goes through the process of obtaining a solution under changing conditions, in other words, the construction of movement rather than its reproduction takes place. According to Bernstein, the motor behavior is not built from reflexes similar to bricks. Reflex is not an element of action but an elementary action. The goal directed active action is aimed at initiating a change in the environment according to the goal established by the organism. But these ideas were developing gradually. In the mid-1920s Nikolai Alexandrovich still considered reflexes to play an important role in the functioning of nervous system. In 1926 one of his acquaintances (U. Nemlicher) wrote Bernstein a poem as a joke: “The reflexes – are trash, and Pavlov – is a monkey, But of the human suit; And if, indeed, a passion – is a reflex, We call such passion moot”. Bernstein also responded with a poem, and a rather angry one: No, dear poet, reflexes – are not a joke; Lying in wait for old-age cause and effect, Oh, Yura Nemlicher, they’re a banner or A pellet. Even if all about reflexes is nonsense, even if All beasts raise their voice against them One thing about reflexes is true, their slogan is Cause-effect. Even if I don’t trust Pavlov, not a little, Even if “inhibition” is a mere guess, Even if everything in humans is a riddle,

84

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

More or less. Even if all unclear wherever I go, Even if man himself is helpless; But nonsense about soul and free will I will blow With reflex. Like myths about fate such is to me, The babble that our will has freedom: Life’ll tell you “a”, – you will respond with “b” – Nothing more in it. Even if Pavlov is a monkey – so what? Your, Yura, ancestor – was also a monkey; Isn’t there a flaw in every of Man’s frontage? Even Socrates was a monkey not Phoebus; The Darwin’s forehead is worth more than ones that made of copper; The naked thought, rid of the dress of fiction, leads us to The conquest. The law of causality for us is – master and a God; Our banner – not Bergson but Sechenov and Flechsig; And all false fantasies are worth Less than reflexes! 1926. March

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

85

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period 1930s. Bernstein is consumed with studying literature in the fields of physiology of nervous system, psychology, clinical studies of nervous diseases. He reads in Russian, German, English and French. He looks at the broad canvas of assumptions stretched in front of him about the nervous system, areas of known and unknown, bright and dark spots, suggestions and guesses, doubts and places that are clear, contradictions and puzzles. By the mid-30s all that he has read and thought through gets transmitted to paper. The title page of the thick manuscript reads: Prof. N. Bernstein Doctor of Medicine CONTEMPORARY STUDIES IN THE PHYSIOLOGY OF NEURAL PROCESS This book is the review of the state of nervous system studies in the 1930s and the history of science that led to it. But this is not just a dull index of researchers and their discoveries. This is not just a book on the physiology of neural processes, this is Bernstein’s book. The entire text is colored by his unique interpretation of the content, his point of view. Here we don’t yet see the results of what would later become Bernstein’s research, but the state of neurophysiology that preceded it is outlined very well; in other words, Bernstein framed the launching pad from which the ascent of his own independent research began, marking the launch of a new epoch in the studies of nervous system. The detailed outline of the history of the “physiology of neural process” is preceded by the general considerations on the fate of human knowledge about the world we live in. The introduction to the book titled “On Dynamics of Scientific Views” begins with the phrase that every branch of science undergoes changes in views, theories, ideologies; no theory is everlasting. Bernstein writes: “In recent times physics experi-

86

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

enced the collapse of one of the most powerful and seemingly unsinkable theories – that of Newton mechanics”. Every theory goes through three stages – ages – in the process of its development. In its youth every theory integrates and summarizes facts that have been accumulated up until the time of its birth. It brings the chaos of these facts into order, fermenting it similar to how food gets fermented by the chemicals of a digestive system and thus facilitating their digestion by our thought organs. The age of maturity is the time of anticipations and predictions. Mature theory can anticipate facts that have not yet been discovered through direct observation by using the main postulate to derive logical conclusions and thus directing a future experimental research. The old age follows the age of maturity. It begins with the discovery of the first fact that does not fit into the theory. Typically, it does not annihilate the theory right away. Mostly it will either be argued or not even noticed driven away by the strong inertia of the existing doctrine. It happens often that after the new theory has already prevailed over the outdated one, the authors of the coup are surprised to discover in the old publications of many and many of their predecessors experiments that should have been fatal for the old theory. But the old theory passed by them without as much as noticing their potentially damaging effect. If, however, the new fact is so powerful and strong that it can’t possibly be ignored or rejected, the careful and reserved remodeling of the old theory begins. A new room gets built for the uninvited newcomer somewhere in the attic. Even if it makes the whole architectural structure of the building look ugly, it almost never forces a total replacement of the dilapidated building by a new structure. Such old buildings that are covered with additions on all sides can survive for decades until they crumble under the pressure of the new generations of facts – and, thus, the theory dies. Bernstein uses examples from the history of science to illustrate his ideas. The triumph of the theory of relativity in physics was preceded by “additions” of theories of Lorentz and FitzGerald hypothesis. Helmholtz’s theory of resonance hearing crumbles under the heavy additions

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

87

of Evald, Revess, Keller, Wever, Bray34, etc. When theory of chronaxie triumphed over the old theory of Du Bois-Raymond, the authors of the new theory, Lapicque and Wise, realized that they had a large number of predecessors, among whom were such star-physiologists as Fikk, Brukke, Engelmann, D’Arsonval and Vvedensky. Discussing his views on the dynamics of scientific ideas, Bernstein quoted the French physiologist Louis Lapicque35: “To evolution means to change. We need to teach our mind to accept these changes. This proves to be rather cumbersome for the human race that gets used to dogmas and routines and would have preferred the eternal truths. Conventional thinking expects facts without reservations from science: it fully accepts every theory and when the theory changes it starts accusing science of fallibility. The spirit of science, on the contrary, rests on the assumption that our theories cannot be anything other than just partially true and, as such, they are partially false”. “The spirit of science requires that we accept the relativity of knowledge – not only in the philosophical sense of this word but also in the sense of the transiency of the moment, i.e. the frailty of a temporary position, which is just a period of rest before the alarm sounds, and one morning a voice of a trumpet of unforeseen discovery will take us away to the more forefront position”. “During periods of science transformation, its transitional periods science settles somehow amidst the ruins of the past theory and unfinished walls of the newly created one. And it might well be true that it is more difficult to completely remove the ruins than to erect new walls”.36

34

35 36

Volley theory states that groups of neurons of the auditory system respond to a sound by firing action potentials slightly out of phase with one another so that when combined, a greater frequency of sound can be encoded and sent to the brain to be analyzed. The theory was proposed by Ernest Wever and Charles Bray in 1930 as a supplement to the frequency theory of hearing. It was later discovered that this only occurs in response to sounds that are about 500 Hz to 5000 Hz. Louis Lapicque (1866–1952). Lapicque L.: Evolutions récentes des doctrines relatives au système nerveux. Uspehi sovremennoj biologii [Advances in Modern Biology], 1935, v. IV, issue #4–5, p. 227.

88

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

For Bernstein the time when he wrote “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process” was that “period of rest before the alarm”. It seemed that he studied, explored the ”launching pad” to prepare for a new flight. The author’s goal in writing this book was to “at least outline the complexity and disputability of ideas and the intensity of contemporary clash of thought on this front”. The issue of brain centers and their localizations was contested in the most heated and forceful debates. In the chapter titled “Center and Localization. The Historical Overview” he painted a lively picture of the history of the problem of relationship between functions and topology. On one hand, a new naturalistic theory of the brain functioning was formulated by Albrecht von Haller37 in the 18th century. He defined the brain as a sensorium commune, a sensory integrater. Haller thought that no spatially defined centers of functions exist in the brain (for example, vision, hearing, etc.) but that they are diffusely spread throughout most of the brain. On the other hand, there emerged partly scientific (anatomical) and partly fantastic (phrenological) views of Gall38 who argued that every function has its specific area of localization in the brain. Besides “simple” functions Gall also assigned specific localizations to such attributes as the sense of place, the sense of speech, color, the instincts of reproduction and self-preservation, poetic and mathematical abilities and even sarcastic mind, the feeling of respect, love of children, fear of God, etc. N. A. Bernstein traces the history of localizationism and antilocalizationism, two opposing views that began with Gall and Haller. He compares this history to the swinging of a pendulum. After Gall the pendulum moved to the other side, towards antilocalizationism. This was more the result of Gall’s fantastic and unfounded views than of the efforts of the proponents of the later theory. 37

38

Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777) was a Swiss anatomist, physiologist, naturalist and poet. Franz Josef Gall (1758–1828) was a neuroanatomist, physiologist, and pioneer in the study of the localization of mental functions in the brain.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

89

Marie Jean Pierre Flourens39, who studied birds’ brain by removing parts of brain hemispheres, initially did not register any significant changes in volition or intellectual functioning. The removal of the major part of brain hemispheres caused steady, increasing deterioration of neuropsychological abilities. The functions affected by extirpation restored gradually if at least some part of the brain (and it did not matter which one) remained intact. Consequently Flourens concluded that “the hemisphere mass in physiological sense is as equal and homogenous as the mass of a gland”. But future discoveries pushed the pendulum back towards localizationism. Gustav Theodor Fritsch40 and Eduard Hitzig41 showed that stimulating certain parts of the cerebral cortex coincide with particular isolated movements. The number of researchers, clinicians and experimenters kept growing and more discoveries of nerve centers in the brain followed. As the number of nerve centers increased their size decreased and eventually scientists came to the realization that every nerve cell is in essence an elementary center. “The name “center” was stamped on nerve cells” (A. Bethe). What exactly is “localized” in a center? One school of thought maintained that it is sensitivity (the theory of sensory centers). Hermann Munk42, Meynert and Pavlov saw cortex as the cluster of sensitive centers. A different school of thought started with Paul Flechsig, who argued that in addition to sensory centers there are other centers in the brain that are not directly connected with periphery (theory of associative centers – Broadbent, Flechsig, Korsakov).

39

40

41 42

Marie Jean Pierre Flourens (1794–1867) was a French physiologist, the founder of experimental brain science and a pioneer in anesthesia. Gustav Theodor Fritsch (1838–1927) was a German anatomist, anthropologist, traveller and physiologist. Eduard Hitzig (1839–1907) was a German neurologist and neuropsychiatrist. Hermann Munk (1839–1912) was a Jewish German physiologist. Munk wrote on the physiology of the nerves and especially on the brain.

90

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

N. A. Bernstein emphasizes that indisputably I. M. Sechenov was the prime authority in the field of physiological associationism. He was the first physiologist who dared to use the laws of association (connections between certain concepts) to explain human behavior from the physiological standpoint. However, experiments with extirpation of local sections of the brain again pushed the pendulum towards antilocalizationism. Experiments of Friedrich Leopold Goltz43 demonstrated that in response to local lesions the organism reacts as an integral system that cannot be divided into separate components. After severe general symptoms immediately following the brain surgery (primary shock), different symptoms begin to move into the forefront, specifically, the symptoms associated with various functions such as movements, sensory functions and higher nervous activity. These symptoms gradually become weaker and can potentially disappear altogether if the extirpation was not extensive. In cases where the whole cerebral cortex was extirpated only synthetic symptoms remained present as opposed to the ones associated with local functions. N. A. Bernstein emphasizes that Sechenov understood the complexity of the system of processes that occur when the integrity of cerebral cortex is compromised. This is evident from the types of disturbances caused by extirpation as well as the types of restorative processes that follow. In his book “Physiology of Nerve Centers” Sechenov added to Flourens’s conclusions drawn from experiments with birds only: “The impact of the cerebral cortex on the voluntary character of movements and sensory awareness decreases with the decrease in the level of cortex development in animals”. Sechenov was acutely aware of the complexity of the issue of functions localization. Supporters of the theory of localization and their scientific opponents had facts at their disposal to prove their respective theories, yet they were unable to disprove the opposing arguments.

43

Friedrich Leopold Goltz (1834–1902) was a German physiologist.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

91

Bernstein was able to come up with the solution to the problem of functions localization through his experiments in biodynamics conducted in the 1920s through early 1930s. Classical physiology before Sechenov used neuromuscular preparations, decapitated frogs and anesthetized animals to study movements. These were conditions far removed from the natural environment in which movements occur in real life. In the field of anatomy P. F. Lesgaft made an attempt to break through to the real life conditions (dynamic anatomy). I. M. Sechenov wrote very observant and witty “Essay on Human Labor Movements”. The noteworthy shift of interest from the laboratory research of isolated reflexes to the study of human labor movements was warranted by the demands of life, the social demands to which I. M. Sechenov responded. But Sechenov did not have at his disposal the special methods that were required to study human movements as they occur in natural environment and their localization. These methods created by N. A. Bernstein in the 1920s were called kymocyclography and cyclogrammetry and they not only allowed to record movements (“graphics”) but to measure them as well (“metric”). And Bernstein directed his efforts to studying physical labor to ease its demands on workers. (See more on this subject above). The sea of facts that spread in front of him required new interpretation. It is these demands that prompted N. A. Bernstein to create his physiology of activity. Sechenov’s thread in the fabric of Bernstein’s creative work consisted not only of the idea of self-regulation, idea of “muscle sense” in movement regulation or the key role of sensory organs. Sechenov’s influence permeates the overall style, the spirit of Bernstein’s life and creative work: the daring originality of his thought, his honesty and selflessness, unwavering dedication to what he believed was true and his striving “not for the garland, nor look upon the pain, unmoved support the voice of scorn or laudation”44 (although this should be called courage

44

A. S. Pushkin "Ya pamyatnik sebe vozdvig nerukotvornyiy…" (A monument I've raised not built with hands…), 1836.

92

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

rather than unmoved support). The year of 1935 can be considered the end of the first creative period in N. A. Bernstein’s life and the beginning of the second one. His comprehensive and thoughtful article “The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization” became an excellent summation of this stage in his scientific career. The formal acknowledgement of the significance of his research came in 1935 when Nikolai Alexandrovich was awarded a Degree of Medicine for the collection of his works. But let us go back to his manuscript “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process”. Clinical observations of patients with the local brain damage and the research on animals kept producing new data confirming the existence of specific nerve centers in the brain. In 1877 and 1878 H. Munk published a paper in which he proved the existence of visual and olfactory centers in cerebral cortex. In 1875 D. Ferrier in his experiments on monkeys confirmed the existence of the auditory center in cerebral cortex. He showed that the damage to the temporal area of the brain caused deafness in experimental animals. Psychiatrist C. Wernicke in 1874 described aphasia in patients with the damage to the upper part of the left temporal lobe. They developed “verbal deafness” losing the ability to understand the meaning of the words although their hearing remained intact. Thus, “the Wernicke center” – the verbal auditory center in the human brain and its localization was discovered. The number of nerve centers discovered in the brain was growing fast. H. Munk considered the whole external surface of cerebral cortex (except the “visual center” in the occipital lobe and the “auditory center” in the temporal lobe) as a tactile and general sensory area. He thought that the loss of tactile ability (skin sensation) and the ability to localize one’s body parts in space caused the motor dysfunctions observed in patients with the damage to this area of the brain, in other words he considered the disturbance of voluntary movements secondary. Based on his experiments with conditioned reflexes Pavlov in 1912 supported Munk’s ideas, describing the projection of the body on cerebral cortex as “a motor analyzer”, i.e. the cluster of sensory cells. According to Pavlov here we find “the brain

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

93

endings of the afferent nerves connected to the peripheral motor apparatus”. More and more excitatory centers were located on the map of cerebral cortex; their number reached several hundreds and continued to grow similar to the geographical map of mysterious Africa where the blanks started to get filled at the end of the 19th century. Along with that the anatomical findings lead to the conclusion that every nerve connecting the periphery to the cortex is attached to a particular nerve cell. All these data led researchers to believe that a nerve cell represents an elementary nerve center, the functional atom of the cerebral cortex. I. P. Pavlov argued that every element of the receptor apparatus has its own corresponding afferent (i.e. going from the periphery to the center) nerve fiber and its own nerve cell in cerebral cortex. This was how one of the research trends on the functioning of nervous system was advancing. This trend supported by Meynert, Munk, and Pavlov can be called the theory of sensory centers. Bernstein presents a thorough analysis of this theory. In his book “Lectures on the Functioning of Brain Hemispheres” Pavlov clearly outlines his views. “The skin sections undoubtedly represent the projections of the corresponding sections of cerebral cortex”; “each element of the receptor apparatus has a corresponding afferent fiber and a nerve cell in cerebral cortex, and each of the smaller or larger group of them – the corresponding groups of nerve fibers and cells”. The proponents of the theory of sensory centers thought that the entire surface of cerebral cortex represents only the projections of the peripheral sensory organs – skin, retina, etc. According to their views, higher mental functions could not be located in any particular area of the brain but are spread throughout the whole cortex. According to Munk intellect is the result of interactions of all sensory areas. In his book “Lectures on the Functioning of Brain Hemispheres” Pavlov writes: “Cerebral cortex should appear as a giant mosaic, an enormous signal board”. Each signal from periphery has its own corresponding receptor cell in cerebral cortex. Pavlov advances this view even further. The cells in cerebral cortex re-

94

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

spond not only to elementary stimuli but complex groups of them as well. A loud tone and the same but significantly more suppressed tone stimulate the same area of the brain. Loud and quiet rattle, despite their acoustic complexity, trigger the same cell, exactly the same cell. Instances with the prevalent excitatory effect of the faint rattle Pavlov explained by the paradoxical parabiotic phase of cell’s function. This explanation would not have to be considered if we were to believe that different types of rattle triggered different cells. Pavlov goes even further. In some experiments researchers used the sound of a metronome ticking with the speed of 120 strikes a minute. This complex noise-like sound with the added quality (a particular rhythm) was linked by Pavlov to a particular cell which he called “a metronome cell”. Thus, different auditory stimuli, all the complex rhythms and tones of the sounds of ringing, bubbling, ticking of a metronome, etc. are considered by Pavlov as separately and fixedly localized in different cells or clusters of cells in cerebral cortex even though no one envisions the structure of the peripheral hearing organ such as to be able to direct different complex rhythms and tones along different nerve fibers corresponding to each of them. The idea that one and the same cell responds not only to the actual stimuli (for example, bitter or sweet taste) but to its verbal representation (words “bitter” and “sweet”) as well is even more difficult to comprehend. Bernstein noted, not without irony, that if we assume that cerebral cortex has projections not only of local representation (different skin and retina areas, the organ of Corti, etc.) but of some of their qualities as well (color, temperature, pain, etc.), then it is even more difficult to accept that one or the other areas of cerebral cortex can represent the projection, for example, of the Academic Dictionary of Russian Language. As he analyses different approaches to interpreting available data Bernstein concludes that “any attempt to thoroughly consider the cell hypothesis of sensory centers all the way through to the end leads to the impassable canyon between Scylla and Charybdis”. In his summary Bernstein writes that “the main weak points of the

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

95

theory of cell localization are: 1. Substitution of the real biological analysis in cerebral cortex (still almost unknown to us) by the completely arbitrary analysis that randomly came to mind: phrases to words; visual images to their comprising spatial parts; notions to their comprising ideas, etc. 2. False idea of the necessary correspondence between parts of the brain and components of thoughts or behavior, false in principal and also double false because of the arbitrary definition of behavior and thought components; and 3. The major flaw of atomism – that of confusing a sum of elements with their synthesis. Bernstein argues that cell localizationism was where Pavlov’s school of conditioned reflexes started based on the similar explanation of physiological facts produced by Pavlov and Theodor Meynert (1833–1892). Several pages in Bernstein’s book are filled with the excerpts from their works. The parallel between their views is very clear. Some of these excerpts are below. Meynert: “In every single case, no matter how complicated, out of the multiple associations in a certain area only those get reproduced that are connected with a certain memory of a mental image through the simultaneous appearance of primary sensation”. Pavlov: “How does the temporary connection get established, the conditioned reflex form? For this to occur a certain new indifferent external agent should coincide in time once or several times with the action of another agent that has already formed a connection with the organism, i.e. turning into the action of the organism. If such a coincidence occurs, the new agent forms the same connection and exhibits itself in the same activity”. Did these two scientists separated by almost half a century really speak about the same phenomenon? Would it be accurate to equate conditioned and associative connections? Pavlov: “The closest (after the unconditioned reflexes and instincts) step of nervous activity is represented by the so called associations or habits, i.e. neural connections that form in the course of an individual life based on the ability of nervous system to facilitate these connections. Development of associations is based on the

96

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

signal principle. When neutral stimulus coincides once or several times with those stimuli that cause certain innate reflexes, it starts to produce the effects of those innate reflexes by itself. Under a certain limited number of conditions associations will necessarily and naturally develop. In that case we can consider associations as real reflexes, only acquired, and study them physiologically. My colleagues and myself call both types of reflexes and stimuli that cause them unconditioned (old) and conditioned (new) respectively.”45 Further Bernstein quotes Meynert and Pavlov to prove the similarity of their beliefs in regards to the irradiation of excitation along the cerebral cortex and generalization of a conditioned reflex, the exhaustion of nerve cells and their switch to inhibition, partial awakens and partial sleep, on mosaic pattern of supply in different areas of the brain and the mosaic pattern of excitatory and inhibitory brain areas. Meynert and Pavlov had the following views on the subject of consciousness: Meynert: “The associative phenomena that rest outside of our attention field, are characterized by the state of partial sleep and remain beyond the field of our consciousness. Only the smaller part of them reaches our attention field and penetrates above the threshold of consciousness. The intensity of excitation above the threshold of consciousness never equals zero because the increase in intensity takes it over that threshold. Thus the difference between the state of partial excitation of acting cortex and partial sleep of parts remaining at rest lies only in the intensity of the phase of association excitation”. Pavlov: “I see consciousness as the nervous activity of a particular area of large hemispheres that at that moment and under given conditions becomes optimally excited. At that same moment the remaining area of large hemispheres remains in the state of more or less decreased excita-

45

Pavlov I. P.: Dvadtsatiletniy Opyit Ob'ektivnogo Izucheniya Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti Zhivotnyih [Twenty-years Experience of Objective Investigation of Higher Nervous Activity of Animal Behavior]. Moscow-Leningrad: 1928, p. 297.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

97

tion. The activity of this area is what we subjectively call unconscious, automatic activity”. Meynert: “The so called unity of consciousness is analogous to the processes that occur in fovea (the point of the highest visual acuity), while the side processes – associations – can be compared to the processes occurring in horopter (the area of blurred vision)”. Pavlov: “If we were able to see through the scalp and if the area of large hemispheres that is optimally excited would lit up, we would have seen in the consciously thinking person a peculiar light spot of irregular shape with constantly changing form and size moving across his large hemispheres and surrounded by the larger or smaller shaded areas”. Thus, in the 1880s many concepts and hypothesis that became the integral part of the theory of conditioned reflexes have already been clearly defined. In Meynert’s works one can find the definition of a cell as a central receptor, definition of the digestive and defense conditioned reflexes, definition of neural connection facilitation, associative locking, irradiation, inhibition, cell exhaustion, partial sleep, cerebral cortex mosaic, negative induction, field of consciousness, etc. The formulations of Meynert and Pavlov are very similar even in terminology. Certainly, they are not completely identical. Bernstein describes significant differences in the views of these prominent scientists. One of them is based in the fact that Pavlov and his school had at their disposal a very rich data obtained from experiments on dogs while Meynert had a very limited experimental data that was mainly obtained from other proponents of localizationism, his own anatomical discoveries and results of clinical observations. However, the notions where Bernstein emphasized the similarities of Meynert’s and Pavlov’s views represent “not the crystallized factual experimental result but rather its hypothetical or speculative interpretation”. As an example, this idea can be clearly illustrated by the irradiation of excitation through cerebral cortex. The experimental data is the following. A dog received food following the sound of a metronome moving with a certain frequency. If in experiments that follow the frequency of the metronome sound changes, the dog will still salivate in response to

98

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

this signal. To interpret this fact to be the result of excitatory irradiation in the cerebral cortex (as Pavlov does) one would have to assume that there is a projection of auditory apparatus to cerebral cortex, the kind of projection where the centers that respond to the metronome sounds of different frequency are positioned close to each other in space. However, there are no anatomical or physiological data to support such “centers” positioning. “And Pavlov’s entire extensive experimental data that exclusively consisted of data on the external phenomenology of animal’s behavior in this respect (underlined by Bernstein – I. F.) does not give him any significant advantages over Meynert with his lack of such extensive phenomenological data”. The same is true in regards to the concept of induction (although all facts remain true) as well as for the number of other concepts discussed above. Pavlov was not aware of Meynert’s ideas and conclusions. The concepts that were born in the school of conditioned reflexes came to life as a result of its own creative process. The parallels between them were due to the fact that the starting point was the same for both schools, it was cell localizationism. In connection with this Bernstein discusses the role of experimental data. The process of conducting experiments is a creative endeavor; it is not a mechanical acquisition of facts. Assumptions and premises direct the search for new facts and they, in turn, give birth to new ideas, hypothesis and outlooks. These two parts of the process are inseparable to the point that the work of any scientific school can be reasonably judged not only by the number of facts obtained by it but also by the number of new ideas it generated. There are scientific schools that mostly focus on testing and verifying in experiments prior ideas and assumptions. But such schools remain within the framework of old ideas and old ideology (especially if their leaders are not original thinkers). The school of conditioned reflexes does not belong to this type of schools of annotators and validators. It had its own original path. Bernstein also comments on Pavlov’s views on analyzer’s elements dispersed in cerebral cortex. At the beginning of the last quarter of the

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

99

19th century Munk and later Goltz conducted fascinating experiments with ablation of different brain areas in animals. The main function that gets impaired as a result of the symmetrical removal of occipital parts of both hemispheres is the conscious perception or recognition. The perception of light and the reactions to light remained intact in dogs. I. M. Sechenov described the behavior of these dogs: “On the surface these dogs seem completely blind: they don’t recognize familiar people from afar (they are able to recognize them from the closer distance based on the sense of smell) and they remain completely indifferent to threatening gestures, to the sight of a whip or even a lit candle put in front of them. But they are able to recognize obstacles while walking. For example, they walk around the white paper ribbons placed on the floor or hanging pieces of white fabric and are reluctant to walk between empty white cups”. Pavlov in his discussion of Munk’s experiments sharply criticized the vague expression “the dog sees but does not understand”. He explained the observed phenomenon by the fact that when the cerebral end of the visual analyzer gets damaged the more complex processes of visual shape recognition get disrupted but the simplest ones, for example distinguishing light and darkness could remain intact in the small remaining pieces of the analyzer. Bernstein writes: “This explanation seems much more plausible that the one produced by Munk…Pavlov summarizes it with the forthright statement: “the matter is quite clear and does not require any vague explanations. Instead of saying that the dog stopped understanding we say that its analyzer is damaged and it is no longer able to form conditioned reflexes in response to more subtle and more complex conditioned stimuli”.46 This statement certainly lacks the validity of the previous one. Actually the loss of ability to form reflexes is not the explanation of facts but a fact established through observations and itself in need of an explanation. Therefore we are left with the first part of the conclusion: instead 46

Pavlov I. P.: Dvadtsatiletniy Opyit Ob'ektivnogo Izucheniya Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti Zhivotnyih [Twenty-years Experience of Objective Investigation of Higher Nervous Activity of Animal Behavior]. Moscow-Leningrad: 1928, p. 188.

100

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

of saying that the dog stopped understanding we say that its analyzer was destroyed. If instead of saying that the dog lost its ability to smell we would say that its olfactory organ got damaged would it make the “matter quite clear?”47” Munk named this phenomenon “mental blindness” emphasizing that the animal lost the mental memory but not the sensory ability. Similar to that the ablation of temporary lobe of the brain causes “mental deafness”. However, in the course of 4–5 weeks after the ablation of the auditory center the symptoms of “mental deafness” disappear. Pavlov considered the fact of this recovery to be of utmost importance. In 1911, in the very beginning of his research on conditioned reflexes, he formulated a very interesting hypothesis which was new and fresh at the time. He based it on the fact that in the beginning phase of the conditioned reflex development it always appears generalized, irradiated. “From that we can conclude that the brain end of the analyzer can be described as a general mass all parts of which are closely connected and can be exchanged for different ones. We can imagine that while in the periphery of the analyzers they are clearly differentiated and one element is different from the other, on the other end they all are unified. Thus, from every peripheral element there is a connection to every point of the brain end. Therefore it becomes possible to replace a large part with a small one. This is not an assumption but rather a premonition of how this incredibly complex and important issue gets resolved”.48 Here Pavlov is still very close to adopting the point of view of functionalism. However, after 1922 he takes a step back to Munk’s old views on peripheral cell zone. To explain how auditory perception and understanding gets restored after temporal lobe ablation “we should have assumed that this special area of auditory analyzer in cerebral cortex has

47

48

Pavlov I. P.: Lektsii o Rabote Bolshih Polushariy Golovnogo Mozga [Lectures on the Cerebral Hemispheres Activity]. Leningrad: Pechatny Dvor 1927, p. 298. Pavlov I. P.: Dvadtsatiletniy Opyit Ob'ektivnogo Izucheniya Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti Zhivotnyih [Twenty-years Experience of Objective Investigation of Higher Nervous Activity of Animal Behavior]. Moscow-Leningrad: 1928, p. 167.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

101

receptor cells that are connected to all parts of the peripheral auditory apparatus. Additionally, due to a particularly favorable structure, multiple and intricate connections can form between the cells and the most complex components of auditory stimuli can develop and be analyzed. Partial damage to this area forces the fallout of single signals from those formations while complete ablation would prevent the highest synthesis and analysis of signals from happening. However, because auditory conditioned reflexes continue to exist and are able to partially differentiate even when entire temporary lobes are removed – while the removal of cerebral cortex leads to their complete and permanent dissolution – we must necessarily conclude that besides the special section of auditory analyzer there should be dispersed in cerebral cortex the elements of this analyzer in a much larger area of the hemispheres if not in all of them”.49 Visual and tactile-muscle analyzers, according to Pavlov, also have similar dispersed elements. Bernstein notes that this view is diametrically opposite to Pavlov’s views that he expressed in 1911. The new version assumes the reserve of the prepared ahead elements – both cells and conductors – that in all species are not completely used up at the time of death. The idea of such foresight on the part of nature or fate could have been appreciated in the 19th century, before Darwin, but not at the end of the first quarter of the 20th century. One of the students and the closest follower of Pavlov, A. G. IvanovSmolensky, attempted to modernize the theory of conditioned reflexes (the issues of localization). He substitutes the classical concept of analyzer for the concept of “synthesis-analyzer”.50 According to the classical theory of conditioned reflexes cerebral cortex only has the ability to perceive. Ivanov-Smolensky can’t help but recognize the motor role of the frontal central convolution. But to “soften” his recognition he writes that this area of cerebral cortex sends “not the effector impulses as much 49

50

Pavlov I. P.: Lektsii o Rabote Bolshih Polushariy Golovnogo Mozga [Lectures on the Cerebral Hemispheres Activity]. Leningrad: Pechatny Dvor, 1927, p. 294. Ivanov-Smolensky, A. G.: Osnovnyie Problemyi Psihopatologii [The Main Problems of Psychopathology]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933, p. 434.

102

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

as regulatory and coordinating ones, differentiating and integrating the effector work of the organs located below”.51 As though behind those smoothed over declarations anything even remotely closer to receptors than effectors can be concealed. No neuron is able “to send” anything except the effector impulses if you use the terminology appropriately, – notes Bernstein. The important “innovation” of Ivanov-Smolensky was the decisive qualitative boundary that he established between all higher animals, including the anthropoid apes on one hand and human beings on the other in regards to the issue of localization. “While large hemispheres of higher animals including the anthropoid apes, contain in their external layer only direct projections or synthesis-analyzers (visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, gustatory, olfactory and visceral projections), the special characteristic of human cerebral cortex is that it contains “higher cortical centers” or symbolic projections (“the centers” of reading, writing, speech, etc.). The center controlling gesturing (kinesthetic and optic) is the most ancient symbolic projection and is also included in this category.52 Pavlov leans towards similar interpretation calling the two types of projections the first and the second signal systems. Bernstein notes that these conclusions come from the pure imagination of their author and are not founded in any kind of factual research in anatomy, comparative anatomy or biology. Certainly human brain differs significantly from the animal brain. A hypothesis that with the transition from apes to humans the cortex also transitioned from N-cascade neuronal type to (N+1)- or (N+2)-cascade could have had some viability but the positive assertion that here we are dealing with the transition from unicascade type in all the vertebrae (where there are only sensory projections) to dual cascade in humans, is simply false. “The centers” of reading, writing, musical perception and performance undoubtedly exist in human brain but if we, along with Ivanov-

51 52

Ibid., p. 435. Ibid., p. 436.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

103

Smolensky, assume that in the course of phylogenesis they were the first non-projectional cortical areas in the direct anatomical sense, i.e. areas significantly different from anything that existed before human brain, then there are only two possibilities to explain that – either these centers formed ahead of time to carry out writing, musical and other similar functions which would be incompatible with the existing scientific views, or, the second possibility would be that these centers developed as radically new anatomical attributes along with those functions that they currently support. But then, how can we explain the brain structure of the people who do not have written language? Or the brain structure of a large part of the European population that could not read or write as recently as couple centuries ago? Using the examples of animal and human behavior, Bernstein shows that it is impossible to reduce it to facilitating, or locking connections between cells. He writes: “The fundamental mistake of the majority of ideologists of the conditioned reflexes school lies exactly in the fact that they study the processes of drilling but think that they are studying behavior (underlined by Bernstein – I. F.) “A reflex is an elementary action, not an element of action” he states. Ivanov-Smolensky suggested “the speech-motor method” to study “the second signal system” in children. Conditioned stimulus (for example light) was “reinforced” by the experimenter’s command “Press!” After a number of repetitions the light signal by itself caused the reaction of pressing with the hand. If in Pavlov’s classical experiments with animals the unconditioned reflex consisted of salivation in response to food being placed in the mouth, in Ivanov-Smolensky’s experiments with human subjects the hand pressing the cylinder in response to experimenter’s command “Press” played the role of the unconditioned reflex. The difference here is significant. It is noteworthy that much later, in June of 1946, Bernstein remembered this method in connection with the publication in 1945 of a very interesting book written by A. N. Leontiev and A. V. Zaporozhets on the recovery of hand functions after the injury. Based on Bernstein’s research

104

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

of the levels of movement construction, the group of researchers including A. N. Leontiev, A. V. Zaporozhets, P. Y. Galperin and others achieved very good results in treating war veterans with arm injuries. The book “Recovery of Movements: Psychophysiological Investigation of the Recovery of Hand Functions after Injury” was presented to Bernstein by the authors. The next day after receiving the book (June 28, 1946) Nikolai Alexandrovich responded with the poem: Ivanov-Smolensky long time ago Instructed his subjects to “push”; They pushed hard and didn’t let go, Saliva streamed down with a whoosh. The poor guy didn’t make much headway, In thicket of “conditioned” realm: The progress and “pushing” I daresay Don’t go together that well. Not torturing the little creatures, Like puppies or small baby rats, Leontiev and Zaporozhets feature Success in scientific combat. The new slogans now I hear Instead of the past “let’s push hard”: Please lift your arm high without fear Keep lifting it high once you start! Of your success I’m very positive, That many awards you’ll bring home, Susanna, Galperin, Leontiev Uznadze, Ginevskaya, Komm.

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Early Creative Period

105

This letter right now I am ending (Since talent in shortness I see); Thank you very much for the manual, That yesterday you sent to me!! Let us go back to the mid-1930s, when Bernstein writes the book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process”. The book should have created serious debates with none other than Pavlov, the patriarch of physiology at the time and a Nobel laureate (for his research on digestive system) who was named a Princeps Physiologorum Mundi at the XV International Physiological Congress of 1932. Nikolai Alexandrovich, the young professor of physiology, is preparing scientific discussions with the recognized dignity. Bernstein even intends to put as an epigraph to his book Stalin’s words praising science that is not intimidated to raise the hand at something that is old and becoming obsolete; that is sensitive to the voice of experience and practice. If it weren’t the case we wouldn’t have had science at all and would have subsisted on the decrepit system of Ptolemy. Beautiful words, aren’t they? But Bernstein did not know at the time that these hypocritical words were said by the same monster that would organize and carry out the campaign of suffocating science and culture and annihilating their most brilliant leaders. Thus, the discussion is taking shape and Bernstein’s book is being prepared for publication at the Biological and Medical Literature Publishing House. But in February of 1936 Pavlov dies. And Bernstein decides that he does not have the right to challenge the opponent who is no longer able to respond to that challenge.53 Upon his request the publishing house

53

Recently the ethical reason not to publish this book is questioned in Sirotkina I. E. (2014). Marginalii: Istoria Knigi N.A. Bernsteina “Sovremennyie Iskaniya v Fiziologii Nervnogo Prosessa” [Marginalia: the History of N.A. Bernstein’s Book “Contemporary Studies in Physiology of Neural Process”], VIET, 1, 28–41.

106

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

stops the publication of his book. And only now, almost 70 years after it was written, the publication became possible.54 Why did Bernstein decide to stop the publication? There were probably a number of reasons. On one hand, the author appreciates his decision that was made out of deep respect to the memory of a great scientist and his monumental contribution to the advancement of science. On the other hand, the death of any scientist (even the great one) should not stop further advancement; moving forward becomes our duty and our way of honoring the memory of those scientists who are no longer with us.

Starting Line N. A. Bernstein’s book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process” was written in the mid-1930s. The first decade of scientific research was already behind and the path of further research has been outlined. This research was focused on the fundamental aspects of nervous system functioning and would drastically change the views on the nature of that functioning prevalent at the time. Bernstein’s thoughts and the results of his work were presented in his outstanding article “The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization” (1935). In front of his eyes the design of the future basic and experimental research has been taking shape. Therefore his desire to look back, to summarize what has already been done by many brain research studies before embarking on a future journey was quite natural. His book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process” was the result of this work. It was the review of the achievements of physiology worldwide up until 1930s. But among the many reviews written by a number of authors at different times Bernstein’s book stands out because in every page the reader sees the presence 54

Bernstein, N. A. (Eds. I. M. Feigenberg & I. E. Sirotkina): Sovremennyie Iskaniya v Fiziologii Nervnogo Prosessa [Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process]. Moscow: Smysl 2003.

Starting Line

107

of the author. This is not the review written by Bernstein but Bernstein’s views on the state of research of the functioning of nervous system at that time. The writing of this book was Bernstein’s way to prepare and clean up “the launching pad” from which the flight to the still unknown will take place, the flight in search of a new knowledge on how nervous system works and what governs the living organism in its interactions with the environment. Among the many directions of nervous system research I. P. Pavlov’s and many of his students and colleagues research on higher nervous activity plays an important role. These studies were very fruitful and were highly valued by the contemporary scientific community. These achievements received a lot of attention in Bernestein’s book but it was not a retelling of what has been accomplished. Bernstein starts a fundamental dispute with the great scholar. He expects that this publication would provoke a serious and profound discussion. Pavlov’s closest colleague, A. G. Ivanov-Smolensky, receives a particular harsh criticism from Bernstein for his attempts to apply the theory of conditioned reflexes to human thought and language and thus bringing the theory to the point of absurdity. At times Bernstein cannot help but use rather strong language. “All theoretical constructions (of Ivanov-Smolensky – I. F.) represent the pure figments of author’s imagination and are not based in any factual research – either in anatomy, comparative anatomy or biology. Such a concept of brain structure could have emerged about a hundred years ago when attempts were made to build a theory of brain functioning out of thin air; it appears even more unwarranted at the present time as the author throughout his book demonstrates excellent erudition and knowledge of current literature”, – notes Bernstein in his 1935 book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process”. The situation eventually becomes even more complicated and reaches its peak in 1950 when the joint session of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and Soviet Academy of Medical Sciences canonized Pavlov’s legacy as it was seen by some of his “followers” and epigones and turned it into a dogma. Let us recall the role that Ivanov-Smolensky played in this

108

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

session. This was a kind of “discussion” when one of the participants was recumbent and tied up while the other was his ‘discusser”. Many of the participants rushed to speak up to plea their support for this “other one”. Those who did not make it to the podium submitted their support in writing. Truly, “we’ve seen worse times but never fouler”. And this was documented and copied in the published stenography report. The goal of the session was to destroy “anti-Pavlov” scientists and this label was given to anyone who wanted to further advance scientific studies but fell out of favor with those in power. One of the most bright and creative researchers, member of the Academy Leon Abgarovich Orbeli, whom Pavlov held in high esteem, was among them. This situation was typical at the time. Pasternak described it well in one of his poems: Who should be alive and applauded Who should remain dead and defamed This knowledge is only accorded To puppets with power and fame. The fact that Bernstein’s book has not been published in due time might well have been a blessing in disguise – the blow to Bernstein in the 1950s could have turned out to be even more devastating otherwise. Many years later, after Stalin has already been dead and the suffocating atmosphere cleared out somewhat, in our conversation with Bernstein we again turned to the fate of his book. I insisted that it needs to be published as it has not lost its relevance and is essential for contemporary researchers in the fields of physiology and psychology. Nikolai Alexandrovich responded that he did not have time and wanted to spend the years he had left trying to finish other projects, physiology of activity in the first place. Sometime later, – he said, – „You can try to publish it". He gave me the copy of the proofs with his corrections and binding. However, I could not find a way to publish the book and decided to keep the proofs till better times. In 1992 I was leaving Moscow for Israel. At that time a special permission was needed to take an old book through

Starting Line

109

customs and I could not obtain the permission to take this non-existent book with me. Not long before my departure, as I was saying good-bye to the member of the Academy of Sciences Oleg Georgievich Gazenko, I told him about the proofs and said that I would be happy to leave them in good hands. I knew how highly Gazenko valued Bernstein’s scientific contributions – his theory of movements’ construction and physiology of activity. It was Gazenko who supported me in the past and helped publish Bernstein’s “Physiology of Movements and Activity” in 1990 as part of the series “Classics in Science”.55 I left the proofs to Oleg Georgievich and after a while when I was already in Jerusalem, he found a way to get them to me. And now (after all these years!) the opportunity to use these proofs and publish Bernstein’s book opened up. The dramatic fate of this book reflected the complex nature of the time when it was written. Truly, as the ancients said habent sua fata libelli (books have the fate of their own). It does not often happen to a book that its composition be scattered and the publication occurs several decades after it was written. Well, it happened so that Bernstein’s legacy experienced it twice. But if his book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process” was scattered on his insistence (see footnote p. 105), the composition of his book “On Dexterity and its Development” was scattered against his wishes. And this story is also a testament to the complexity of the time when Bernstein lived and worked. We will discuss it in greater details in the next chapter. Bernstein’s book “Contemporary Studies in the Physiology of Neural Process” summarizes all the achievements of the science of nervous system in the course of its long history from Ren Descartes (1596–1650) to I. P. Pavlov (1849–1936). The key concept for the researchers of this period was that of a reflex. The “mountain range” of reflex physiology starts with the tall “peak” of Descartes who introduced the idea of a reflex

55

Our joint article on the life and works of Bernstein was also published there (pp. 463– 479).

110

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

to the physiology of nervous system even if his interpretation was a mechanical, machinelike one. The last high peak of this range was Pavlov who discovered conditioned reflexes, researched them at large and placed them at the foundation of the higher nervous activity. In author’s opinion, Bernstein was the founder of a new “mountain range”, a new paradigm that came to replace the reflex physiology. Bernstein called it the “physiology of activity”. But this new paradigm did not fit into the framework of the old physiology. This is both the physiology and the biology of activity. Bernstein arrived at the ideas of the physiology of activity as a result of many years of movement control research. The concepts of problem, goals, prediction and prognosis belonged to the realm of psychology. But it turned out that physiological phenomena cannot be explained without them either. Thus the close connection between physiology and psychology was established. In the last years of his scientific career, summing up the results, Bernstein wrote: “If I were to analyze the basis of how motor activity develops, it would turn out that every meaningful act represents an attempt or a resolution of a particular motor goal. But the motor goal, i.e. a result that the organism strives to achieve, is something that should be but as of yet has not happened. Thus, a motor goal is the image of the model of the desired future that is somehow coded in the brain. Obviously the vitally important or meaningful actions cannot be either programmed or performed if the brain had not created a guiding presumption in the form of the model of the desired future mentioned above. It appears that here we are dealing with the two related processes. One of them is the probability prognosis based on the perception of the current situation, the forward extrapolation of sometime ahead. Neurophysiologists and clinicians have already started to accumulate facts and observations that point in this direction. Along with the probability extrapolation of the course of current events (as it would have happened without “interference”) the process of the programming of action that should lead to the realization of the desired future also occurs. We have already mentioned this model of the desired future earlier.

Starting Line

111

And further: “Truly in the earlier stages in the history of scientific physiology, such established by now facts as coded information images – initial or recombined by the brain – were completely unknown. Consequently, the majority of concepts such as a task, or a goal matching the organism’s needs, i.e. a coded program directed at the optimization of the environment, etc. was considered to be an indispensable attribute of psychology, of highly developed consciousness characterized by the ability to formulate for itself the immediate tasks and goals of action. Thus the materialistic platform faced the alternative: either to allow for the existence of consciousness in an earthworm or a tree (which was rejected because of the obvious absurdity) or to agree that none of the concepts of this category is applicable whatsoever to the vast majority of organisms. Only idealistic vitalism which unfounded hypothesis allowed to move far ahead in the direction of finalism could freely exist within this doctrine. It is the discovery of the organism’s ability to construct and combine material codes that reflect all the listed forms of activity and extrapolate the upcoming, beginning with tropism and ending with the most complex forms of the directional influence on the environment, allows us now to talk about purposefulness, goal-directedness, etc. of any organism, starting probably with protists, without any risk of sliding towards the doctrine of finalism. The factual material that is now being accumulated in comparative physiology attests to the existence of such a variability of material substances of regulating codes and the forms and principles of coding which was unimaginable until now and in which conscious and verbalized mental codes of human brain only represent one particular although the most highly developed form”.56 The physiology of activity emerged as a result of Bernstein’s prolonged research of movement control and construction of movements in human beings. But its conclusions pertain to other areas of psychophysi-

56

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow: Nauka 1990, pp. 438–439.

112

Chapter III. Bernstein and Pavlov

ology and to the general principles of biology.57 “The course of life consists not in reaching “homeostasis with the environment” but overcoming the environment in order to move towards fulfillment of the innate program of development and self-sustainment rather than to maintain the balance of homeostasis“.58 This is only the beginning of “the mountain range” of the physiology of activity and its magnificent peak, called Bernstein, is only the first one. This range, undoubtedly, will continue to stretch further; it will acquire more peaks. New ideas will develop in regards to functioning of the nervous system and, may be, some of our current concepts will turn out to be somewhat false, naïve. But even then the grateful memory of N. A. Bernstein, a pioneer of the physiology of activity, who advanced it overcoming the resistance of the environment instead of submitting to it, will remain.

57

58

See, for instance, Feigenberg, I. M.: Fiziologiya Aktivnosti v Sensornoy Sfere [Physiology of Activity in Sensory Sphere]. Nezavisimyiy Psihiatricheskiy Zhurnal [Independent Journal of Psychiatry], 1997, #4, p. 27–31. Bernstein, N. A.: Novye Linii Razvitiha v Fiziologii i Ich Sootnoshenie s Kibernetikoj [Trends in Physiology and their Relation to Cybernetics]. Voprosy Filosofii [Issues in Philosophy], 1962, #8, p. 82.

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements War Years (1941–1945) By 1938–1941 Bernstein had accumulated extensive experimental data on the organization of movements in the process of labor and sports activities and in ontogenesis from the early childhood to the old age as well as data on different types of movement dysfunctions. He designed new methods for the recording and analysis of movements in three dimensional spaces. At the Institute of Physical Culture he analyzed movements that occur during speed skating and discus throwing. Together with P. I. Pavlenko he designed a new instrument for automatic frequency analysis of oscillograms called oscillospectrograph. Another instrument that he designed, vibrational tonometer, used a completely different principle to measure muscle tone. He also contributed several chapters to the textbook on physiology for institutes of physical culture (the rest of the chapters were written by N. S. Marshak and A. N. Krestovnikov) and taught a physiology of movements class at the Central Scientific Research Institute of Physical Culture (Zentralnyiy Nauchno-Issledovatelskiy Institut Fizicheskoy Kulturyi, ZNIIFK). This was a period when Bernstein forms an understanding of how the brain controls motor activities. He writes a book “On the Construction of Movements and their Systematization based on the Neurophysiological Principle” in which he outlines his new theory of movements’ coordination. At that time this book was not published. On June 22, 1941 The Great Patriotic war broke out. There wasn’t a family or an agency in the country that was not affected by this war. Bernstein’s family was evacuated to the city of Ulan Ude in Siberia, the capital of Buryat Mongolian Republic. It was impossible to continue research there. Bernstein becomes the head of the Department of Biology at the Pedagogical Institute. He gives lectures on human anatomy, histology and general physiology. In his free time he puts together the “Fivedigit decimal logarithm tables for numbers 1 to 1010” based on his own

114

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

calculations. His brother Sergei moved to Tashkent where his Academy of Armored Forces, was housed at the time. The living conditions were better there and to help his brother Sergei arranged for Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family to move to Tashkent where Bernstein spent the winter of 1942–1943. Sergei and his wife, T. S. Popova, helped Bernstein with food supplies but there was no outlet for his creative efforts. While there, Bernstein worked at the Republican Sanitary Institute of the Ministry of Health of Uzbek Republic. In June of 1943, after the shift in the course of the war, Bernstein was able to return to Moscow. There he was offered a job as a professor at the Department of Physiology of Central State Institute of Physical Culture (GZOLIFK, Gosudarstvennyiy Zentralnyiy Ordena Lenina Institut Fizicheskoy Kulturyi) as well as a professor for the Department of Psychology at Moscow State University. The war interrupted his actual work but did not stop further advancement of his research which found application in the hospitals where medical doctors and psychologists spared no effort restoring functions of those who suffered injuries to upper and lower extremities, head injuries, speech and motor dysfunctions. A. R. Luria, A. V. Zaporozhets, A. N. Leontiev and their staff were some of those who actively participated in this tedious work which was largely based on Bernstein’s pre-war research. Return to Moscow inspired a new wave of creativity for Bernstein. He publishes an extensive article (essentially a book) “On the Issue of the Nature and Dynamics of Coordination” in the “Academic Writings of Moscow State University”. But Bernstein’s thoughts have already surpassed this manuscript. He is working on further advancing the theory of movement construction; he also actively participates in the rehabilitation efforts to help those injured at war. In October of 1943 he begins his work at the Department of Rehabilitative Therapy of the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (WIEM). A. R. Luria, his long-time friend, was the head of this department. Luria knew all too well the kind of expertise Bernstein could bring

War Years (1941–1945)

115

to the table. Luria himself was involved in rehabilitation of speech dysfunctions caused by injuries (aphasias). Bernstein was supposed to work on rehabilitation of motor dysfunctions just like he did in Tashkent at the military hospital Nr. 3668. But here, in Moscow, he could also combine practical help to those injured with the intense scientific research. The war victory brought in the atmosphere of elation among the staff at the Biomechanics Laboratory of the Central Scientific Research Institute of Physical Culture (ZNIIFK) headed by Bernstein. The leader and his small staff worked hand in hand, tirelessly and vigorously. For the New Year party with his colleagues, at the end of 1945, in anticipation of the first post-war year, Nikolai Alexandrovich wrote a poem: Will 46 be the finish line? Or will we suffer the knock? Brain or the muscles are masters Of running and jumping and walk? Which comes the first, which is subsequent? How to untangle the knot? Is the analysis warranted? Would bio current hit spot? Muscle or tendon, or bone contains That which is ruled by the brain? How can we figure dexterity Amidst the pitch-black terrain? You are the chosen, the science elite Bravely continue ahead ZNIIFK be spared shame of defeat With I. Kryachko as the head (I. A. Kryachko was the head of the Institute) This poem reflects well the mood, the atmosphere at the laboratory. Nikolai Alexandrovich was consumed by his research but he also started writing two books. The story of these books deserves special attention.

116

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

“Dexterity” Books are somewhat like people. Each has its own face, its own “soul”. Some go through a relatively easy birth, others come to this world accompanied by pain and suffering and sometimes, luckily not often, their mothers pay for the birth with their own lives. Each manuscript has its own fate, its own biography. Each is influenced by its predecessors and contemporaries and, in turn, has an impact on those that come after. In some cases these influences are obvious, clear; other times they are not visible to a naked eye. Each book carries the imprint of its era but influences it as well – sometimes in an obvious way, sometimes almost unnoticeably. The life expectancy of books is also different; different is the memory they leave. Books created by the same hand are like siblings: they are alike yet each is original. They have their own circles of friends and foes. At closer look each will reveal to its thoughtful friend new, unknown till that time facet of its “soul”. One of Bernstein’s books found its readers almost half a century after it was written. And that too is the mark of the time. Same were the fates of many other manuscripts of M. Bulgakov, A. Platonov, and in the field of science – L. Vygotsky, N. Vavilov and many others written around that time. Russian writer M. Bulgakov famously said “Manuscripts don’t burn”. If only that was always true… But at that time manuscripts and books did burn – in Germany, in the Soviet Union. They really burned! And at times people too burned in their flames – those who wrote them and those who read. Luckily, the manuscript of Bernstein’s book “On Dexterity and its Development” escaped that fate. Or, rather, we were fortunate as we now can read this book in its original Russian language as well as in English translation. Bernstein’s many years of research evolved into a harmonious theory on the ways the nervous system control of human movements. He writes a manuscript “On the Construction of Movement” which summarizes his and his colleagues’ research before and after the war. And in the evenings and late into the night in the room of his communal apartment, after it

“Dexterity”

117

became quiet, Nikolai Alexandrovich kept writing the book he conceived for the broad audience, “On Dexterity and its Development”. These were the post-war years and paper was difficult to come by. He wrote on pieces of old, unusable photographic paper left in the laboratory from the pre-war times. At first, Bernstein wrote on the reverse side not coated with the chemical formula. But soon it became clear that he did not have enough paper and he started writing on the coated side as well. He wrote without margins trying to save space. Nikolai Alexandrovich put a date in the corner of the pages so it is easy to see how many pages he wrote each night. He continued working during holidays and even on a New Year’s Day. The book “On the Construction of Movement” was finished earlier and submitted to “Medicina” (Medicine) publishing house. The book “On Dexterity and its Development” was supposed to be published by “Physcultura i Sport” (Physical Culture and Sport) publishing house where the contract has already been signed and the Figure 4.1 Bernstein at home. Night work on author even received a the manuscript. partial payment for it which was used to buy a watch for the stepdaughter Tanya, who was very proud of her first watch. “On the Construction of Movement” was published in 1947 with the circulation of 3000 copies printed on a coarse paper in soft cover. It became a manual for physicians working on rehabilitating motor dysfunctions of military personnel injured during the war. The book was a great success. The Institute of Neurology of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, headed by Professor Nikolai Ivanovich Grashchenkov, nominated it for the Stalin Award which was

118

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

the highest award in the USSR at the time for achievements in science, literature and art. And N. A. Bernstein received this award. In the meantime the book “On Dexterity and its Development” was also finished and submitted to the publisher. Its composition was completed and the illustrations were ready as well, …but the political situation in the country started to change rapidly. The post-war enthusiasm and the hopes of upcoming changes for the better vanished. As the surge of “flag-waving” patriotism started to rise, citing foreign authors in scientific books and dissertations was condemned as “reverence for the West”. Even the word “crossword” was changed into a Russian equivalent and “French bread” became “Russian”. The state antiSemitism was also on the rise. The word “cosmopolite” which means “the citizen of the world” acquired negative connotation. The expression “rootless cosmopolitan” became a euphemism in place of the insulting and scornful word used to denote people of Jewish origin. (A euphemism was needed because, unlike Germany, the USSR maintained the hypocritical attitude in regards to its anti-Semitic politics; its existence was officially denied by authorities). People of Jewish nationality had difficult time finding jobs or gaining acceptance to colleges and graduate schools. Along with that, everything Russian in arts and sciences was disproportionately glorified. Those defending a dissertation, for example, were often criticized because “fifty percent of their bibliography consisted of foreign authors”. In order to gain access to foreign journal publications at a public library one needed to submit a request from their place of employment confirming that the request for access was work related and that the requesting agency will guarantee that the reader will use the materials “appropriately”. Professor Bernstein was labeled a “rootless cosmopolitan” as well. In his article “Fallacious Viewpoints”59 Professor N. A. Krestovnikov wrote: “Bernstein violated the party principle and the historical meth-

59

Krestovnikov, N. A.: Na Porochnyih Pozitsiyah [Fallacious Viewpoints]. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy Kulturyi [Theory and Practice of Physical Culture], 1949, #5.

“Dexterity”

119

od…, distorted and made it vulgar…, kowtowed to foreign scientists…., belittled the importance of I. P. Pavlov….playing into the hands of foreign scientists….His works are idealistic and mechanistic…they reveal the antipatriotic position of N. A. Bernstein”. The editorial article “Antipatriotic Displays” was published in the same journal (#4, 1949) along with the S. G. Strashkevich article “Pseudoscientific Theory (On Critique of N. A. Bernstein’s “Theory”)” (#6, 1950), editorial article “Idealistic Fabrications” (#12, 1950). “Pravda” newspaper – the official publication of the Communist party – joined the loud chorus. “Pravda” publications were supposed to be regarded not only as an ultimate truth but also as directives on how to act. On August 21, 1950 “Pravda” publishes an article by P. Zhukov and A. Kozhin who wrote: “Bernstein bows and scrapes to many bourgeois scientists. Using the name of Sherrington – a reactionary – and other foreign physiologists… Bernstein boldly slanders Pavlov… Bernstein’s “discovery” is an example of pure “biologization” and mechanicism… Bernstein’s distorted anti-Pavlov rhetoric directly harms the matter of physical culture”. The person who was “snarled” at by “Pravda” was in danger of a number of things including arrest. All laboratories of Bernstein were closed. The scared new Director of Central Scientific Research Institute of Physical Culture (ZNIIFK) who replaced I. A. Kryachko, himself destroyed all the glass door tablets with Bernstein’s name on them. Bernstein lost all his jobs… One of his acquaintances asked him: “Nikolai Alexandrovich, don’t you work anymore?” “Oh, no”, answered Bernstein, “I always work; I just don’t serve”. Bernstein was no longer able to conduct experimental research in his area of expertise; he lost his wages but his work could only be taken away from him together with his life. He continued to work at home and the results were remarkable – he created “physiology of activity”. A friend of Nikolai Alexandrovich once said to him: “What a horrible time we live in!” To which Bernstein responded: ”The times are great, it feels like everyone was put in the photographic developer – one can always tell who is who!” A very accurate remark! Indeed, some of his former close colleagues were afraid to even

120

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

greet him, out of fear that someone would see it. But Kornei Ivanovich Chukovsky60, who did not know Bernstein before, came to visit him after the “Pravda” article was published. But let’s return to the book “On Dexterity and its Development”. For “Physkultura and Sport” publishers the directions from “above” were non-negotiable. Although the book has already been composed, clichés of pictures prepared, proofs printed and part of the author’s fee paid, it was never published. The already printed makeup was destroyed. It looks as though the book was forgotten even by the few people who knew of its existence. Nikolai Alexandrovich himself never mentioned it, as though it has never been written. Many years later, after Nikolai Alexandrovich death, I was rummaging through the bookshelves in his room. His stepdaughter, T. I. Pavlova, allowed me to borrow some books. On the top shelf, near the ceiling, I found a plastic bag covered with dust. Inside there were pieces of photographic paper with the familiar handwriting, bound in carton. Written on the cover in the same handwriting were the words: “N. A. Bernstein. On dexterity and its development” It is quite clear that the essential and binding in the same hand. Incredible – I never came across this book in any of the libraries. I asked T. I. Pavlova what was in the bag. She responded: “Rough draft of something.” “Do you have a book with the same title here at home?” “Yes, I think I remember seeing it somewhere. They even used the fee to buy me a watch”. But there was no such book on any of the shelves. T. I. Pavlova allowed me to take the bag home. She was getting ready to move and was trying to get rid of some of her belongings. I read the manuscript when I got home and immediately realized that “my hand is holding on to treasure and only I possess the key”.61 I had to get the book published. I owed this to the memory of my mentor and friend.

60

61

Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky (1882–1969) was one of the most popular children's poets in the Russia. He was also an influential literary critic and essayist. Altered citation from A. A. Blok’s poem “Stranger”.

“Dexterity”

121

I remembered a conversation with Nikolai Alexandrovich that happened a long time ago. We were walking along Pogodinskaya Street in Moscow discussing numerous topics; among them we talked about the fact that for the broad circle of readers such as teachers of physical culture, engineers and biologists Nikolai Alexandrovich´s writings were difficult to understand; they were not entirely clear. I said that it was necessary to write a popular book simple enough for students and people from different backgrounds to understand, in which his research and resulting conclusions would be outlined clearly and in simple terms. “I think you are right, – he said, – let’s write it together”. Soon Nikolai Alexandrovich looked through and approved the outline of the book prepared by the author, made some minor corrections and never said a word about the fact that a similar book has already been written by him. I never heard anything about it from his old colleagues and friends either. I started writing but came to a standstill for some reason. It seemed there was plenty of time left and busy everyday routine made me put it aside. Nikolai Alexandrovich did not try to rush me; he was occupied with “physiology of activity”. He tried to hurry up with this project as he knew that the time he had left was very limited. But I did not know that – together with almost everyone else around him. For me Nikolai Alexandrovich’s death came out of the blue and, after he was gone, I did not think I had the right (or ability) to write a book that we had designed together. But now, having discovered the manuscript “On Dexterity and its Development” I realized that it was my duty to get it published. But to get publishers to agree to that was oh, so difficult! Especially if the intended publication is a scientific one, written several decades ago by the author who is already dead. Only later, after I was able to enlist the support of the member of the Academy O. G. Gazenko and publish Bernstein’s main works as part of the “Classics in Science”62 series, I again turned to the precious pieces of photo paper. The fact that his works were

62

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy I Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow: Nauka 1990.

122

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

published as part of these series designated Bernstein as one of the classics. Now I brought to “Physkultura and Sport” publishers (the ones that some years ago had destroyed the makeup) not the “outdated manuscript” but a never before published book by one of the classics. And that made all the difference!

Figure 4.2 The title page of the book of N. A. Bernstein “On Dexterity and its Development”.

Fortunately I found an old member of the staff there who secretly kept the copy of the makeup of the book with Bernstein’s corrections. Now it was possible to incorporate these corrections and (unbelievable!) to restore the old drawings, the same ones that Nikolai Alexandrovich wanted to see in his book (and some of which he created himself). It was impossible to restore all of them; the quality of the paper was so low that some of the photos were lost. But we were able to replace them with different ones, of

Difficulties in Movement Control

123

the same athletes that we had found in the archives. We added one photograph, though, that was not included in the previous version. It was the portrait of Nikolai Alexandrovich that I copied from his family album. Thus, the life of the book continued. In 1996, to commemorate the 100 anniversary of N. A. Bernstein’s birth, it was published in the US masterfully translated in English by Professor Mark Latash. Several articles by contemporary physiologists illustrating the developments in the field over the years that have passed since Bernstein’s death were also included in this publication.63

Difficulties in Movement Control What are the difficulties involved in controlling human movements? It seems that the process should be simple enough: the brain sends the “directive” to a particular muscle, it contracts and the movement is initiated in the joint. But the reality is much more complicated. Bernstein draws attention to three main problems in movements’ control. Even a very superficial understanding of the structure of human skeleton and its “Stanovoy range”, the spine, allows to see a wide range of mobilities. The spine, the main supporting construction of the body, is not a stiff, firm column; it consists of separate vertebrae that are connected by a number of flexible joints. In the neck area they provide for the precision and stability in the“observation tower” of the body – the head movements and turns. Four multilink lever systems of extremities are connected to the body with the help of hinges. The variability and precision of hands and fingers’ movements is absolutely amazing. The flexibility of the glossopharyngeal apparatus supports the ability to talk. The movements of both eyes that constitute one organ of vision allow to follow moving objects, form clear image on retina, adjust to different levels of bright-

63

Latash M. I. & Turvey M. T. (Eds.). Dexterity and its Development. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1996.

124

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

ness; and all this is possible due to coordinated efforts of 24 eye muscles that work from early morning till late at night. It would have required extra-complex attention distribution if we had to consciously control all the elements of the complex movements and pay attention to each of them. The variability and range of mobility of organs of movements constitute the first problem in movement control: the multitude of joints and muscles, the necessity for a number of them to work simultaneously and in coordinated manner; division of attention between tens and hundreds of types of mobility.

Figure 4.3 N. A. Bernstein (foreground right) in the laboratory during cyclorecording. In the background in a darkened room the subject with electric lights fixed on the arm and head.

A more serious difficulty in exercising control of the motor system becomes clear if we compare a human body to the artificial mechanisms. Most of them, with rare exception, are constructed in such a way that

Difficulties in Movement Control

125

their every point moves along the same trajectory; the movement trajectory of every point has a single degree of freedom. If it had two degrees, it would allow for the movement along any trajectory within a particular surface (for example a flat area) – like moving the tip of a pen on paper, without ever taking it off. Therefore there emerges an infinite variability of pathways for the tip of a pen or any point with two degrees of freedom. A human hand has two degrees of freedom relative to the arm. Three degrees of freedom allow for movement in space. Thus, in the presence of more than one degree of freedom a point or some part of the moving system is able “to choose” from any of the multitude of available trajectories. A person performing the movements chooses from this multitude and, a pen in his hand, for example, moves along the one strictly defined trajectory leaving the trace on paper (drawing, writing) that the person intended. Machines are not fully capable of making such choices. The second problem in movements control consists in overcoming the huge, exorbitant excess of degrees of freedom the human body has. Such mastering is only possible when a person receives the information on the position of the moving organ at every moment in time as well as the information on the results of his motor commands. The end result depends not only on the commands that were given but also on a number of external factors, interferences that are beyond the person’s control. The third significant problem in movement control results from the fact that the muscles contributing to movements are not rigid but elastic forces. Each movement direction (it is called the degree of freedom) is supported by a pair of muscles with opposing actions – antagonistic muscles. One muscle bents a joint, the other extends it. The muscle contracts and pulls the bone in a certain direction following the “command” from the center; it can only pull, but not push. But antagonistic muscles are able to support movements in both directions by coordinating their activity. However, the elastic compliance of the muscle tissue creates a more serious problem for the movement control than the fact that a muscle can only pull in one direction and requires good coordination with the

126

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

antagonist. In order to understand that, we can conduct the following experiment. Attach a rod with a weight at the end to a belt. Two elastic links (for example, rubber bands or tubes) get attached to the lower end of the rod whereas the unattached ends of them are connected to the right and left hand (as shown in the picture). The third elastic link connects the rod to the person’s neck (and Figure 4.4 The experience balances the force of gravity). Now try demonstrates the difficulty in using the rubber bands in your hands to managing the movements of make a precise movement with the end weight by using of elastic links. With eyes closed, these of the rod, for example, write your difficulties increase signifiinitials in the air, or, even something cantly. much simpler, such as – draw a square in the air. This will turn out to be quite difficult. And if you try doing it with your eyes closed, the observer can describe to you the complicated and chaotic movements the end of the rod was making in the air. If in this experiment you use rigid links instead of flexible ones, the end of the rod will become more “obedient” and will draw the figure you intended to draw in the air. When using the elastic links the reproduction of the same arm movements will lead to a different result every time, the end of the rod will move differently and in an unexpected way. The fact of the matter is that the result depends not only on the hand movements of the person controlling the links but on a number of second causes as well that he cannot control. To correct the impact of these causes the person must closely watch the results of his commands and depending on the difference (deviation) between the desired and the actual result to issue new commands aimed at correcting these deviations. Thus, it becomes possible to control movements only in the presence of the ongoing control of results rendered at every stage of the process. The control from a sensory

The Sensory Corrections Principle

127

organ is necessary. Only with the help of such monitoring can the corrective commands be formulated and the excess of the degrees of freedom be overcome.

The Sensory Corrections Principle None of the current technical systems possesses the complexity of movement control that exists in living organisms. In the 1930s Bernstein called the principle of on-going corrections of movement based on the data supplied by sensory organs the sensory corrections principle. In Latin the word “sensory” means “that it has something to do with sensing”. Before Bernstein conducted his research, the widely accepted view was that voluntary movements are performed entirely by motor systems of the organism: from the brain motor areas commands move along the motor nerves to muscles and cause them to contract. The structure of the reflex movement seemed to be the same: receptor (converting any kind of external stimulation into neural impulses) – sensory nerves – nerve centers – motor nerves – muscles. The system turned out to be more complicated. Every burst of motor impulses from the brain to the muscles causes a new round of impulses from the sensory apparatus of muscles and joints into the brain. Based on these signals the brain generates another signal to the muscles, the one that adjusts the movement. Thus, the movement control is exercised not by the open-circuit system like reflex arch but by the closed circular system. The breakdown of this circle in any spot leads to the disintegration of the movement and disruption in movement coordination. The most important role in the process of sensory corrections belongs to muscle-joint sensations. That is why it is so difficult, for example, to put a thread through a needle if your hands are frozen and you lost the ability for fine sensations.

128

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

But other sensory organs also participate in sensory corrections. For example, it is difficult to carry a full glass from one table to the other without spilling the water if your eyes are closed. But with your eyes opened you can easily do that. A new science called cybernetics, emerged at the end of 1940s. Its subject was the control of the processes that occur in complex dynamic systems (technical and biological). American mathematician Figure 4.5 The simplest scheme of closed Norbert Wiener is considloop motor control, which has changed the notion of the open loop reflex arc. ered to be its founder. One Legend: of its fundamental princix      – central synapses ples is the principle of x   – motor cell feedback – the uninterruptx   – sensory cell ed flow of information on x     – motor impulse the state of the executive x     – sensory impulse organs of the system to the x      – moving system x     – reactive forces central, control part. Thus, x $  – external forces ten years after the completion of Bernstein’s research, the principle of circular control gained universal acceptance. But, in the author’s opinion, Bernstein’s earlier term, “the principle of sensory corrections”, better conveys the truth of the matter than the term “feedback control”.

The Sensory Corrections Principle

129

How did animal nervous system learned to control their movements? Animal movements went through significant changes in the process of evolution. Coral hydranths, sea cucumbers, sponges, sea lilies and starfish lived in the warm waters of the primordial ocean. Their movements were slow, “reluctant” and aimless. As long as nothing touched them, they remained motionless, very similar to plants. They reacted to touch with general chaotic body movements. With this type of movement they didn’t need any sensitivity other than sensitivity to contact (body touch). These animals had a round shaped symmetrical body with the mouth opening in the middle. After them came the animals with the oblong sausage-like body shape and digestive tube stretched along the whole length of the body – from the mouth opening on one end to the anal opening on the other. Eventually they developed into worms and mollusks. The end with the mouth opening became the active part – it moves in the front, searches for food and is the first one to encounter prey as well as danger. It is most important for the front end of the moving animal to sense the attributes of the object it encounters or approaches keenly and in a timely manner. The sensitivity of the front end increases. Along with that, besides the ancient sensitivity to contact (tactile, temperature, taste, chemical) new, more advanced types of sensory organs (receptors) develop on the front, mouth end; for example, telereceptors are able to respond even to the distant stimuli, they are far reaching. From the organ of contact, chemical sense, taste, the olfactory telereceptor developed. The sensitivity to environmental vibrations developed from the contact tactile sensitivity and, later, the hearing organ sensitive to sound signals emerged as well. Contact temperature sensitivity first developed into sensitivity to rays of warmth and later to sensitivity to rays of light, which created the organ of vision. The development of “long-range” receptors, telereceptors, effected the tremendous growth in the scope of the environment accessible for animals to perceive. The advantages that the ability to sense a prey or a danger before actually encountering it brings for the species are obvious. Having discovered the prey from the distance with the help of telerecep-

130

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

tors the animal can start moving towards it. Along with telereceptors in the sensory system, the motor system develops locomotion – the ability to move the whole body when approaching a prey or moving away from danger. At this stage of the evolution the new demands in regards to the nervous system functioning emerge. Locomotion requires the coordinated, unified activity of the muscles of the whole body that moves it as one unit as opposed to local reactions. Nervous centers Figure 4.6 N. A. Bernstein listening to the muscle activity sounds in the developed at the front end of the organisms – the “captain’s bridge”, laboratory. where all the telereceptors are located. From here the broadest view opens up. Nervous centers coordinate the functioning of all muscles in the body, they lead the movement, and oversee when and what kind of movement to perform. Anything that the organism notices from the distance it notices ahead of time. The animal then has the time to plan the necessary actions to attack or defend itself. And this, in turn, leads to the development of the rudimentary memory (that is able to retain the whole chain of planned actions), intelligence (ability to design the appropriate chain of action), and dexterity (allowing to find effective solution to a difficult situation). It happened so that mouth created telereceptors and they created the brain. In inferior animals sensations are served through and provided by movements. In higher animals, that have developed transverse striated muscular system, the movements are controlled and directed by sensations. Ancient invertebrates with slow smooth muscular system did not have a need in fine motor control that requires uninterrupted guidance

The Sensory Corrections Principle

131

from the sensory organs because this type of control is necessary to compare the current movement with the planned one (this is the essence of sensory corrections). For this to occur, the brain able to plan the future movement and memory able to retain the plan and perform all parts of the complex chains of actions in the correct order are needed. A significant novelty was the development of extremities in vertebrates. Fish does not have extremities. To move in the water fish uses its tail and unpaired dorsal and ventral fins that perform snake-like swings and twist in the water. The fins on the sides mostly control the direction of movements and the depth of submersion. Amphibians developed extremities – tools allowing them to move around the non-homogenous space (the organs of locomotion). This required further advancement of nervous system, further development of the brain. Neural nuclei in the frog’s brain are entirely suprasegmental (as opposed to the segmented structure of the spinal cord). The more ancient divisions of nervous system (that already existed in fish) continued to control the torso. The younger sections of nervous system, that first appeared in amphibians, took over the control of extremities and locomotion. In the process of evolution the motor system perfected and became more advanced. The movements improved in strength, speed, precision and endurance. The motor tasks that animals were faced with became more complex and variable. The set of movements fish is able to perform consists almost entirely of locomotion – swimming and a few most simple hunting movements. Fish is characterized by wavy smooth movements of the whole body – from head to tail. Besides swimming, amphibians can crawl, jump and make sounds. In their ability to move, extremities play the major part (as opposed to the body style movements in fish). Reptiles can move both on dry land and air. Among them were small species as well as gigantic ones reaching the length of tens of meters. Ancient lizards could run as well as fly, swim, and jump. Unlike the constantly moving fish, they could stand

132

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

still, could move slowly or be lightning fast, could charge towards a goal with great precision and maintain balance well. The movements of mammals are even more complex and variable: slyness of a fox, a keen search of a hunting dog, and a cunning ambush of a tiger. They are faced with more and more unexpected and atypical problems that need to be resolved “on the spot” when an animal needs to make a decision and execute it within tens of seconds.

Figure 4.7 N. A. Bernstein in the laboratory.

Mammals are able to make precise, accurate, strong and targeted moves: aiming, touching, grasping, precise and strong kick, long and accurate throw, well calculated and exact push. After that, a multitude of notional chain-like actions develop and later – object manipulations, using tools and instruments and, finally, rational labor. New motor tasks necessarily required the mastering of new sensory corrections. The anatomical basis for every new class of these corrections was always a new brain “build-on” which brought about additional list of

Levels of Movement Construction

133

movements, new inventory of mastered coordinations that added on to a more ancient one that existed earlier. Thus a new level of movement construction develops.

Levels of Movement Construction The increasing complexity of motor tasks required the advancement of the nervous apparatus controlling the movements.

Figure 4.8 Scheme of the brain growing during the development. Legend: % – palladium, */ – thalamus, < – striatum, = – cerebellum, >% – neocortex of the brain. Left – the stage of the development of fish and frogs: on the bottom (black) – the nuclei of the spinal cord; upper central are the thalamus (sensitive) and palladium (motor). Right – the human brain with leading centers build on top of lower once: the striatum and the neocortex (%, */, % are letters of the Russian alphabet).

134

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

The more ancient brain centers continued to control body movements. The new “stories” were erected on top of the nervous system’s old ones creating a hierarchical system where new formations controlled the older ones. Each level executes a certain class of movements. More ancient levels execute background movements for the movements that belong to a higher level (and developed later in phylogenesis). Each level has a specific brain organization and it own sensory sphere that supplies it with the necessary information.

The level of muscle tone (A) Level A is the most ancient level of movement construction among the ones considered by Bernstein. Humans inherited it from their primordial ancestors – fish – the most ancient species of all vertebrates. Fish lives in water and therefore exists in a zero-gravity environment of sorts as the force of gravity is compensated by the buoyant force of water. Fish does not have extremities, its movements are smooth, flowing, elastic; “this is an adaptive flexible support which consists of a mixture of balance and motion”. Fish is not capable of hard, sharp movements; such movements emerge only when animals migrate from water to land and develop extremities. In healthy person the “pure” level A movements can be seen very rarely, possibly in the situation of equilibrium with the environment with zero gravity. Such are, for example, the movements of parachute jumper during the free fall before he opens the parachute. The experienced parachute jumper falls without being tense, just slightly moving his arms to prevent going into a spiral. The body naturally adopts the necessary position. These smooth movements, not even movements but aligning stirs, the bending and rounding of the body very much resemble the movements of water creatures. The same type of movements can be observed when skiers jump from the trampoline or when cosmonauts move in space where the force of gravity disappears; is balanced out by the centrifugal force resulting in the phenomenon of weightlessness.

Levels of Movement Construction

135

However, the fact that the movements that are independently controlled by level A are rare does not mean that this level is not important for the human motor sphere. It provides the background, without which higher level movements would have been impossible; it is responsible for the tone of all the muscles in the body, i.e. background tension which allows higher levels to produce the patterns of fast, dexterous and forceful movements. Besides that, level A participates in movement coordination by aligning the functioning of antagonist muscles. Level A controls not only the excitation of muscles but spinal neurons that send the launching signals to the muscles. Level A affects the signaling cells and muscles similar to how the slide valve affects steam engine cylinders when at a certain moment in time it turns some off and others on. Almost all level A movements are involuntary; they often escape consciousness and continue to occur during sleep. They are partially controlled by the spinal cord, and by the centers located in the brain stem (the “red nucleus” system) and the lower parts of cerebellum. Bernstein called this level rubrospinal level (after “nucleus ruber” – red nucleus in Latin and the spinal cord). To execute different functions on level A the central nervous system has to receive information on the intensity and directions of muscle tensions and efforts, on positions of different body parts relative to each other, on the position of body in space and the level and the direction of accelerations (this information comes from the otolithic organs inside the ear that react to acceleration).

The level of muscle-joint linkage, the level of synergies (B) The level of muscle-joint linkage in vertebrae is as old as their extremities. It developed to allow for resolution of certain class of motor tasks – locomotion on land and, later, in the air. Level B in humans controls the large “choirs” of muscles, and coordinates their joint movements (synergies). It directs the rhythm of movements, overseeing the alternative activation of joints’ flexors and exten-

136

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

sors. It supports the equality of consecutive cycles during various rhythmical movements, for example, steps during walking, arm movements during sawing or using a file, etc. These functions are closely connected with motor skills formation and movements automatization. The principle of sensory corrections can be clearly seen in level B. Motor nuclei of this level are located in the very deepest layers of the brain and they are called Pallidum nuclei. Neural signals are sent from them to the red nuclei of level A. The level B sensory nuclei are called Thalamus opticus and are located in the inner parts of the brain. They were called “optical” by mistake as they do not impact visual system at all. Thalamus receives signals from all muscle-joint and tactile sensory organs of the body. The adjacent neural nuclei receive signals from auditory, visual, olfactory and visceral sensors. Consequently, thalamus plays a significant role in the process of sensory corrections but plays mostly a service role for telereceptors – it merely transmits signals from them to the higher levels. The most important role for sensory corrections on the B level belongs to signals coming from the body, for example, pain, tactile sensations and jointmuscle sensations. The information that is significant for this level is the degree to which a joint is bent, the speed of joints’ movement, the force and direction of pressure to the muscles and deep tissues of the body and the extremities. The importance of level B for locomotion (walking, running) can be compared to the role of the flight engineer on the plane who is in charge of monitoring the engine and all the control devices. The pilot is in charge of following the route, navigating through turbulence, air pockets and changing wind directions, but the flight engineer takes care of the systems inside the plane. However, if these systems stop functioning in a coordinated manner, it would become impossible to follow the assigned route. The same function is carried by locomotion on level B: it maintains the inner control of movements, mostly unconscious, and serves as a background for higher levels. The later directs locomotion using mainly

Levels of Movement Construction

137

the information delivered from telereceptors on the important characteristics of the environment in which the movements of the organism occur.

The level of spatial fields (C) All sensory organs, along with the memories of past experiences, participate in the perception of the environment. Human beings not only perceive the environment accurately, they master it. It means that they can, for example, accurately direct a finger (or an object in their hand) to any visible spot, i.e. they can “choose” the combination of muscles with precisely the force and the sequence that are needed to perform this movement. Human beings can hit a remote spot with the help of a wellaimed throw. The spatial field surrounds human beings and we perceive it with certainty as something stable. The turn of the head or the whole body does not produce the feeling that the whole world turned because of this movement, although the raw sensations from the sensory organs tell us exactly that. We perceive the environment as constant although our eyes see the close objects as large and the far away objects as small. The brain processing of the raw impressions of sensory organs is such that what reaches our consciousness is the integral and unified perception of the spatial field in all its magnitude, constancy and homogeneity. We can clearly perceive the size of objects, the distance between them and their shape; we accurately assess angles and directions. Bernstein cites the remarkably accurate description of a wolf by Jack London (“White Fang”): “Another advantage he possessed was that of correctly judging time and distance. Not that he did this consciously, however. He did not calculate such things. It was all automatic. His eyes saw correctly, and the nerves carried the vision correctly to his brain…. His was a better, far better, nervous, mental, and muscular coordination. When his eyes conveyed to his brain the moving image of an action, his brain without conscious effort, knew the space that limited that action and the time required for its completion.”

138

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

For level C functioning (unlike mainly “background” function of levels A and B) telereceptors (vision, hearing and smell) are particularly important because they are instrumental for the ability of the organism to perceive space; with the help of the lever-like extremities this space becomes accessible. The typical movements of the level Figure 4.9 Precise movements of spatial fields are those that support are controlled by level of C. moving around in space. These shifts in Repeated precise movement space occur from somewhere to some(e.g. taking small items from the same place): the ends of all the where and for a particular reason. They repetitive movements accurately overcome the external force to change converge on the subject, but the the position of the body or the object. paths of hand movements are All these movements are goal directed different every time. and lead to a certain end result (planned ahead). This becomes possible only with the help of precise and accurate movements. Corrections at this level are aimed at the semantic, the end part of the movement. The intermediate stages are secondary. If we draw a comparison between the body movement control and flying a plane, then level C functions can be compared to that of a pilot who flies the plane along the certain route towards the determined goal and corrects the glitches along the way caused by external interferences – wind, air pockets while the work of the flight engineer is similar to the functions of background levels A and B: he monitors the works of the plane’s internal systems – engines and multiple devices. Sensory corrections at level C are based on “long-range” sensory organs that monitor the environment and their own position within it. Sensory synthesis, to which vision, jointmuscle sensory organs and organs of equilibrium contribute, is very important for this level. The sensory corrections on levels A and B are focused on collecting information about the “internal housekeeping” of

Levels of Movement Construction

139

the organism – the state of its muscles and joints; angles and accelerations of different parts of the body in relation to each other.

Figure 4.10 Cyclographic study of movements of a future cosmonaut (Volynov) under short-time weightlessness. Bulbs mounted on first phalanx of the index finger, on the wrist and elbow joints. It is recorded through the obturator. On cyclogram seen: more frequent traces of light bulbs at a slow flexion of the elbow and more rare traces of light bulbs at a rapid down movement of the hand to the goal. The elbow joint is almost not moved.

To summarize, level C is characterized by the goal-oriented locomotive movements; they always have the beginning and the end and lead to a certain end result, achievement of a certain goal. The movements at this level are characterized by certain precision and accuracy. The major and most ancient movements of the spatial field level are locomotions that move body in space (walking, running and jumping). Almost all the muscles of the body participate in these movements; back-

140

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

ground support from the joint-muscle linkage level (B) contributes significantly to coordinating the functioning of these muscles. Movements of the whole body also happen to be under C level control. These are the movements that, unlike locomotions, do not move the body in space; they include many sport movements, ballet and acrobatics. This level also controls the precise goal-oriented hand (and other organs) movements in space in situations where movements need to be fast and accurate (for example, hand movements while playing the piano). In some movements of this level the overcoming of resistances comes to the forefront (lifting of weights, pulling one’s body up, stretching a bow). Level C also executes well-aimed throws and hits. All these movements need to have a support from a lower level – that of a joint-muscle linkage. Brain structures that govern the spatial-field level are the cortex and more ancient subcortical corpus striatum which executes coordination of movements in space. Cortex became responsible for voluntary movements while subcortical structures regulate the involuntary ones.

The level of actions (D) The level of actions can be realistically called a human level although its rudiments can already be observed in horses, dogs and elephants. In its fully developed form it is present only in humans. Actions are not equal to movements. Actions consist of a chain of movements where each movement of the chain brings us closer to the solution of a certain motor task. All movements of this chain are connected through the meaning of the resolved problem. Solving the problem (achieving the result) is possible only if all the links of the chains are completed and it is done in a certain sequence. Human labor, our everyday life are filled with such chains. The chains are flexible – every time they adjust to particular conditions in such a way as to allow for the solution of a motor task. The action most often involves an object. But if at the C level only the moving of the object takes place, at level D certain

Levels of Movement Construction

141

result is being achieved – a vessel or a statue emerge from a piece of clay, a metal part is being manufactured, a ball is getting kicked into a goal. At the same time, some movements in the chain might move the object in a different way, opposite to where it needs to end up for the task to be solved. To take out a screw one needs to unscrew it, not pull it out. Speech also constitutes an action. The chain of sequential movements of the tongue, lips and vocal chords is connected by the common meaning that does not amount to moving something. As we have already mentioned, the level of actions is a specifically human level where the meaning of the action comes to the forefront. However, even in humans it does not develop until older age. A child stays almost exclusively within the movements of the spatial-field level until he reaches the age of 5–7. Sensory corrections at the action level differ significantly from the sensory corrections that occur at the lower levels. On levels A and B the sensory signals necessary for movement control come from receptors. On level C these signals are already far advanced compared to the raw impressions provided by sensory organs, they are the result of a comprehensively processed synthesis (“spatial field”) that additionally includes the traces of the past experience retained in memory. For level D this synthesis is even more advanced. It contains very few direct sensory impressions; the major part of it consists of the ideas about the plan of action, the order and the connection between its parts. Sensory corrections of the level of actions are based on the meaning of the information about objects, on the assessment of whether the current link (movement) in the actions’ chain does what it is required to do based on the motor task at hand. Responsibility for all the rest of the details is “subcontracted” to the lower levels. Out of all the brain structures that are able to execute the work at the level of actions, only the youngest structure, the cerebral cortex, meets all the requirements; for the most part these are areas specific to human brain including areas responsible for speech functions.

142

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Second Creative Period The end of 1940s can also be considered the end of the second period in Bernstein’s creative work although this division is artificial. All his creative work, over the course of his life is marked by remarkable integrity. Despite all the difficulties his life looks as though it was the realization of the path that was planned ahead of time and aimed towards realization of the goal he had established. Let us try to briefly review this period and summarize everything that Bernstein has accomplished. Based on the analysis of the biomechanics of the motor act, the characteristics of motor organs as complex kinematic chain with a large number of degrees of freedom and the impact of “passive” physical forces, Bernstein established the mechanism of achieving univocal correspondence between the central task and peripheral result in the presence of their ambiguous correspondence to efferent (motor) tasks. According to him, it is achieved through obtaining sensory information about the result through comparison of what should be (the image of the action result) to what has actually been achieved and generating the corrective effector signals based on the identified discrepancies. As a result, one of the most fundamental principles in the control theory, the principle of sensory corrections (feedback), clearly formulated by Bernstein, was subjected to thorough justification and development using mathematical tools. The task of controlling multi-link executive systems with many degrees of freedom was defined as elimination of the excessive degrees of freedom. As a consequence of aforementioned principles significant general ideas were developed on the ways brain reflects the external world and the influences that are directed towards its modification. These ideas clarified metrical and topological characteristics as well as the inappropriateness of drawing direct correlation between external functions and brain structure. In light of the later the clear alternative emerged to the localizationism and equipotentialism that maintains that all areas of the brain possess the same abilities. According to Bernstein, morphologically different

The Outcomes of Bernstein’s Second Creative Period

143

brain structures are special operators that support the realization of any function by brain as a whole. In the process of developing this idea and considering the accumulated facts Bernstein eventually came to the conclusion that morphological differences in the structure of brain zones reflect the differences in the organization of the specific nervous sphere that acts as an operator. It is not the external functions (speech, motor acts, etc.) that are localized in the brain but rather certain operations (disjunctions, conjunctions, etc.). Contemporary neurophysiology just now is starting to confirm N. A. Bernstein’s ideas in this regard and to fully understand their significance. The detailed development of principles of control of motor system in particular and formulating definition of the hierarchical multilayered (according to vertical principle) organization of this control along with the possible impact of different levels of central nervous system constitutes the main content of the second period of Bernstein’s creative work. The second period of Bernstein’s creative work also resulted in formulating the general theory of movement construction. Mechanical forces affecting the moving organ and the innervation structure of motor acts that limits the number of the degrees of freedom in the complex kinematic chain were studied in detail. The general principles of motor control led Bernstein to formulating the concept of the hierarchical structure of complex control system (in this he was also an envoy of cybernetics). Bernstein showed the defining role of afferentation in movement construction. The emergence in the process of phylogenesis of the higher levels of central nervous system is based not on them usurping the functions of lower levels (that used to be the higher levels once) but on the increase in complexity of movement control and the functions of lower levels. Bernstein researched the mechanisms of automatization and de-automatization of movements (using the cases of pathology). He revealed the failures of narrow localizationism: only the operators of logical processes are localized in the brain, not the external functions themselves. It was shown how the subjective space grows out of the afferentation, the object grows from that space and the

144

Chapter IV. Construction of Movements

most generalized concepts of objects emerge based on that. Subjective time grows from the effectors and from the time – a meaningful action and, on the highest levels, the later generates behavior and, finally, the superior synthesis of behavior – personality or a subject. N. A. Bernstein analyzes the objective level of movements where the leading is not the purely physical spatial but the meaningful image in which the meaning of object is fixated. The object presents itself not as a physical stimulus but as a carrier of the concrete historical experience. In this one can see the connections between the ideas of N. A. Bernstein and L. S. Vygotsky. The characteristic feature of this level is the prevalence of topological characteristics of the external objects as opposed to its metrics, “the property of indifference to the scale and the position of the movement that is being executed”. Bernstein’s works created new possibilities for the analysis of motor dysfunctions caused by damages in different parts of the brain. Based on Bernstein’s ideas a study of the functioning of the motor system in people with different types of damages to the nervous system allowed not only to drastically change the understanding of the “localization of functions” within the nervous system but to design effective ways to restore the damaged functions which proved to be very important for treating those injured during WWII. In the years after the war Bernstein’s ideas were used in designing prosthesis for upper and lower extremities, walking machines and in the design of computer based controlling devices.

Chapter V. Physiology of Activity The Stifling Atmosphere The book “On the Construction of Movement” was published in 1947. In 1948 Bernstein wins the Stalin Award for this book – the USSR’s highest award for scientific achievements at that time. However, this was the time when Stalin’s persecutions of the most talented representatives of scientific and artistic communities were gaining momentum. On August 14, 1946 the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party on “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” journals was published. It defamed poet Anna Akhmatova and writer Mikhail Zoshchenko. At the end of 1947 the “Pravda” newspaper publishes an article “On One Anti-Party Coalition of Theatre Critics”. In it the authors exposed the “adverse nature of cosmopolites”: “The critics failed their responsibility to people; they are the carriers of the profoundly aversive for Soviet people rootless cosmopolitism. The feeling of national Soviet pride is alien to them”. On January 13, 1948 Solomon Mikhailovich Mikhoels, the great actor, was murdered and, following his assassination, the campaign against the “rootless cosmopolitans”, the expression which was used primarily as a reference to the Jewish intelligentsia, started to gain strength. The same month the resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party was adopted that smashed the most famous composers of the time. Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Muradeli were all declared the supporters of “…an antinational formalistic trend in music….promoting lack of principles and the reverence for decaying Western culture”. In July – August of 1948 biological science gets hit as well – T. D. Lysenko leads the session of V. I. Lenin’s All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASHNIL, Vsesoyuznaya Akademiya SelskoHozyaystvennyih Nauk Imeni V. I. Lenina) where the brightest representatives of the science of genetics were defamed.

146

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

The same year the State Museum of New Western Art was closed in Moscow. In January of 1949 the members of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested, among them the prominent physiologist, member of the Academy, 70-year old Lina Solomonovna Stern. The authorities started to fabricate a case against “killer doctors”, “assassins in white coats”. The following is a more detailed recap of the devastating events that occurred in biological science. On July 31 – August 7, 1948 during the VASHNIL session, T. D. Lysenko presented a report aimed at the defamation of scientific genetics that was based on the classical studies of Mendel, Morgan, and Weismann. The complete irrelevance of this report and the aggressive illiteracy of its author are already evident from Lysenko’s definition of heredity: “Heredity is the characteristic of the living organisms to require certain conditions for their life and development and to react a certain way in response to these conditions”.64 The absurdity of this definition is obvious even to a schoolchild: it does not mention at all sequences of generations of living organisms through which heredity exhibits itself. But it was dangerous to object during the session: Lysenko’s report was approved ahead of time and sanctioned by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and by Stalin himself. It pains to read the stenographical recording of this session of VASHNIL, for example, the presentation of the member of the Academy P. M. Zhukovsky, who, like many others, was the recipient of Lysenko’s criticism. In his statement he shows the relevance of the chromosome theory of heredity, logically substantiating his views. Lysenko and his accomplices interrupt him, interfere with his speech but he bravely finishes it up. At the last meeting of the session, after Lysenko has already delivered his concluding remarks, which he started by saying that his report was approved by the Central Committee 64

Lysenko, T. D.: O Polozhenii v Biologicheskoy Nauke [On the Situation in Biological Science]. Stenograficheskiy Otchet Sessii Vsesoyuznoy Akademii Selsko-Hozyaystvennyih Nauk Imeni V. I. Lenina [Stenographic Recording of the Session of V. I. Lenin’s All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences]. Moscow 1949, p. 28.

Physiology on Trial

147

of the Party, Zhukovsky asks for additional time. This time we see a broken man on the podium; his remarks do not even remotely resemble a scientific discussion. “My speech two days ago was unfortunate, …was the last presentation based on the false biological and ideological premises…” His spirit has been broken; he realized that this event was not meant to be a debate based in scientific arguments; it was organized to get rid of the opponents. May be he remembered the fate of a prominent biologist, member of the Academy Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov who by that time was already dead: he was slandered by Lysenko, arrested by KGB, tortured and died in prison at the beginning of 1943. The second act of this tragic persecution of science was the Joint Session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and USSR Academy of Medical Sciences dedicated to the issues of higher nervous activity.

Physiology on Trial On June 28 – July 4, 1950 the “Scientific session on the issues in the physiological theory of the member of the Academy I. P. Pavlov” took place. The main presenters were Pavlov’s students K. M. Bykov and A. G. Ivanov-Smolensky. The latter was already mentioned earlier in this book when we discussed Bernstein’s critique of the conditioned reflexes theory. The “preparatory bombardment” was conducted prior to the session: a number of different publications appeared in “Pravda” presenting Pavlov’s theory as the scientific foundation of dialectical materialism. The session itself immediately took a harshly critical, destructive direction. It became an attempt to “canonize” Pavlov’s work. And any scientific school becomes reactionary and pulls the science backwards once it is forbidden to criticize it. “Pavlov’s theory” was presented as an ultimate truth beyond any criticism. Presentations and speeches were directed first and foremost against the member of the Academy Leon Abgarovich Orbeli – the most talented

148

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

student of I. P. Pavlov and his favorite, the only one out of all his colleagues Pavlov recommended to be elected to the Academy of Sciences. It was Orbeli, who, in Pavlov’s eyes, was his successor and who replaced him at the Department of Physiology of the Military Medical Academy. After Pavlov’s death Orbeli became the head of the Institute of Physiology of Academy of Science of USSR where Pavlovian theory continued to develop under his guidance. But it is exactly that – the further development of science – that Orbeli was blamed for. A harsh criticism was also directed at other prominent successors of Pavlov – P. K. Anokhin, A. D. Speransky and others. For those participating in the session it became obvious from the very beginning that its goal was not a scientific discussion but rather an ideological eradication of the best representatives of Soviet physiology under the slogan of dogmatization of Pavlov’s theory. Almost no one dared to present serious scientific arguments because of the destructive nature of the session. It was the rat race for the place under the sun. Orbeli needed to be pushed aside so that someone else could take over his position, his institute and his laboratories the way it happened several years prior to another member of the Academy – L. S. Stern. Bernstein did not have anything worth taking away. And probably for this exact reason the thugs did not pay much attention to him who was, in fact, the main opponent of Pavlov. His name was never mentioned in the main (critical) presentations of Bykov and Ivanov-Smolensky. E. A. Asratyan mentioned Bernstein’s name only briefly stating: “When people like Stern, Bernstein, Efimov and the like who do not understand either the letter or the spirit of Pavlov’s teachings submit such thoughtless anti-Pavlov publications, it is not even frustrating as much as it is ridiculous”. L. S. Stern has already been arrested by then so this remark, made by Asratyan in passing, carried a rather sinister undertone. K. M. Smirnov mentioned Bernstein in somewhat more details. Having mentioned Bernstein’s method of cyclogrammetry as “exceptional in its perfection”, he immediately follows by stating that the “data generalization in his (meaning Bernstein – I. F.) research is not just unsatisfactory; it can be called defective”. And further

Physiology on Trial

149

“Professor Bernstein creates fictitious hypotheses on the nature of movement coordination”. This statement does not contain even a shadow of scientific argument, this is just defamation. This session is known as “Pavlovian”, however, I. P. Pavlov does not carry any responsibility for it. In history in general (not just the history of science) it happened many a times that the banner with the pure name written on it ends up in dirty hands and is used to conduct a shady business. These memories made me think of my conversation with Nikolai Dmitrievich Nuberg soon after this session ended. He was significantly older than me; we barely knew each other, and only met at various scientific conferences. We were walking next to each other down Big Kaluzshskaya Street after a meeting of the Biology section of the Academy of Sciences. The weather was miserable – wind and biting snow and we walked with our collars up. He was walking next to me and suddenly he said: “You are, I believe, a physiologist. You know, it is the latest achievements in physiology that really convinced me that there is no life after death”. I did not know how to react to such confessions made by someone I barely knew. He noticed it and continued: “Because if life after death did exist, the soul of Ivan Petrovich Pavlov would have showed up with a hu-u-u-ge bludgeon!” We’ve been friends since then. The Stalinist repressions in science were not limited to those scientists who (like Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, and many others) lost their lives, or those who (like Vladimir Pavlovich Efroimson and many others) lost their freedom, they also included those who were unable to work, or publish their results, freely discuss their ideas with colleagues. While trying to estimate the scope of a disaster – natural or social, like the catastrophes the size of a war or Chernobyl, one needs to take into consideration not only the number of lives lost or the number of valuable deeds not finished. One also needs to take into consideration the number of those who are never going to be born as a result of the event or the lives that were deprived of creative possibilities or opportunities to even start something valuable.

150

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

The devastating destruction of science could not have possibly bypassed Bernstein: his laboratories were closed, there were no opportunities for research left, and no money was coming in either. Until 1948 at least several significant publications by Bernstein would appear in scientific journals every year. But now his articles are being rejected. In 1949 only a 2-page thesis of his presentation is published by the Institute of Physical Culture. After that – complete silence for 4 years (1950–1953). However, even after Stalin’s death and a period of “thaw” that came with it, the publication of Bernstein’s essential works remains impossible. Let us look through the list of Bernstein’s papers from the book “Physiology of Movements and Activity”. 1954 – the only publication is a 3-page thesis of his presentation at the session of the Institute of Neurology of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences were published. 1955 – the annotation of the same presentation, 2 pages long. 1956 – a review of the book by R. Wagner “Problems and Examples of Biological Regulation” in the journal “New Publications Abroad”. 1957 – a review of the book by Grey Walter “Living Brain” in the same journal. And, finally the journal “Issues in Psychology” dared to publish Bernstein’s article “Some Impending Problems of Motor Acts Regulation”. 1958 – a short (6 pages) article in “Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences’. 1959 – a popular article in the journal “Knowledge is Power” 1960 – the preface to the book by V. D. Moiseev “Issues of Cybernetics in Biology and Medicine”. The same year Bernstein’s article “Biomechanics” (2 pages!) appears in the “Encyclopedia Dictionary of Physics”.

The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity

151

And only in 1961 the “conspiracy of silence” that lasted twelve years (1949–1960) comes to an end!

The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity Bernstein’s lengthy (60 pages) article “Contemporary Problems in Physiology of Activity” was published in the sixth issue of the collected articles “Problems of Cybernetics”. It was first submitted for publication in the “Problems of Cybernetics” on April 20, 1958 but only in 1961 the opportunity to actually publish it presented itself. Alexei Andreevich Lyapunov, a mathematician and a wonderful person was the editor of the “Problems of Cybernetics”. In the dark years after the destruction of the science of genetics, when classical genetics became to be known at the Department of Biology of Moscow State University as pseudoscience, Lyapunov led a seminar in cybernetics where the problems of genetics and other biological sciences that used methods of exact sciences in research were discussed. Some of the presentations were published in the “Problems of Cybernetics”. Along with the specialists in mathematics and cybernetics, prominent biologists also participated in the seminar. Among them were geneticist Nikolai Vladimirovich TimofeevRessovsky (the famous “Bison”)65, psycho-physiologist Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein, neuro-morphologist Grigori Israilevich Polyakov, and others. Several articles by Timofeev-Ressovsky were published in “Problems of Cybernetics” (starting with the first issue in 1958). And only in 1961 in the sixth issue of “Problems of Cybernetics” the detailed article “Contemporary Problems in Physiology of Activity” was published.

65

The life of N. V. Timofeev-Ressovsky was described by Daniil Granin in the novel “Zubr” (Bison).

152

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

Figure 5.1 Cover page of Bernstein's original paper "Contemporary Problems in Physiology of Activity", published in 1961. The reprint is signed by Bernstein und dedicated to Josef Feigenberg.

The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity

153

In this article Bernstein provides the summary of the extensive body of data accumulated in the field of physiology of movements that significantly expanded the understanding of the role of the central nervous system of higher animals and humans in the composition of motor acts. Describing the main postulates of the conceived physiology of activity and the directions of its future development, Bernstein notes that the goal of his writing is to pose and clarify the questions that are awaiting answers rather than to find answers to something that still remains in the hypothetical realm. By the end of the 19th century it became clear that the improvement of motor skills with exercise cannot be localized on the motor periphery of the body – in the bone-joint-muscle apparatus. The leading role in the developing and strengthening of the habits belongs to the central nervous system. (Remember the line from Bernstein’s early poem: “Brain or the muscles are masters of running and jumping and walk?”). However, at the start of the 20th century physiology was still very far from understanding the utmost importance of sensory afferent systems for movement control. The focus of research shifted from muscles and joints to the motor (effector) brain systems. The idea of the “push-button” structure of motor control emerged where every cell of the brain cortex “command post” (or an aggregate similar to that cell) controls a certain muscle, one particular movement. The individual imprinting of the traces of previous stimulation in central nervous system was interpreted as gradual forming of the connecting paths in the brain as a result of multiple repetitions of the simultaneously occurring stimulations. Tremendous hopes were set on the theory of conditioned reflexes up to expecting to erect the entire “building” of materialistic psychology with this theory as a foundation. Unconditioned and conditioned reflexes were viewed as “bricks” from which all types of complex behavioral patterns of animals and humans are built similar to how identical bricks can be used to construct buildings of different style, size and purpose. This atomistic view proved to be false. It did not take into consideration the complex integrity of the organism. Each reflex represents “not

154

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

the element of an action but an elementary action”. If we consider all actions of animals or humans and place them on a scale in the order of increasing complexity, all reflexes will end up at the end of the scale together with the least complex actions. But the concept of reflex is limited to physiological framework and here we are not including such ideas as the “reflex of freedom”, “reflex of slavery”, “reflex of goal” and such (the way I. P. Pavlov did in 1910–1930s). There is a deep and principal divide between the processes of conditioned reflexes development and the forming of a goal-directed motor skills and habits. The entire design of the experiments on developing conditioned reflexes in animals promotes their absolute passivity in relation to stimuli. The real setback for these experiments was the inhibition in experimental animals. Conversely, the process of motor skills development is permeated with activity. Here the external manifestations of habits and the internal essence of the motor exercise are both active. Elaboration and consolidation of conditioned reflexes occur in a monotonous way with the purely quantitative homogenous build-up of the result. Thus, the idea emerged that conditioned reflexes develop through the formation of the pathways in brain conductors or synapses. In other words, as a result of repetitive stimulation brain conductors or synapses that connect the cell groups increase their conductivity of nervous impulses. But the development of motor skills consists of a chain of consequent phases with distinct significance and underlying mechanisms. The motor skill itself has a complex structure. It always has a background and leading levels, leading and secondary links, etc. Bernstein states: “Understanding of motor skills as similar to building of conditioned associations caused a tangible practical harm by justifying monotonous passive learning mainly focused on the number of repetitions performed. A low effectiveness of this method (both in music and physical labor areas) soon resulted in it critical reassessment”. What is being repeated and strengthened in the process of motor skill development? Bernstein emphasizes that the already developed motor skill cannot be based in the steady

The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity

155

sequence of nervous impulses to muscles as the essence of motor coordination consists of the constant adjustment of these motor impulses to the dynamic and changing conditions. The standard sensory corrections cannot serve as the basis of motor skill either as they are no less variable. Thus, neither motor nor sensory brain centers nor systems are able to serve as a substrate for localization of the steady imprints and formulas of motor skill. If exercising or training motor skill could be reduced to multiple repetitions only, the incorrect or awkward movements of the initial stage will only be learned. This shows the fallibility of the theories of “connecting paths”. In the process of motor skill development every consequent movement does not just repeat the preceding but improves it. Exercise is repetition without repetition, i.e. it is not just a repetition of the action being mastered but its construction as well. If the exercise is conducted properly, what is being repeated time after time is not the means of resolving this particular motor task but the process of resolution while the means change and improve with every repetition. Motor skill is a coordinating structure that consists of the mastered skill to resolve a particular kind of motor tasks. The more complete and firm the mastering of the skill, the wider the range of alternatives and complex modifications of the task that do not cause its disorganization or de-automatization, provided the subject possesses adequate resources for coordination. What is the leading factor in programming and circular correction of the motor components of movement? Bernstein concludes that “if we take the program of a motor act in its entirety its only defining factor is the anticipated image of the end product that the subject aims at based on his understanding of the motor task”. The cause of reactive action is the stimulation that triggered it. The cause of the active action is the psychophysiological image of something that does not yet exists but that has to happen, i.e. the brain complex that because of its content belongs to the future. May be in this ability to look

156

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

into the future lies the most significant difference between a dead and alive matter. N. A. Bernstein’s article in the “Problems of Cybernetics” irritated the proponents of Pavlov’s theory. Thus, in May of 1962 at the All-Union Conference on Philosophical Issues in Higher Nervous Activity and Psychology N. A. Schustin stated: “One should assume that any skill is based on the mechanism of temporary connection. Without participation of that mechanism no skill can be formed. Professor Bernstein, on the other hand, is looking for “principal and fundamental” Figure 5.2 N. A. Bernstein differences between the elaboration of (with a halo over his head). skill and conditioned associations. When Friendly caricature of one of N. A. Bernstein attempts to consider the the participants of the new directions in the advancements of conference in May 1961. physiology in connection with cybernetics, we can only encourage it but when he writes the review articles for cyberneticists and confuses their understanding of the matter and the meaning of the reflex theory, we have to subject that to fundamental criticism”.66 Y. B. Lechtman also presented at the same conference: “N. A. Bernstein’s archaic interpretation of voluntary actions as spontaneous acts of nervous system can’t help but leave one feeling perplexed …. Pavlovian understanding of voluntary actions as being based on conditioned reflexes and dependent on the cumulative activity of the cortical areas of the brain, in our opinion, is irrefutable. 66

Schustin, N. A.: Filosofskie Voprosyi Fiziologii Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti i Psihologii [Philosophical Issues in Physiology of Higher Nervous Activity and Psychology]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk [Publishing House of Academy of Science of USSR] 1963, p. 527.

The First Words of the Newborn Physiology of Activity

157

It is this understanding that disproves “the absurd myth of the freedom of will”; and if the ideas of cybernetics feed into this myth, all the worst for these “ideas”.67 The 1961 thorough article in the “Problems of Cybernetics” marked the beginning of a number of publications by N. A. Bernstein dedicated to his work in the new area of psychophysiology – the physiology and biology of activity. The text of the presentation that Bernstein prepared for the All-Union Conference on the Philosophical Issues in Higher Nervous Activity and Psychology in May of 1962 was published in the journal “Issues in Philosophy” (#8, 1962). In 1965 the same journal published his article “On the Road Towards the Biology of Activity” (“Issues in Philosophy”, #10, 1965). Bernstein’s paper “Immediate Tasks of Neurophysiology in Light of Contemporary Theory of Biological Activity” was accepted for presentation at the XVIII International Psychological Congress in 1966. Its Russian version and English translation was included in the book “Cybernetic Aspects of Brain Integral Activity: XVIII International Psychological Congress”, Moscow, 1966. But Nikolai Alexandrovich himself was not able to attend the congress. In the same year, 1966, after Nikolai Alexandrovich has passed away, his book “Outline in the Physiology of Movements and Physiology of Activity” and his article “From the Reflex to the Model of the Future” were published. The extent of investment that Bernstein made in the last years of his life in creating the physiology of activity is obvious from this incomplete list. His article “From the Reflex to the Model of the Future” that we have already mentioned clearly reflects his train of thought at that time. Later it was reprinted a number of times – in the United States, Russia and Germany.68 In Russia the thought was that only one big stream flow out of Sechenov’s legacy – that of Pavlov’s research. But it was not so. A lot of streams flow out of his legacy. Undoubtedly, Pavlov’s line of research is 67 68

Ibid., pp. 554–555. Motor Control, 1999, v. 3, #3; Voprosyi Psihologii, 2002, #2; Behindertenpädagogik, 2002, H. 3.

158

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

one of them, but it is also Vvedensky and Ukhtomsky, and Bernstein as well. After the session of 1950 the view of the history of science turned out to be quite one-sided; Russian physiology, psychology and certain areas of medical science (psychiatry, psychotherapy) experienced a period of stagnation. Psychotherapy was practically destroyed. This session not only caused significant damage to the advancement of science, it also had a debilitating influence on the scientific community overall. A number of scientists felt they could not freely express their ideas as the situation in the field was complicated and even dangerous. Many became used to lies and hypocrisy and did not see this behavior as reprehensible. The mask that one wears eventually starts to take and it becomes more and more difficult to take it off. Soon after the session I had a conversation with a well-known scientist. We had good relationship and I felt like I could express my thoughts freely with him. I voiced my opinion on the presentation by Lysenko – it had a lot of internal contradictions and some parts of it were clearly absurd. He responded: “Yes, certainly, and this session was awful but there was still some truth to it you see…” And he started looking for justifications. There were just two of us and we were walking down the street. He couldn’t have possibly been worried about anyone overhearing us. I understood the psychological nature of what was happening: this was his defense from acknowledging to himself that he was a liar. It is very unpleasant to feel like one. My colleague held high administrative positions and had to speak publicly on a number of occasions. Not all of his speeches were dictated by his scientific consciousness. And since he had to repeat certain statements a number of times, it became difficult for him to renounce them, so he started to look for at least something rational there. Such “self-defense” is automatic and very corruptive. I think that these are issues that need to be discussed even now so that the next generations of scientists knew about them. When someone has to deviate from the truth, they might think: I am not that important, I’ll say what they want me to say, it is a practical thing to do and soon everything will be forgotten anyway. That is not so. Everyone needs to remember

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

159

that the history of science does not forget anything. It is necessary that the losses that the session of 1950 caused be turned into the lessons for the generations to come.

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength 1950–1960s constitutes the third period in N. A. Bernstein’s creative activity when, deprived of opportunities to conduct experimental work, he focused on basic research and further developed his earlier ideas. He created the physiology and biology of activity on the basis of the new understanding of the organisms’ vital activities. Bernstein considers living organisms not as passive reactive systems that respond to internal stimulations and adjust to environment but as active goal-directed systems that developed through the process of evolution and have needs, goals and are able to create a model of the desired future. They actively negotiate the resistance of the environment and change it according to these needs, goals and images of the future. The goals of the living organisms can emerge as a result of the acquired or inherited needs, be realized based on the individual or collective experience and include the model of the desired future created for each. Bernstein believed that the process of life consists not in “achieving balance with the environment” – as was thought within the framework of classical mechanisizm – but rather as the overcoming of the environment aimed not at maintaining the existing status or homeostasis but at the movement in the direction of the realization of the biological program of development and self-sufficiency. Bernstein considered living organisms as negentropy systems which organizational patterns become more defined with time, i.e. the decrease in entropy occurs. The activity is directed by a goal, image of the desired future. This concept is based on the principle of materialistic teleology, the principle of goal-directed character of the living organism actions. The action is determined by a specific task, need of the organism and to achieve or satisfy it the organism utilizes past

160

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

experience. The essence of the goal-directed behavior can be expressed as follows: an action is determined by the past and by the “image of a desired future” which are compared to present and get extrapolated onto the future. Bernstein showed that along with the questions of “how” and “why” materialistic science about the living nature should also be able to answer the question of “what for”. N. A. Bernstein can be rightfully considered the founder of the physiology of activity as a branch of science as he consistently applied the principle of activity to the actions and organization of the goal directed behavior. Further advancement of the physiology of activity that Bernstein focused on in the last years of his life (up until his death on January 16, 1966) has a lasting importance for physiology, biology, psychology and for philosophy of natural sciences as it promotes a deeper anti-mechanistic approach to solving such problem of all problems as “psyche and brain”. The summary of this period of Bernstein’s creative work was outlined in a number of articles and in his book “Outline in the Physiology of Movements and Physiology of Activity” that was published the same year he passed away (1966). Physiology of activity, created by Bernstein, is a concept far exceeding the boundaries of physiology and encompassing psychological and biological issues. May be it is more accurate to speak of the biology of activity. This is a truly original concept that is rooted in the works of I. M. Sechenov and A. A. Ukhtomsky and at its crown connected to cybernetics. Sechenov was very familiar with the concept of activity. He wrote that “we listen but don’t hear; not only see but look”. From this understanding derive the contemporary ideas on the active character of the selection of the necessary minimum of information and sifting out the redundant or excessive “noises”. The processes of scanning are active in nature and utilize effector structures in full analogy to how the latter exploits affer-

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

161

entation to control movements. A number of times Bernstein noted the connections between these ideas and the works of I. M. Sechenov.69 I. M. Sechenov knew that a single-valued connection between a stimulus and the characteristics of the reaction could not exist. Reactions are not determined by stimulus only; the state of the systems that carry out the reaction plays the role as well. The concept of self-regulation as a process that allows to actively reach the goal in the changing environment by receiving information on the external changes in that environment and changes within the organism itself was developed by Bernstein in his physiology of activity. One of the most important conclusions of the physiology of activity is the idea that any kind of motor activity – from the elementary motor acts to complex goal-directed chains of them that occur during labor, writing, articulation, etc. is directed and defined primarily by the meaning of the motor task and by the anticipation of the desired resolution. The ways of achieving this result can vary. In 1962 Bernstein wrote: “The most original and, at the same time, most typical out of everything that physiology faces in regards to the problem of activity is the fact that the immediate action task formulated by the organism from “within” based on the situation at hand but not mechanistically determined by it is necessarily constructed as an extrapolation of the future in certain sense: the appropriate action can be programmed only based on the certain image or model of what this action should lead to and the reason it is being conducted. But since the expected can be estimated and foreseen only through probabilistic prognosis (a very fitting term suggested by I. M. Feigenberg), it is obvious that the approach to all of the physiological processes revealed here must be based on the probability theory and its newest concepts… The idea of

69

See, for instance, Bernstein, N. A.: Ocherki po Fiziologii Dviženii i Fiziologii Aktivnosti [Outline of the Physiology of Movements and the Physiology of Activity]. Moscow: Medizina 1966, p. 225, and also the text of his presentation in: Filosofskie Voprosyi Fiziologii Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti i Psihologii [Philosophical Issues in Physiology of Higher Nervous Activity and Psychology]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR 1963, p. 307.

162

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

probabilistic modeling of the future serving as a basis of the activity of all organisms starting with the lowest, allows to create the strictly materialistic interpretation of such concepts as expediency and goal-directedness that until now remained entirely in the domain of vitaliststheleologists”.70 The model of the future that directs actions can be unconscious or the subject might be aware of it. The activity’s motives, even being unconscious, still continue to initiate the activity. The question of how exactly the brain executes such modeling still remains open. For now a hypothesis exists on the structure of the internal mechanisms that support the observed phenomena on the “output” in conjunction with the certain influences at the “input”.71 Here we can clearly see the line extending from I. M. Sechenov to the idea of a “black box” in contemporary cybernetics and further to the contemporary problems of artificial intelligence. Bernstein’s physiology of activity added the question “what for?” to the questions of “how?” and “why?” The designation of actions by a goal, i.e. by the image of a yet non-existent future, makes the “active activity” teleological. However, this teleology is quite different from the distortion of causal relationships incompatible with natural sciences. Here we are talking about the purposefulness of actions. Such “teleology” later became a characteristic of cybernetics as well. It is in that sense the founders of cybernetics spoke of expediency and teleology in 1943.72

70

71

72

Bernstein, N. A.: Novye Linii Razvitija v Sovremennoy Fiziologii [New Directions in the Development of Contemporary Physiology]. In: A. A. Letavet, V. S. Farfel (Eds.), Materialyi Konferentsii po Metodam Fiziologicheskim Issledovaniyam Cheloveka [Materials of the Conference on the Methods of Physiological Research of Human Subjects], Moscow 1962, p. 18. Bernstein, N. A.: Ocherki po Fiziologii Dviženii i Fiziologii Aktivnosti [Outline of the Physiology of Movements and the Physiology of Activity]. Moscow: Medizina 1966, p. 259. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., Bigelow, G.: Behavior, Purpose and Teleology. In: N. Wiener: Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. 2nd edition, Moscow 1968, p. 287.

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

163

They suggest the following classification of behavior:

With feedback (teleological) Goal directed Active Behavior Inactive (passive)

Non goal directed (random)

Without feedback (nonteleological)

Forecasting (extrapolating)

First, second and etc. orders

Nonforecasting (nonextrapolating)

They write: “When conducting voluntary actions, we voluntarily choose a specific goal but not a specific action”. To realize a goal-directed behavior, a “feedback” is needed: behavior is directed by the scope of a discrepancy in relation to a certain goal. Authors hypothesize that one of the characteristics of the leap that we observe when we compare human beings with higher mammals lies in the fact that the latter are only capable of predicting the lower level behaviors while human beings potentially are capable to predict behaviors on a much higher level. Every scientific approach finds answers to some questions while others are only posed and are still waiting to be answered. The problems brought to the forefront by physiology of activity stretch far beyond the boundaries of physiology. Particularly the author would like to note the issue of a living organism and the environment. In place of the view of organisms as adjusting to the environment the physiology of activity presented the idea of their active influence on the environment. Further development of this most fascinating idea will require biology to collaborate with other sciences. “The rising of interest in physiology of activity with its interpretation of probabilistic prognosis and the idea of resisting environment to resolve the set task (underlined by the author – I. F.) brings about attempts to understand such issues as dynamic “balance” between the organism and the environment, homeostasis as a goal of the

164

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

active-conflict relationships with the environment along with using such branches of mathematics as the general game theory, theory of conflicts and strategies to advance physiology, which was hardly ever considered before”.73 Emphasizing that movements are almost the only form of life activity through which the organisms not just interact with environment but actively impacts it, changing or striving to change it in a certain way, Bernstein further advances Sechenov’s ideas on the global importance of movements which the latter formulated in his book “Reflexes of the Brain”. Bernstein’s concept of the physiology of activity “laid the foundation for the development of new principles of understanding of organisms’ living activity”.74 In 1996 we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nikolai Alexandrovich Bernstein. But the year 1996 also marked another anniversary – 400 years since the birth of René Descartes (1596–1650). The coincidence seems symbolic. Descartes introduced the concept of reflex to physiology. According to him, animals are like machines whose movements occur in response to stimuli. In addition to the automatic movements that are common in animals and human beings, the latter also have immaterial souls that have a will and the ability to think. Descartes was the founder of the reflex principle in studying the physiology of nervous system. The “mountain range” of “reflex physiology” starts with him. It stretched over the period of three hundred years and had a few other striking ascents, “mountain peaks” after Descartes, for example, La Mettrie who reduced all human behavior to reflexes; Prochaska who interpreted reflex as an expedient act that is regulated by the sense of selfpreservation; C. Bell and F. Magendie who discovered the mechanism of 73

74

Bernstein, N. A.: Novye Linii Razvitija v Sovremennoy Fiziologii [New Directions in the Development of Contemporary Physiology]. In: A. A. Letavet, V. S. Farfel (Eds.), Materialyi Konferentsii po Metodam Fiziologicheskim Issledovaniyam Cheloveka [Conference on the Methods of Physiological Research of Human Subjects]. Moscow 1962, p. 21. Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya [Large Soviet Encyclopedia], v. 3. Moscow 1970.

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

165

the simple reflex arc in the spinal cord; I. M. Sechenov with his remarkable “Reflexes of the Spinal Cord”; C. Sherrington who introduced the notion of integrated activity of the nervous system; I. P. Pavlov who expanded the reflex principle to the experimental research of the higher nervous activity of animals and human beings using the method of conditioned reflexes. All scientific work mentioned above that is part of the “mountain range”, the paradigm of reflex physiology, proved to be very fruitful for understanding the functioning of the nervous system. The range of phenomena studied by experimental physiology expanded from the machinelike reflexes of Descartes, in which the reflex arc was embedded in the inherent structure of nervous system, to Pavlov’s conditioned reflexes where the arc develops in the process of individual life under certain conditions (thus, the term “conditioned reflex”). Bernstein’s physiology of activity was developed within the framework of a new paradigm for studying functions of the nervous system. Within the framework of the old paradigm the reflex arc was the main structural unit of nervous system: the neuron chain started with a receptor and ended with an effector. In the new paradigm it was replaced by the closed circle. Action does not end with the activation of an effector. The information of the result achieved at this phase in the process goes back to the center and is used to form the new effector signals that adjust the achieved results based on the goal that is being pursued. Bernstein introduced the concept of “sensory corrections” and reflex circle to physiology in 1935, ahead of the idea of “feedback” developing within the framework of cybernetics. Within the paradigm of reflex physiology the animal organism is reactive and its actions are the response to stimulation of the animal’s receptors. Within the paradigm of the physiology of activity animal organisms are considered active systems whose actions are directed towards attaining certain goals. The term “reflex” introduced by Descartes, originates from Latin word “flexus” which means bend or flex, i.e. it means reflection, going back to what has already happened. In the physiology of

166

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

activity actions are determined not by a stimulus that occurred in the past but by a goal, an image of what should happen as a result of this action. The image of what should happen as a result of a movement is coded within the nervous system. Bernstein called it “a model (image) of the desired future”. Based on the comparison of the actual situation (Istwert) and what should occur as a result of the movement (Sollwert) the program of action is created. Sensory corrections are used to compare the already achieved current result with the one that is supposed to happen. This comparison initiates the necessary changes in the program of actions so that “desired future” can be achieved. The non-living nature, left on its own, moves in the direction of the least organized structure, in the direction of the entropy increase. The concept of entropy was introduced by R. Clausius (1865) to describe the processes of energy transformation. It became popular in thermodynamics, in statistical physics and theory of information. Entropy became the quantitative measurement of ambiguity, the degree of systems’ disorganization. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the heat-insulated system can only increase as the system evolves towards thermodynamic equilibrium in which entropy reaches its maximum. Bernstein in his physiology of activity considers live organisms as negentropy systems that strive to minimize entropy, i.e. to be maximally organized. The decrease in the level of entropy within the organisms is achieved through the increase in entropy of the environment as a result of the oxidation and breakdown of substances that are involved in the process of energy metabolism. Classical physiology studied living organisms in non-action states, that of rest, equilibrium and often in the situation of isolation from the multiple environmental influences. The study of nervous system functioning was conducted on nerve-muscle preparation or animals under anesthesia with nervous system severed on different levels (for example, decerebral animals). In Pavlov’s experiments the animals were placed in the stall isolated from the external influences that “interfere with the

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

167

experiment” (Pavlov’s famous “tower of silence”). Bernstein’s research (and the methods of movement research designed by him) was conducted in natural environment unrestricted by researchers (labor, sport movements). The basic principles of the physiology of activity have fundamental significance not just for neurophysiology but for the general biology as well. While classical biology considered evolution as a process through which only the organisms best adjusted to the environment survive, in Bernstein’s physiology of activity survival of the organisms depend on overcoming the resistance of the environment through active determination to achieve their goals, to satisfy their needs. In author’s opinion, for human beings this translates into ethical problems, i.e. not to adjust to the conditions of the environment but to actively overcome its resistance and transform it according to their own ideals, their own “model of the desired future”. It means to actively overcome the resistance of the environment as opposed to achieving equilibrium with it. If the paradigm of reflex physiology considered past and present time, how and why the action is conducted, physiology of activity considers future as well – the reason the action is conducted, the goal it is striving to achieve. The model of the desired future is the basis of goal-directed behavior. In the last year of his life Bernstein wrote an essay that was published after his death, where he summarized all his accomplishments. The title of the essay itself emphasizes the shift in paradigms – “From Reflex to the Model of the Future”. It is with this future that the concept of “probabilistic prognosis”, developed by the author, is connected. From the very beginning (already in 1962) N. A. Bernstein supported the idea of probabilistic prognosis and clearly formulated its place in the system of physiology of activity. He wrote: “It appears that here we are considering the two interconnected processes. One of them is probabilistic prognosis based on the current situation as it is being perceived…Along with this probabilistic extrapolation of the course of current events (as it would have been under the

168

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

conditions of “non-interference”) there is also a process of programming of actions that should lead to the realization of the desired future…”75 Introduction of the future into the vision field of researchers caused furious attacks on Bernstein and the physiology of activity. The concept of the goal and the model of the desired future prompted accusations of teleologism while the idea of probabilistic prognosis was interpreted as the mystical belief that organisms somehow receive information from the future. But there is nothing mystical in this idea. The goal, the model of the desired future represents coded within the organism information that existed prior to the start of the action and that direct that action. Probabilistic prognosis is not the “information received from the future” but rather the information on the most probable future based on the data about the past and stored in memory. Memory is organized in such a way that it allows, based on the information about past events, for prognosis of the future with a degree of certainty and for preparation ahead to the actions appropriate for the expected future. In memory’s orientation towards the future (not the past!) lies it’s most important biological significance. Scientific community initially has a rather guarded attitude towards anything fundamentally new and often time treats it with hostility. This attitude is useful at times: it is not good to change fundamental views based on the data that might prove to be accidental; the new approach needs to gain strength, prove its relevance. But there are other factors at play here as well – psychological inertia, difficulty in changing one’s point of view that a person got accustomed to through the years or even decades. Max Planck was the first to notice that new ideas get accepted not because the opponents change their minds but because the old generation goes away and the new generation accepts the new ideas and moves on. The geocentric system of Ptolemy initially seemed to provide simple and logical explanation of the structure of the Universe: solid vault of

75

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity], Moscow: Nauka 1990, p. 438.

Physiology of Activity Gains Strength

169

heaven with the stars attached to it rotates around the Earth. But new facts were discovered that did not fit into this simplistic scheme. They were explained with the help of additional spheres that supposedly were attached to the original one…. The system became more and more complicated, too intricate and cumbersome. But it took a long time for scientists to reject the geocentric paradigm. And only Nicolaus Copernicus found courage to formulate a new paradigm, heliocentric. It is possible that something quite similar is happening with the paradigm of a reflex and a reflex arc. Descartes suggested a simple, precise, and elegant concept that explained many facts. New facts emerged, the concept became more complicated, new characteristics were added to it (similar to “neural model of reflex”, “acceptor of action”, etc.). Pavlov’s impressive achievement was the development of the concept of conditioned reflexes. The paradigm remained the same, reflex, but now it was conditioned; still reflex arc but the kind that closes under certain circumstances… And maybe it is the data obtained by Pavlov that prepared the grounds for the paradigm shift. After all, conditioned reflex is the reaction to (and adequate to) the expected based on the past experience after a conditioned stimulus. The inclusion of past memories and future prognosis in the structure of reactions cannot be avoided.

170

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

Contacts with Mathematicians In the last years of his life Bernstein established close relationships with mathematicians. I remember Bernstein’s presentation at the seminar of the member of the Academy I. M. Gelfand. In front of the participants’ eyes Gelfand’s guarded, skeptical attitude towards psychophysiological topics, discussed by Bernstein, changed to understanding, acceptance and, finally, complete approval. By that time several cybernetic models recreating conditioned reflexes have been designed. Bernstein was fascinated by the possibility of creating models capable of choosing optimal behavior based on purely probabilistic information on the possible “moves of the opponent”. Suggested by I. M. Gelfand, V. S. Gurfinkel and M. L. Tsetlin mathematical models of the coordinating hierarchical relationships helped make significant advances in this direction. It appears that in the hierarchical system of movement control the higher levels of central nervous system should not be in charge of all the details of the movement. They only define the “matrix” of control and adjustment based on which subordinate level can then work with the significant degree of independence. It means that the higher level resolve such issues as the assignment of a certain schedule in the broad sense of the word and control of its switch and adaptation according to significant characteristics of the situation and the task at hand. If the lower level is unable to handle the task on its own it sends the “alert signal” to the higher level; in response the higher level can change the whole strategy by reprogramming it. In situations where there is no time to send an “inquiry” to the higher level along the inter-level coordinative circle, the lower level can make the urgent tactical decisions. The idea of “well organized functions” was introduced by I. M. Gelfand and M. L. Tsetlin in their article “On Certain Methods of

Contacts with Mathematicians

171

Complex Systems’ Control”.76 The function that involves a large number of variables can be considered as “well organized” if two conditions are met. First, its arguments (variables) can be grouped into subgroups of “significant” and “insignificant”. Secondly, all arguments consistently remain within either one of these subgroups. Insignificant variables can cause sharp changes and bounds of the function but they do not have a defining influence on the course of the function either in general and during large intervals or on the distribution of its maximums and minimums. During small intervals the influence of insignificant variables can mask the influence of significant ones. But in the end the form and the course of the function during large intervals is defined by the significant variables. Bernstein was fascinated by the idea to consider the development and life activity of living organisms from this perspective. Indeed, among all the multitude of oak leafs no two are exactly the same, congruent. Nevertheless, without mistake we recognize them as oak leafs. We do that based on the significant (as defined by Gelfand-Tsetlin) characteristics that are oak genetically influenced. Insignificant characteristics are influenced by different factors (for example, leafs that had better nutrition became bigger; with better lighting they become greener and contain more chlorophyll, etc.). The defining characteristics of the species are realized as a result of significant variables, while metric characteristics – as a result of insignificant ones. Significant and insignificant characteristics respond differently to the influences of different factors. In regards to insignificant factors the organism is reactive and “gives in” by adjusting. At the same time it is very “non-compliant” when it comes to significant characteristics of its form and structure. In this regard it does not give in unless the pressure is extremely high. Bernstein summarizes this idea by

76

Uspehi Matematicheskih Nauk [Advances in Mathematical Sciences], 1962, v. 17, issue 1.

172

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

saying: “Organisms are reactive in regards to its insignificant variables but highly non-reactive or active in regards to the significant ones”.77 From this point of view (significant and insignificant variables) Bernstein considers coordination of human movements. A person can write with a pen on the horizontal piece of paper or write with the chalk in large letters on a vertical board. The muscles involved in these movements are different. The motor “commands” to the muscles are also different as are sensory corrections. All these relates to insignificant variables. But in both cases the individual handwriting of the person remains the same. This is the stable, significant characteristic of this particular person. The person’s signature is different every time; it does not repeat the previous ones. But its significant characteristics are so consistent, that banks will give out big sums of money based on it. Similar to the handwriting a person’s gait, voice timbre, pronunciations or accent, the manner they play piano, etc. constitute their significant characteristics. In the same category is our ability to recognize someone’s face regardless of the angle. Based on significant characteristics we can determine a particular species that every animal belongs to, etc. “One can say that the device that controls movements uses two different tactics for coordination: in regards to secondary and technical disparities and interferences it acts in the reactive-adjustment manner without concern for variability; but in regards to controlling the parts that are significant for the program it fights for the required results at all costs, actively overcoming the obstacles and, if necessary, reprogramming as it goes”.78 What is the nature of variability in the secondary (“insignificant”) characteristics of movements? Why do they occur? First of all, they happen as a result of the changes in the external environment, as a result of interferences: walking on uneven pavement; experiencing gushes of 77

78

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow: Nauka 1990, p. 445. Ibid., pp. 445–446.

Contacts with Mathematicians

173

wind, the resistance of the work piece, or unexpected actions of the opponent, etc. But the importance of variability, the dispersion in the characteristics of movements that occur even in the presence of ideal equality and consistency of all external conditions goes beyond that. The importance of this rather significant phenomenon can be understood if we do not limit ourselves with the questions of how and why. It is also necessary to consider the question what for. The part of the dispersion that is indifferent towards the general situation in which the movement occurs is not reactive-adjustive. This is an explorative dispersion, an active scanning of the environment and the search for the optimal directions of activity. The advancement of such issues requires joint efforts on the part of biologists and mathematicians. Certain degree of disappointment occurred in the first stage of their collaboration. Someone stated that “biologists understand but don’t know how to do it while mathematicians know how to do it but… do not understand!” The problem is that the mathematical apparatus available to mathematicians was created to describe and study non-living matter. Although it served these purposes well in physics and technical sciences it proved to be ineffective for the new tasks. It now became clear that in dealing with biological (psychological) issues one should not “transplant” the existing mathematical tools into biology but rather grow new chapters from within, from the very essence of the issue that emerged while studying living beings. *** After the funeral of Nikolai Alexandrovich I was walking together with M. L. Tsetlin. I said: “You know, Misha, we buried Nikolai Alexandrovich but his ideas will continue to live on and develop, and memory of him will not die”. He responded sadly: “No, Joseph, he will soon forgotten. You are right, his ideas will continue to advance but those who will advance them will attribute them to themselves. And Nikolai Alexandrovich will be forgotten. Even nowadays not many read his works”. As far as I could remember, Misha Tsetlin was hardly ever wrong. But I am

174

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

happy to say that in this case he was. Regrettably, M. L. Tsetlin did not get time to develop his ideas and create mathematical tools suitable for studying living matter, although, had he done it, I am sure he would have done it brilliantly. M. L. Tsetlin did not survive N. A. Bernstein for long. He died at the height of his career on May 30, 1966.

Development of Bernstein’s Idea of the Model of the Future For a long period of time – from Ren Descartes to Ivan Pavlov – the reflex theory encompassed and explained progressively wider range of phenomena of nervous system functioning and occupied a central role in neurophysiology. Additionally, there emerged a tendency to use it as a foundation even in certain areas of psychology. Using the causality principle the reflex theory related to the past and the present. All that occurs at the present moment is caused by some past events. The clear tendency in physiology and some other biological sciences was to follow the paths of the earlier sciences that had reached significant successes, the sciences that studied non-living matter. Well advanced science knows how to apply the two most essential questions to every phenomenon studied by it. First question is how the phenomenon occurs; the second is why it takes place. The latter places the study of various phenomena in the framework of strict causality. The necessity and sufficiency of answering these questions seemed obvious to sciences that have reached theoretical maturity, physics in the first place. On the other hand, in physiology, like in many sciences that studied living matter, to answer these questions is not enough and N. A. Bernstein duly noted that. Significant difference between the living vs. non-living matter lies in the former’s expediency, i.e. its correspondence to a certain goal. Thus, in regards to living matter the third question emerges – what is the purpose of a particular device, what is its goal, what observable task is it meant to resolve.

Development of Bernstein’s Idea of the Model of the Future

175

This approach was met with an obvious resistance on the part of many physiologists: how can it be that the cause does not precede the consequence but rather comes after it? The cause does precede the consequence but in the form of the model of the future that is encoded in the nervous system of the organism. Bernstein writes that “the goal that is interpreted as the model of the future desired by the organism and that is encoded in the brain stipulates the processes that should be integrated in the concept of goal-directedness… And the whole dynamic of the goal-directed struggle using the expedient mechanisms constitutes a complex that could most appropriately be described by the term activity”. The concept of the model of desired future was suggested by Bernstein. Without a model of what should happen as a result of one’s own actions, animals and human beings cannot create a program of actions and cannot formulate the tasks of different movements. But the principle of causality is not violated here. It is not the consequences of actions that predetermine earlier actions (as Bernstein’s opponents wrongly asserted) but a model of desired future preceding the action that predetermines and directs the subsequent action. In his keynote article “The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization” published in 1935, Bernstein already notes “the presence in the central nervous system of the “project of movement”, its integral formula”.79 Bernstein discusses the model of the future (something that should occur) in greater details in his 1961 article “Trends and Problems in the Study of Investigation of Physiology of Activity”. “Similar to how brain forms the reflection of the actual external world, the actual present situation and the past experiences imprinted in memory, it has to have the ability to some degree “reflect” (i.e. in essence to construct) the situation of the foreseeable future that has not yet became a reality and that it 79

Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow: Nauka 1990, p. 282 (The Problem of the Interrelation of Coordination and Localization. In: H. T. A. Whiting (Ed.), Human Motor Actions, Bernstein reassessed, Amsterdam-NY-Oxford: North-Holland 1984, p. 77–119).

176

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

pursues prompted by biological needs. Only such assimilated image of the desired future can serve as a foundation for designing the task and programming its solution.”80 In the same article Bernstein notes significant difference between the past-present model and the model of the future. “The former is onedimensional and categorical while the latter can only be based on the extrapolation with more or less degree of probability”.81 Bernstein also turns to this issue in his 1962 article “New Lines of Developments in Contemporary Physiology”.82 From this time the concept of “probabilistic prognosis” suggested by the author, was accepted by Bernstein and was consistently used in his works. In 1963 Bernstein clearly defines the place of probabilistic prognosis within the framework of physiology of activity.83 Bernstein points out that probabilistic modeling of the future constitutes the foundation of activity in all organisms including the lowest ones. In his 1963 article mentioned above he further advances this idea. Vitally useful or significant action cannot be either programmed or carried out if the brain has not created for it a guiding premise in the form of the model of the desired future. To realize the desired future the probabilistic prognosis of the situation’s further development and the programming of actions that would guide the situation in the right direction, consistent with the desired result, are necessary. Probabilistic prognosis becomes an important link in the organization of animal behavior and human actions; its typical dysfunctions can be observed in certain cases of pathology. Probabilistic prognosis occurs on the basis of the memory of past events and the information on the present

80 81 82

83

Ibid., p. 416 (In: H. T. A. Whiting 1984, p. 441–466). Ibid., p. 422 (In: H. T. A. Whiting 1984, p. 441–466). In: Letavet, A. A., Farfel, V. S. (Eds.), Materialyi Konferentsii po Metodam Fiziologicheskich Issledovanii Cheloveka [Conference on Methods of the Physiological Research of Human Beings]. Moscow 1962, p. 15–21. See: Bernstein, N. A.: Fiziologija Dviženiy i Aktivnost‘ [Physiology of Movements and Activity]. Moscow 1990, p. 438.

Development of Bernstein’s Idea of the Model of the Future

177

situation that comes from sensory organs. It is supported by the structural organization of memory.84 Probabilistic prognosis is a result of living organisms developing in the world organized on the basis of probability; it includes subjective modeling of the environment. The formula of the behavior can be expressed as “to see, to anticipate, to act”, i.e. to see the actual situation, to anticipate its further development, to act in order to achieve the established goal. Movements are programmed and conducted in the environment that is dynamic and changing. Thus, it is not the state that exists at the time of the programming or the beginning of the movement that should be turned into the necessary, desired state (the model of the desired future) but the state that will develop with the highest probability after some time, once the execution of the planned movement starts. After all, the result of the movement depends not only on motor commands but also on the events in the environment, the forces that will emerge and the kind of body replacement that will happen. Here we are referring to the forces and replacement that are beyond human or animal control. And in order to obtain the desired result with expediency and precision, it is necessary to prepare ahead of time to overcome (or to use) these forces and replacement (as well as reactive forces, forces of “rebound” between the links of the articular extremities). In the static, unchanging environment to obtain the desired result it would have been necessary to have: x The image of what should happen – the model of the desired future – Sollwert; x The image of the present – Istwert; x The actions that should transform Istwert into Sollwert.

84

Feigenberg, I. M.: Mozg, Psihika, Zdorove [Brain, Mind and Health]. Moscow: Nauka 1972.

178

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

In the dynamic environment where changes occur independent of the subject’s actions, he has to transform into desired situation not what is available at present but what will occur at the time when his actions develop. For example, when shooting the moving target, one needs to aim not at the target itself but at the most probable spot it will happen to be at the time when the bullet reaches it. There are at least three levels of probabilistic prognosis in the dynamic environment.85 While planning actions in the dynamic environment it is necessary to predict what kind of changes will probably occur in it while these actions are taking place. This level of probabilistic prognosis can be called probability prognosis by the outside observer. The subject of the prognosis observes the events that he cannot control and that are not dependent on his actions. Such is, for example, the weather forecast. A higher level of probability prognosis is the prognosis of the results of actions when the subject is the active participant of these events at the time when he conducts the prognosis and the actions depend, among other factors, on the actions of the subject. This is the prognosis of the events’ active participant. In this case the subject’s own actions are included in the prognosis: he takes into consideration “what will happen if I do this; what kind of actions will bring the future situation closer to my model of the desired future”. Both of these levels of probabilistic prognosis describe actions in the passive environment that has no goals of its own different from the subject’s goals, that does not attempt to forecast the subject’s future actions and change the forecast. These are the situations that in games theory are called “games with Nature”. However, probabilistic prognosis can work on even higher level when the environment includes another active subject that has its own goals 85

Feigenberg, I. M., Ivannikov, V. A.: Veroyatnostnoe Prognozirovanie i Prednastroyka k Dvizheniyam [Probabilistic Prognosis and Movements’ Pretuning]. Moscow: MGU Press 1978 (Feigenberg, J.: Wahrscheinlichkeitsprognostizerung im System der zielgerichteten Aktivitat. Butzbach-Grindel: AFRA-Verlag 2000).

Development of Bernstein’s Idea of the Model of the Future

179

different from the goals of the first one. Both of them try to forecast each other’s future actions, make their own forecasts and design their own programs to achieve their goals. This is no longer “a game with Nature”, this situation is called a “game with a partner”. These situations often occur during sports events, in military activities, in the field of economy (competition), or with other kinds of actions, where at least two people with different (and in some cases opposing) goals participate. In such situations we deal with probability prognosis during a “game with an active partner”. Here it is necessary to forecast the most probable actions by the partner and, in case of opposing goals, to prevent him from being able to forecast one’s own (for example, feint in sports). Thus, multiple processes take place. Let’s clarify it with the following example. Two people meet in front of the chess board, two personalities, each with their own experiences, thought processes, manner of conducting a game. Let’s call them “I” and “He”. But “I” also has his own ideas (a model) of who “He” is. “He” also has a similar model of who “I” is. And part of the latter model is the ideas that “I” has about “He”. And that constitutes multiple reflections: What “I” thinks about what “He” thinks about what “I” think about “He”. We can replace chess players with the economists from two competing companies, strategists in the two armies at war, etc.; any two persons that participate in joint actions. I understand that my explanation might be too complex. One wise English poet expressed it much simpler: My lady, did he kiss you? That’s so, I’m afraid And why did you allow it? Oh, he is so strange! He thought I was asleep, you see And wouldn’t mind a bit Or else he thought me thinking He thought I was asleep.

180

Chapter V. Physiologie of Activity

Such is the hierarchy of the levels of probability prognosis. Because the situation where a game is played with an active partner is the most complicated and dangerous, human beings tend to perceive a partner as active when the situation is unknown. This, evidently, prompted the ancient people’s idea of anthropomorphic or animal-like deities that represented the forces of Nature. These deities can be most fantastic but they are almost always active which is evident by their features of animals and humans that are intricately blended. One can try to appease them, trick them, etc. In this lies the difference between “games with a Partner” and “games with Nature”. Plans and forecasts in humans differ significantly from plans and forecasts in animals. In animals only individual experience is stored in psychological memory; both plans and forecast are made only within the limits of the individual life. In human beings the memory goes back far beyond the limits of the individual life and includes other people and earlier generations’ experiences; similarly, the plans and forecasts of human beings spread well beyond the limits of their individual lives. It may be that this is the most significant difference between animals and human beings.

Afterword N. A. Bernstein passed away in Moscow on January 16, 1966. Nikolai Alexandrovich did not stop working till his very last days and young scientists continue to flock to him. He was always willing to help, guide, offer meaningful, friendly critique. About a year before he died he invited his students to his apartment on Schukin Street.86 That day he was energetic, active, assertive; he said that he wanted to discuss future plans – what needs to be done and who will do it; that work needs to go on even if someone is no longer able to do it. And most probably, he said, it would be him, just because of his age. He continued to work that whole year, well beyond his physical abilities but he complained to no one. And only much later we found out that the gathering of his students was not accidental: he gave himself the fatal diagnosis and used the time he had left to continue working, to make sure his legacy will live on. N. A. Bernstein dedicated his whole life to studying the physiology of movements. Even if we don’t consider the importance of this function as a means to actively interact with environment, obtain information about it, interact with other subjects, means to provide food and assure selfpreservation, it is necessary to emphasize that even in the most primitive act of motor behavior central nervous system presents as an organ capable of planning motor acts, convert these plans into the necessary “motor score” to conduct specific movements, assess the result and, based on that assessment, adjust movements and improve and advance motor skills. All sections of central nervous system from the spinal cord to the associative areas of the brain cortex participate in realizing movements. This set of functional activities, functional characteristics or functional blocks is necessary for movement control as movements are characterized by great variability. The same set of functional blocks can be used to exercise other brain functions.

86

Schukinstreet was renamed back to Bolshoi Levshinsky Lane in 1994.

182

Afterword

Motor function as a subject of scientific research has a number of attractive features: ability to assess the end result, a presence of several movement components, i.e. kinematics, dynamics and energy. Along with that, this object is very complex. N. A. Bernstein provided significant contribution in the advancement of the branch of physiology that is highly integrational. Physiology of movements includes not only biomechanics and neuro-muscular physiology. It is closely connected with general biology and psychology. Bernstein’s work had a profound effect on the advancement of physiology, psychology, biology, cybernetics and philosophy of natural sciences. N. A. Bernstein had an amazing ability to see the perspectives of science development and forecast its main directions. His works were acknowledged and became classis in world science. In the history of science he is known as a founder of the contemporary biomechanics of human movements and the theory of movements’ control, as an experimenter and a thinker, as a founder of physiology of activity. The circumstances of the final years of his life turned out to be such that he did not have a formal research group to work with. Nevertheless (and this is quite revealing) his scientific school continued and continues to develop. The biomechanics of sports movements has been researched. Neural mechanisms of locomotion control and the structure of motor acts have also been studied broadly. The idea of the image (model) of the desired future as a way to direct future movements also developed further along with the mechanisms of motor ajustment. Bernstein’s ideas “fertilized” research in the field of mathematical and physical modeling of the functions of locomotor apparatus and the system of movement control; they impacted robototechnics and the design of optimal constructions of prosthetic and orthopedic devices. In 1967 Pergamon Press published a book “The Coordination and Regulation of Movements”. Bernstein’s ideas and results of his research were introduced to the large scientific community abroad. They significantly impacted their research in the field of animal and human movements’ control, in the field of psychology. For example, in the manual

Afterword

183

“Human Motor Behavior” (1982) edited by J. Kelso the part “Degrees of Freedom, Coordinative Structures and Tuning (Bernstein’s Perspectives)“ consists of three chapters: I. The Problems of Degrees of Freedom and Context-Conditioned Variability; II. The Concept of Muscle Linkage or Coordinative Structure; III. Tuning of Coordinative Structures with Special Reference to Perception. These chapters contain the results of the research conducted by American scientists and based on Bernstein’s ideas. In 1969 “A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psychology” edited by M. Cole and I. Maltzman was published in the United States. Bernstein wrote a chapter for this edition on “Methods for Developing Physiology as Related to the Problems of Cybernetics”. Bernstein’s article “Probleme der Modellierung in der Biologie der Aktivitat” was included in the book “Mathematische Modellierung von Lebensprozessen”, Berlin, 1972. Significant importance of Bernstein’s works for contemporary science was noted in the psychological encyclopedia (The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology, ed. by Harre R., Lamb R., Oxford, Blackwell, 1983) in the articles “System Theory” and “Marxist Psychology”. In 1984 North-Holland published the book “Human Motor Action: Bernstein Reassessed”, ed. H. T. A. Whiting, Amsterdam. Each section of the book starts with an article by Bernstein followed by two articles of Western scientists that further developed Bernstein’s ideas. In 1988 the second revised edition of the book N. A. Bernstein (Eds. L. Pickenhain & G. Schnabel): “Bewegungsphysiologie” (Leipzig, Barth) has been published. 1996, the year of the 100th anniversary of Bernstein was marked by impressive international conferences. One of them was held in Germany, its materials were published in Hirtz, P. & Nüske, F. (Eds.): “Bewegungskoordination und sportliche Leistung integrativ betrachtet” (Hamburg, 1997). Another conference, dedicated to Bernstein’s anniversary, was held at the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State).

184

Afterword

The same year the book “Dexterity and its Development” was published.87 The first part of this volume consists of the translation of Bernstein’s book “On Dexterity and Its Development”. The second half includes articles by scientists from different countries that further continue Bernstein’s research. In 1998 the book “Progress in Motor Control, Volume 1: Bernstein’s Traditions in Movement Studies”, ed. M. L. Latash was published by Human Kinetics. 16 chapters of this book were written by scientists from a number of different countries who continue to develop Bernstein’s ideas. The permanent column “Bernstein’s Heritage” was published in the journal “Motor Control”. Bernstein’s works carry not just historical significance; they can also be compared to a searchlight that illuminates the path for the future development of science. The width of grasp, the depth of the analysis, the amazing clarity of thinking gained Bernstein an honorable spot among the classics of brain research, the classics whose importance does not fade away with time but, on the contrary, becomes more evident inspiring new scientific research. Bernstein’s ideas are the seeds planted in the scientific field of world science. I am sure that young readers of this book will see the ample sprouts and some may labor in this field themselves.

87

Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On Dexterity and its Development. In M. L. Latash & M. T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and Its Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.)

After Afterword I started this book thinking that the first cornerstones of personality are laid down before the physical birth. Using N. A. Bernstein’s life as an example I tried to trace the roots of his striking personality to his family, even its past generations, to its culture. At the end of the book I’d like to come back to this thought. N. A. Bernstein was a complex, multi-layered person with a deep soul. And what is a soul? One of the well-known pathologists (Rudolf Virchow may be) stated that all his life he performed autopsies and not once did he see an empty spot where the soul would have been when the person was alive. But a soul cannot be anything supernatural, mystical, something that is beyond other natural phenomena. A soul is a person’s character, his kindness, his ideals, relationships with other people and life in general, his attitudes towards his own and other people work, creative endeavors, the view of the world. And the nature of the soul is not material or supernatural (the expression “supernatural nature” itself is absurd). To try to find its “spot”, “localization” inside the human body does not make sense just like it does not make sense to try to find the meaning of the book by turning its pages. A thick volume might be devoid of meaning but a short poem might be full of deep thoughts. A man’s soul is his “content”. When someone dies, their body ceases to exist; it breaks down into molecules to be precise. The body of every unique person is molecules put together in a certain unique way. After the death of the body something else, something different can be put together using these same molecules. But the human soul does not disappear after death. It continues to live on. Parts of the soul continue to live in the memory and deeds of next generations, in the person’s children and students. Other parts remain in whatever the person left behind: the tree he planted, the house he built,

186

After Afterword

the space he designed, the well he dug, the road he paved, the car he designed, the picture he painted, the music he created, the book he wrote. But the soul of the creator does not live in the house built by him or in the book he wrote. To live means to develop, to change. In the book or the painting the soul of the creator does not develop but is preserved. And it begins to live and develop again only when another person starts contemplating while looking at the painting or listening to the music or reading the book. Contemplates and does something that impacts life; changes something in the lives of those close to him and, sometimes, in the life of people removed in time or space. It happens sometimes that someone’s rich soul gets preserved after death and then becomes alive again. This is what happened with the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Human creations can preserve the creator’s soul for very long. It is similar to how Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) preserves, even after death, the information about the organism. One can say that DNA preserves the “soul” of biological species, nation, and the “natural part” of this soul. And that which was created by human beings preserve the “cultural” segment of it. Every living organism has the former and it is rather stable and changes slowly. The latter belongs only to humans who have culture; it is much more flexible and changeable. The future life of the soul might be very different from what its owner (creator) had imagined. Those literary and artistic creations that later turned out to be ambiguous, allowing for variety of different interpretations, judgments, readings became the masterpieces. “The tombs, are silent, bones and mummies…” But they start talking when a person who can hear them shows up. And then “the soul” that they were merely preserving begins to live on and develop within the person who listened to them talk and created something new. In that sense only human beings, the carriers and creators of culture, have an immortal soul. The soul is immortal for as long as human culture, language, art and creativity continue to exist. I am sure that Nikolai Alexandrovich’s soul will have a long life. And a big part of his soul is preserved in the books written by him; and will live for a long time.

After Afterword

187

In the first chapter of this book I tried to trace some (not all!) characteristics of the past and the people whose spiritual legacy formed Nikolai Alexandrovich’s soul. A time will come and someone will find out whose souls and deeds embodied parts of his soul. And some of the young readers of this book, I hope, will further advance his ideas thus prolonging the life of his soul. And I would like to address them with his words: “You will have success, I am sure. These words out loudly I say”. But that remains to be seen.

Appendix The Appendix contains some of the original works of N. A. Bernstein which will introduce readers first hand to some of the ideas of this remarkable scientist. My choice of these particular writings was based on the following. I was looking for texts that were relatively short, yet at the same time contained N. A. Bernstein’s main ideas; texts that could be easily understood by the broad audience from different professional backgrounds including students; texts that would highlight the wide range of problems that interested Bernstein and were the subject of his reflections and research. Among them were such problems as the physiology of movement and directions for the development of physiology in general that led Bernstein to creating the physiology of activity; general problems of biology, psychology and philosophy; physiological and biological problems related to humans’ space flights; constant – since young years – Bernstein's interest in technics technology. The articles are organized in chronological order. The majority of them have already been included in publications that are now considered rare editions but were not included in works of Bernstein published later. The article “The Main Methodological Principles of the Physiology of Movements” has not been published until after Bernstein’s death. It was most probably written at the end of 1940s not long before the 1950 session of the USSR Academy of Sciences that prevented the publication of this article. It was published only in 1992 in the volume of collected articles of the Central Prosthetics Research Institute (Moscow) titled “Biomechanics and Prosthetics”. In it Bernstein traced the development of science x from reflex arc to reflex circle; x from the signal-trigger function of afferent signals (from sense organs) to the understanding of their sensory correction role in the goal directed activity of organisms. In this article Bernstein formulated the foundations of that which later

Appendix

189

led to the idea of the model of the future (see the article “From the Reflex to the Model of the Future” below which was also published after Bernstein’s death). Bernstein showed the role of a hypothesis in contemporary science (debating I. Newton’s views on the subject). “New Lines of Developments in Contemporary Physiology” is Bernstein’s presentation in 1962 at the Conference on the Methods of Physiological Research in Qumans. Prior to this presentation Bernstein had a period of forced silence lasting several years when his works (and he continued to work!) were not published. This was the first conference where Bernstein presented a substantial paper in which he outlined his thoughts on the future development of physiology, in particular the physiology of activity. In this paper Bernstein for the first time introduced the concept of “probability prognosis”. The paper was part of the conference materials published by the Institute of the Labor Hygiene and Professional Diseases, USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (Moscow, 1962). In the “Preface” to the popular brochure by A. V. Napalkov and N. A. Chichvarina “Brain and Cybernetics” (M.: Znanie, 1963) N. A. Bernstein focused on the issue of whether the use of artificial electronic models can help better understand the processes that occur in the innards of the living brain. His remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay “Mechanics in Biology” were written for the publication of the collective works of the father of space exploration K. E. Tsiolkovsky, in which this essay was published for the first time (based on his 1919 manuscript). Comparing the linear dimensions of human beings and the strength of the gravity field, Bernstein shows that Newton mechanics does not exhaust all variations of behaviors of living organisms in different fields of gravity. The same problem occurs in situations where the tensions are caused by the high accelerations during the active phases of flights into space.

190

Appendix

The article “A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting”, published in the journal “Science and Life” in 1964, demonstrates N. A. Bernstein’s talents in popularizing science as well as the broad scope of his interests. The article “From Reflex to the Model of the Future” was written in the last year of his life when Bernstein, struggling to fight his illness, was trying to finish two of his books – “Essays in the Physiology of Movements and Physiology of Activity” in Russian and “The Coordination and Regulation of Movements” in English. Both books were published after Bernstein’s death. Despite his illness and lack of time because of trying to finish the books, Bernstein felt the need to summarize the results of his work in an essay written for the broad audience. This essay – “From the Reflex to the Model of the Future” was published (also after his death) in 1966 in the newspaper “Week” #20 (later this essay was published in English).88

88

Feigenberg, I. M. & Meijer, O. M.: The Active Search for Information: From Reflexes to the Model of the Future (1966). Motor Control. July 1999, 3, 225–236.

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Figure 6.1 One of the last photos of N. A. Bernstein (at a conference in Moscow) 09.06.1965 (courtesy of R. S. Person).

The Main Methodological Principles of the Physiology of Movement (1949) Physiology of movement in general and physiology of human motor acts in particular up until recently belonged to the most out of dated, the least developed sections of the physiological science. This is all the more strange considering the fact that the interest in this unquestionably important and significant from the practical point of view field was present early on (Leonardo da Vinci in 16th century, Borelli in 18th century) but every time led only to the talented but short lived outbreaks that left behind neither a scientific school nor a research tradition. In the 19th century western science came across thoughtful but rather basic observations made without the use of any equipment by the Weber brothers; the richest but abandoned without any analysis collection of chronophotographic documents of Marey and a meticulous, six volume very German, manuscript of Braune and Fisher on the three double steps of one of the labs’ technician, their only experimental subject. All these publications did not produce any new knowledge in the current century. The Russian science of the last century made a significantly larger contribution to the science of movement. Here we need to respectfully mention the very detailed research in dynamic anatomy of the founder of the Russian science of physical education P. F. Lesgaft; however, we give the first place to the genius spark of scientific foresight – a book written by the young I. M. Sechenov “The Reflexes of the Brain” that to this day is read by just about everyone. At the beginning of the 20th century, already at the end of his life, I. M. Sechenov published a small book, “The Essays on the Human Labor Movements”, dedicated specifically to the physiology of movement. These essays, marked with the keen observations and thoughtfulness that always has been the defining characteristics of the “father of Russian physiology”, present a useful and fascinating reading even now. However, for Sechenov, who never seriously engaged in the study of move-

194

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

ments, this was just an accidental publication. Such discount of the physiology of movement in both foreign and Russian science is even more difficult to explain considering the fact that the fields similar to it, such as physiology of perceptual functions, i.e. the workings of the sense organs, have been under scientific scrutiny consistently and successfully for over a century and by now have produced boundless scientific publications. This is true in regards to the biophysics of sense organs founded by Helmholtz and further developed by Hering, and in our country by Lazarev, Kravkov, Rzhevkin, etc. as well as in regards to their (foreign-JL) psychophysiology (Fechner, Wundt), and, in Russia, in regards to research by Teplov, Grashchenkov, Kekcheev, et al. The practical applications of this branch of physiology developed during this period are extensive and diverse. If the Earth were visited by an intelligent creature from a different planet, who has never before encountered a human being, and to get to know him would have studied one of the contemporary textbooks in human physiology, it would have formed a very strange understanding of humans. It would have imagined an exceptionally well put together organism of incredible perfection and equally vast complexity. In this organism the assimilation of oxygen and nutrition as well as beautifully tuned metabolism occurs with the striking precision of reciprocal regulation; it possesses the finest regulating mechanisms of blood circulation; internal secretion; excretion; hematogenesis; barrier and antimicrobial devices; finally, branching nervous system that stretches its coordinating power (as was recently brilliantly shown by the Soviet scientist, member of the Academy K. M. Bykov) over all functions of the organism’s internal systems. But this amazingly well-equipped creature has no movements! The alien visitor would have to imagine human beings either laying still on some kind of a bed or, may be, equally motionless, soaring somewhere in interstellar space, far away from any external forces or objects, even away from the forces of gravity. Why, then, do they need all these finest regulatory abilities one might ask? Enough has been written about the importance of practical applica-

The Main Methodological Principles

195

tions of the science of movements and currently hardly anyone needs to justify the importance of this field. The present article will focus on the main methodological platform of this newly developed branch of Soviet physiology; along with that we will attempt to show that the underdevelopment of this important field of physiology, besides the direct loss of knowledge on this subject, led also to serious methodological distortions and inaccurate interpretations in many other areas of physiology, which subjects are intimately and inseparably connected to the motor functions in both humans and animals. Disregard of the physiology of motor activity throughout the whole history of general and human physiology prevented researchers from focusing on a wide range of the most important biological relationships and mechanisms. Out of all the forms of interactions between living beings and environment movements are especially and exceptionally important.Through movements living beings not only participate in the events of the outside world but themselves produce goal oriented effects in it. In many cases, it is the movements, the motor acts that constitute the means for the living beings to protect their safety, meet their needs; fight for everything that is vitally important; through movements they strive to overcome the cumulative effects of external environment in ways that are beneficial for them. Thus, motor acts are one of the most distinct demonstrations of the struggle for survival in the animal world. It is quite obvious that without studying these motor acts physiologists could not notice or adequately appreciate a number of facts of utmost importance. Below we will list the most important of these facts. As was long established in physiology (C. Bell, 1820s), all peripheral neural conductors can be clearly divided in two groups depending on the direction in which the nervous impulses move along them. Conductors that transmit neural impulses from periphery to the brain are called afferent and those that transmit in the opposite direction and support all active functions of the brain are called efferent. Out of all the efferent functions of the organism physiology focused

196

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

its attention consistently on mostly elementary and transient phenomena that were biologically insignificant. Either they were the results of the activity of external glands (for example, salivation) or, when dealing with movements, researchers studied the small abrupt ones such as withdrawal of a paw in animals during pain stimulation, etc. Observation of such elementary efferent processes established that in all of them the perceptual or afferent function every time necessarily participates in the initial signal. These elementary reactions that were turned on or initiated by any afferent signal and resulted in one of the identified reactive responses were called reflexes; the typical route of the nervous impulses in these reactions – from periphery to the brain and then back to the periphery, to the gland or muscle – was justifiably and graphically labeled a “reflex arc”. Indeed, in such abrupt acts like the defense reflex during pain stimulation, the role of the perceptual function is limited by the launching of the starting signal only. However, thorough experimental research of the various motor acts with more complex structures and higher significance showed that perception via sense organs that creates the accurate reflection of the outside world in the brain plays the most important role for the whole duration of the motor act, no matter how long it lasts. This role, that has nothing to do with the above mentioned starting signal, was totally by-passed by physiology that only in the last few years managed to notice and appreciate it to a full extend. Below we will explain the meaning of this role of the perceptual function in movement and why it was never noticed in elementary reflexes. Judging only by these elementary reactions, physiologists thought that it was enough to include some motor act in a movement (similar to turning on a self-moving device or a gramophone record) and it will continue to unfold by itself, autonomously based on the inner regulations of the efferent process. According to this view, the task of coordination is only to refine and polish with the utmost precision the efferent process that flows from the brain to the muscle system shaping it through the strict dynamic balance between activation and inhibition.

The Main Methodological Principles

197

That, which is more or less accurate in regards to the withdrawal of the pinched paw or other such insignificant abrupt movements, turns out to be grossly erroneous for those meaningful motor acts that fill animal’s life (and even more so human life) in its struggle for survival. Every movement – if it has any sense or purpose in the life of a living being – necessarily has to overcome some kind of resistance of external forces; its entire essence is contained in its struggle with these forces. Whether this living being swims across a rapid stream, climbs a rock or a tree, fights a deadly enemy or a predator, whether it is lying down, running around, digs for food for itself or its babies – always and everywhere it uses its muscle efforts to overcome the external forces of weight, friction, hydrodynamic resistance, the muscle activity of the enemy, etc. Within that process every rational, goal-directed action (no matter, whether it belongs to an eagle, a carp, a baboon or a human being) solves some motor task, a task the organism is able to resolve with some kind of suitable means. Both the motor task and the forces that have to be overcome to resolve it belong to the external world, outside the living being and beyond its direct control. It can, through its own will, exert one of the muscles but it can’t through the similar effort destroy the force of gravity or any of the external forces of resistance that need to be overcome. Even the so called passive units of its own motor system – the skeletal bones, skin and fat that surrounds the muscles, etc., even they represent additional forces of resistance (semi-external, so to speak) that complicate the movement because of their dead weight, inertia and forces of mutual rebound (reactive forces) that occur between the linked parts of the body. From the above considerations it is already quite obvious that it would be impossible to correctly resolve the motor task that belongs to the external world and that requires to rationally overcome the external forces without checking the entire duration of a motor act by using all sense organs to monitor and control second by second whether it is moving in the right direction, to the desirable resolution of the motor task and making corrections when necessary. The mechanism of these constant ongoing corrections to movements (called sensory corrections) was studied

198

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

rather thoroughly for a number of movements. The severe disturbances of movement coordination, caused by the loss of sensations critical for movements and sensory corrections supported by them are well known. Movements cannot be carried out blindly, based only on the internal balance of excitement and inhibition because they will be immediately and hopelessly disrupted by external forces unknown to the organism ahead of time over which it has no control as well as the forces of mutual encounters and rebound in the jointed, long and flexible chains of extremities; the rush of wind, the splash of waves and the throw of a victim trying to free itself from its enemies claws and all the boundless variety of the changing external circumstances. Obviously in the elementary acts such as drawing back a paw or generating saliva in the mouth at the sight of food sensory corrections either do not have enough time to start due to the transiency of the act or are not activated at all due to the insignificance of the movement. However, there are indications that the process of salivation during chewing and digesting of food is managed by special sensory corrections delicately regulating from one second to the other the quantity and the composition of saliva depending on the type of food and the process of chewing. Precise study of motor acts unquestionably showed, in the first place, that from the point of view of the biological result or the effect of movement (in human motor acts, the social effect often comes to the forefront) the internal blind control by the effector impulses of different degree of precision only – as suggested by many physiologists of the old school – makes no sense whatsoever. Further, no less important is the fact that the ability to control motor organs of the body becomes possible only through sensory corrections. From the contemporary point of view, coordination of movements is nothing but the organization – with the help of sensory corrections – of the control over the motor apparatus of the body achieved through the elimination of redundant degrees of freedom of flexibility. Thus, the role and activity of the organisms’ afferent systems only begin from the moment they generate the initial signal for a movement.

The Main Methodological Principles

199

As soon as the movement begins in response to the effector (motor) neural impulses that move from the brain to the periphery of the body, the afferent impulses get generated in all sensory devices of the motor system (organs of muscle-joint sensations in the first place) that move in the opposite direction – from the periphery to the brain – carrying signals to the brain on how the movement started and how it is progressing. These verifying sensory signals help the brain define the next necessary sensory corrections which, again, are sent from the brain to the periphery in cerebrifugal direction and for the whole duration of the movement the neural process unfolds in this concentric manner, following the uninterrupted, closed circle route. The fundamental, constant form of the neural processes route during the rational motor act has, therefore, the form of a reflex circle. A number of indicators lead us to believe that the form of open reflex arc that has attracted the attention of physiologists earlier and that was studied extensively by them represents only the partial, incomplete and, in some cases, rudimentary, i.e. in one way or another deficient form of neural process that indicate either the excessive brevity and insignificance of that effector manifestation, or – possibly more often – our inability to notice even in such abbreviated act the presence of the same circular sensory corrections. Undoubtedly, the sensory systems of the organism behave very differently when fulfilling the function of motor control and support of its management than when they are involved in the launching of the movement; thus, the neglect of the first two forms of their activity inevitably led to a one-sided and incomplete understanding of the psychophysiology of sense organs, the organs, which, as we rightfully pointed out at the beginning of this article, were themselves the objects of thorough and fascinating research. The example discussed above clearly shows the actual, not artificially invented integrity of the organism that takes revenge at us for our inattention to some of its functions by the incorrect and one-sided understanding of a number of others. Indeed, by limiting in the course of our observations, the role of per-

200

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

ceptual systems to that of initiating the staring signals, the old physiology significantly distorted the understanding of not only the tasks but also the structure of the receptive function. To support the signal-initiating activity the evolutionary selection should have maximally increased in the first place the degree of receptors’ sensitivity and their resolving capacity, i.e. adaptation to keen distinction or differentiation between similar signals. Both capabilities – the absolute and the highly distinctive one belong to the analyzing type; in their very foundation lays the analysis, the dissection of the data being perceived, the ability to pick out the one stimulus that has some signal meaning to this particular specimen among the never ending chaos of indifferent stimulation. Indeed, any place where receptor systems’ role of signal initiating is activated, they demonstrate these analytical capabilities, showing the exceptional differentiation capability in higher animals, i.e. ability to distinguish the elementary sensory signals and to pick out these signals among the group of other, indifferent ones, even if the later signals are extremely weak. The important accomplishment of I. P. Pavlov was the idea of applying the phenomena of conditioned reflex closing that he had discovered to the precise quantitative study of both of the above mentioned aspects of sensory organs activity in animals – the degree of the sensitivity as well as their resolving capacity. Before Pavlov’s discoveries it seemed that there was absolutely no way to understand how a dog or a monkey feels, sees or hears, whether they can differentiate between colors, the degree of that differentiation, the kinds of sounds they can perceive and recognize, etc. The discovery of conditioned reflexes and their governing laws seemed to have slightly opened the walls of animals’ narrow skulls which no one before than had hoped to achieve. I. P. Pavlov’s reflexology school consistently and logically labeled the set of perceptual brain organs with the term “signal system of the brain”, thus emphasizing the aspect of the perceptual function that is being considered and studied by it. To emphasize the unique ability of human beings to use words as starting signals the separate second signal system was proposed that rules the first one – the only one that animals have.

The Main Methodological Principles

201

Keeping the same consistency, the separate perceptual devices of the organism that include peripheral sense organs and their central nervous apparatus in the cortex were called analyzers. As is evident from the above, with such one-sided view of their function reflexologists with the inevitable logic should have made this analyzer aspect of sensory systems the main focus of their attention, the only one that came to the forefront. The study of the governance of the integral rational motor acts presented the perceptual systems of the organism in a completely different light. Already the analysis of the coordinative construction of motor acts and its abnormality in pathology, the investigation of how movements are controlled through a circular process of the “reflex circle” showed quit clearly that the afferent systems signal to the brain the ongoing movements and provide the foundation for sensory corrections not through the raw sensory signals separated from each other by the criterion of quality: separate tactile, kinesthetic, visual, etc. On the contrary, these perceptions, providing the control of movements, always have the characteristic of the complex integral synthesis, thoroughly processed by the brain molds of the most heterogeneous sensations that are pinned together also by the multiple traces of past sensations kept in memory. For example, the spatial field in which various locomotor movements (such as walking or running) are organized, and in which for normal people vision plays the primary role, represents a synthesis (well known to psychophysiologists) of direct visual sensations, muscle-joint sensations from the muscles of the chrystalline lens and the eye globes (that provide for the depth perception), memory traces from the whole preceding experience of tactile sensations, impressions from the movements in space, etc. The higher and the evolutionary newer the level, on which the governing of movement takes place in the brain, the more complicated in meaning are the motor tasks that are accessible for this level, the more complicated and the further removed from the raw primary sensations is the sensory synthesis that serves this level, the more it contains the internal brain processing, comprehension, regulation, even schematization of the primary sensations that are undergoing generalization at this level.

202

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

If we turn from the coordinatory regulation of movements that more or less represents the technical side of motor acts to their meaning and remember that they constitute the response, the resolution of motor tasks that emerge in the external world of an animal or a human being, the understanding of the relative importance of the synthesis and the analysis in perceptual functions will become even more clear. It is obvious that comprehending the current external situation and the motor task created by it, projecting the correct solution, monitoring of whether the movements are accurate and whether the organism is getting closer to the required result – all these tasks need not the signals, not the separate sensations that are picked out of the lump of all the sensations and recognized. Sense organs are windows, through which the external world rushes into the closed space where the brain sits. To accurately resolve a motor task, for example, for a pike to chase a small fish and catch it despite all its ploys; for a chamois to accurately assess the distance to the rock and jump on it to escape its pursuers; for a bear to find the bee hollow and use branches and bark outgrowths to climb up to it, etc. – it is necessary, in the first place, to accurately project the external world in its entirety and all objects that compose it onto the brain. It is in this direction that the evolution was moving steadily together with its merciless executioner – the natural selection. The living being, whose perceptions in one way or the other misconstrued the reality and served as inaccurate, distorted mirrors were mercilessly sacrificed to this selection. All the consistent evolutionary complication and enrichment of sensory synthesis followed the process of elimination of distortions and inaccuracies of sense organs, the development of the cross-sectional checking of their data, their understanding, etc. It seems that in the process of evolutionary development of the perceptual systems of the brain the famous formula, discovered by the contemporary founders of positive science and technology, revealed itself. This formula became their slogan – nature obeys the one who follows its low. Nature at all levels of its development submitted itself to those living beings that perceived and understood it with the highest objective accuracy.

The Main Methodological Principles

203

Clearly to deny the sense organs of the higher living beings their analytical function would mean to go against the irrefutable facts. But this analytical function plays in their cumulative biologically meaningful activity the subordinate role, occurring ahead of the synthesis and paving a way for it. Thus the functions of analysis and synthesis in their mutual working contradiction form in the activity of perceptual functions a clear dialectical unity, in which the leading and the concluding place belongs, undoubtedly, to synthesis. The above considerations can partly shed a new light on the most important issue that occupied thinkers throughout centuries and that lays at the beginning of the whole theory of cognition – that of the objective existence of the outside world and the relationship between the object and the subject of cognition. The contemporary analysis of the development of the motor sphere in the process of evolution clearly shows how necessary in the biological sense was the formation in the central nervous system the true to the objective reality reflection of the outside world. If it became incorrect or deceptive in one species or the others, if the reflecting mirror became distorted, they paid for it by suffering the defeat during the next encounter of their practices with reality, and eventually, they perished. As soon as physiology took into consideration the organism in its entirety with its perceptual as well as motor functions, there appeared right away the clear purely biological, purely evolutionary prerequisites to the gradual formation in central nervous system – way before human beings – the objectively accurate reflections of external world via the organs of active perception; and it is the motor acts, actions, life practices that turned out to be the biological criteria that eliminated the defective and false systems of reflection and provided the advantage for the most objective and accurate ones. If the whole biological purpose of the perceptual functions were limited to signal starting and differentiation (signal recognition) the whole matter could have looked rather different. Neither of these tasks requires perception to reflect the outside world objectively and accurately.

204

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

To distinguish an isolated signal for a certain reaction from the general conglomerate of sensations or to differentiate it from another similar signal that has a different meaning, purely conditional signal signs and codes that have nothing to do with reality might have been sufficient. For the conditional signals to carry the signaling function it is merely enough for one conditional code to always coincide with, for example, useful and tasty prey while for the other one – with harmful and poisonous one. Only the resolution of integral meaningful motor tasks in the outside world – that which the old physiology passed by – requires the uncompromising and unconditional objective reflection in the brain of the world as it is. It is worth noting that since more than a hundred years ago when Johannes Peter Müller described the so called specific energies of the perceptual brain apparatus and its neural transmitters, there has been a heated never-ending cognitive-theoretical debate in physiology on the content and quantity of sensations in the same aspect that we are now approaching. Some scientists maintain that the outside world is incognizable and that the sensory signals from the outside world that reach the brain are purely conditional. As we just saw, the same position satisfies reflexology, even the name of its main phenomenon – the “conditioned reflex” matches this view well and not only because of the similarities in terms. Conditioned combining or closing is, in the alternative term for the same phenomenon that is identified in psychology as association by contiguity which describes the situation when some phenomenon of the outside world gets connected with a sensation because of the merely accidental simultaneous occurrence of both in time. These sensations are caused by a completely different phenomenon that has nothing to do with the first one other than the accidental or semi-accidental coincidence in time. The congruence is enough for this sensation to form an association by contiguity with the first phenomenon, i.e. became its conditioned reflex. That is exactly how, through the arbitrary actions of experimenter, for one animal the blue light bulb becomes a conditioned signal for the proximity of food and a conditioned stimulus for salivation, for the other one – the

The Main Methodological Principles

205

creaking, squeaking or the sound of a metronome fulfills this role. However, one necessarily asks oneself: if based on biological mechanisms, in the natural environment the life experience of an animal will unfold always within the framework of similar conditioned, coded signs of the objective reality, what kind of objective reflection of the outside world can it possibly form? And what is it – if not an influence of Mach´s philosophy – to portray the forming of this reflection through such mechanisms? It is true that when those conditioned combinations form in a laboratory environment, the animal is deprived of the main criteria of objectivity – that of practice. It is restrained to a device and cannot actively act. In a natural environment everything that we have described above in regards to the construction of the meaningful motor acts and that we are not going to repeat here, should necessarily reveal itself. A different view – that of dialectic materialism that is unable to separate the perception of the outside world from the practical interactions with it, perceptual function from an effector one – in principal cannot accept any kind of conditioned symbolism of neural impulses that carry sensory perceptions in the brain. These perceptions do not have the conditioned-associative connections with reality; they undoubtedly are adequate to it, repeat it via reflection and stop doing it only in the states of deep mental distress, delirium or hallucinations. We cannot overlook this really significant step ahead towards materialistic interpretation of higher nervous activity that I. P. Pavlov made in the last years of the 19th century based on his famous discovery. What we have said above on the subject of sense organs – possibility to take a glance into animals’ internal world that is otherwise inaccessible to us – can be applied to many other aspects of animals’ life. Starting from the tangible and available for direct measurement lower unconditional reflexes, arbitrarily attaching to them various nervous processes in the higher regions of the brain, physiologists were able – even if indirectly and conditionally – to measure and study those latter processes similar to a physicist studying the flight of invisible electrons based on the fog stripes that appear along their route in Wilson’s camera. Unconditional reflexes,

206

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

salivation reflexes in the first place (as the closest to I. P .Pavlov because of the earlier works that made him famous) turned out to be – because of the method of conditioned reflexes – the indicators of higher nervous processes. There is no need to try to prove that these indicators of higher brain functions are not inherently connected to them but are tied to them through the temporary, conditional associative link. This link remains rather strong for extended period of time while parallel processes in “lower” and “higher” phenomena – incredibly resistant and durable. This was, indeed, a great victory of spontaneous scientific materialism in the area where – until that time – dualistic, idealistic views ruled exclusively and where 19th century mechanistic materialism, that was fighting against them, could not combat them with anything other than declarations unsubstantiated by experience. This was the beginning of experimental, materialistic science that studied the functioning of the higher structures of the brain. Uncontrolled mechanistic nature of these first materialistic attacks against the bastions of the brain could not have possibly remained unnoticed in a number of important principal imperfections of the theory in the course of its further development. Putting completely aside the arguable from the point of view of physiology postulates of reflexology (for example, cell-centric views or psychophysiological associations) let us focus exclusively on a few methodological issues. First of all, the discovery of the method of objective observation of higher nervous activity in animals was accompanied by rigorous, uncompromising persecutions of any attempts to interpret the observed phenomena using psychological terms (“the dog understood”; “the dog thought”, “the dog noticed”). These persecutions were particularly intense in the early years. Meanwhile, such persecution, that demanded that no extra interpretation was added to those direct observations, the demand which was impressively similar to the proud declaration of Newton (“hypotheses non fingo” – “I don’t invent hypothesis”) had its reverse side. First of all, it unquestionably contained “ignorabimus” of Emil du Bois-Raymond (“will never know”), declaration of incognizable psychological world of

The Main Methodological Principles

207

animals, forbidden even for discussion. Secondly, the inexorable needs of scientific thinking, having been turned away from the laboratory’s door, secretly flew through the window under a little disguise. This circumstance that has not been considered before certainly deserves attention. Having not seen psychological terminology in reflexological publications and presentations, we, nevertheless, come across the most detailed statements in them in regards to how clusters of brain cells get excited, inhibited and go through the consequent stages of parabiosis; how the activation from the cortex irradiates to large territories and then again concentrates in the chronically activated area; how the activation of one cluster of cells caused the inhibition of the surrounding clusters through the process of cortex induction; how, finally, the area of the dominant activation moves along the cortex in intricate zigzag and ever changing shape in such a way, that – according to Pavlov’s imaginative expression – should these cortex activations were made self-luminous and the scull – transparent, we could have clearly seen a spot of light of an intricate shape moving along the brain surface… In the meantime, in all experiments without exceptions that involved classical method of conditioned salivation reflexes, the only factual material that was delivered through observations and which exhausted the content of the experimental protocols was the count of saliva drops and their distribution in time. All the rest (the examples were given in the preceding paragraph) constitutes pure invention, the exact type of hypothesis that Newton stayed away from. Furthermore, not only the variations of the classical reflexological methods but no other experimental methods used to study the brain all over the world up until the present time, including the most current and advanced method of recording bioelectrical brain potentials, did not allow to observe and show either one of the brain phenomena listed above: not the chronic activation of certain brain areas, nor irradiation, concentration or induction, not even the wandering activation spot, even though this later one could have potentially shown itself in such powerful developer as the electronic enhancements of bioelectrical brain potentials and cathode oscillographs.

208

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Contemporary experimental science strongly deviates from Newton’s ideas on the permissibility and the meaning of scientific hypothesis. Without creating a working hypothesis, a preliminary theory, suggested models, etc., neither physics nor chemistry, biology or medicine could have made another step. Hypothesis in experimental science resembles that which in construction science is called launching girder: when building a bridge across a river, the ready bridge girder is steadily anchored and balanced on a pier of one shore and is gradually moved over the river so that it hangs over the water with its front end not leaning on anything. It remains in this risky but well calculated position until it reaches the other shore where it finally rests on the already prepared pier. Finally, the span is covered and all the forces of the load that press on the empty bridge over the empty spot, over the river’s depth are securely passed over the girders to both piers and through them – onto the solid ground. And so it happens with the working hypothesis. It hangs over the emptiness for some time, ahead of the firmly established facts and reaches conclusions based on these facts through logic only. But if the hypothesis is correct, without fail there will come a moment, when one of its far reaching conclusions, that necessarily follows its main skeleton, but is not based on the already known factual material, finds its objective experimental verification. At this moment the “beak” of the hypothesis girder has reached the second pier and can rest on it but the hypothesis continues to serve, sometimes for a long time, even though the whole middle part of its logical “span” still has not been experimentally verified. Its durability is well supported by the fact that both its initial prerequisites and its remote, final conclusions are firmly rested in experimental facts. This digression in defense of scientific hypothesis should show that, from the point of view of the present article, hypothesis that constitute the core of the reflexological theory of higher nervous activity has all the rights to exist despite the absence of its direct experimental verifications until such time when it encounters direct experimental disproof. However, in that case, why should we consider unacceptable the old hypotheses that are parallel to it and that were expressed in psychological terms?

The Main Methodological Principles

209

Why can’t we say “the dog noticed” but we can say “in the dog’s cortex there appeared a dominant activation area, in which, around the chronically activated point, concentrated the newly arrived conditioned activation signals”? Why “noticed” is less materialistic than the later of these statements? Certainly not because the second has more of the scholastic studiousness. The only reason (and there is no other possible explanation) is that the persecution of the term “noticed” and other similar terminology is rooted in the clearly dualistic point of view: there – dog’s mentality, spiritual, unknowable; here – even though just as hypothetical but wholly wrapped in terms of (primitive) materialism. That is why some hypotheses are clearly preferred over others. If, when originated, reflexology would have acknowledged the unity of mental and material and considered the first as the form of highly organized matter, they would not have been faced with such an abyss between the two. However, didn’t the fight against the psychological terms and concepts depend only on the fact that in the early years of reflexology the discussions were about a dog which mental life is truly difficult to access? No, that is not so, which is proven by the fact that having been transferred in the last two decades from studying animals to human beings, reflexology (Ivanov-Smolensky, Krasnogorsky, Kanaev, etc.) continue to insist, with no less fervor, on its sole right to objectivity and materialistic quality of its conclusions in regards to the higher forms of nervous activity. Here the question about the absence of possibility of direct connection to the mental life of a research subject seems to be no longer relevant; but here still the same old illusion, which presented the hypotheses of irradiation and concentration as more materialistic than hypotheses about “noticed” and “understood”, colors conditioned reflex research in the selective objective colors – at least, in the eyes of reflexologists themselves. And still, when a dog tied to a stand with a capsule collecting saliva attached to its cheek, develops, after a hundred trials, a differentiated conditioned reflex to light or sound, reinforced by dry food, the thought – just like hundred years ago – reveres the extraordinary idea of the Rus-

210

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

sian scientist who opened the doors to the skull of animals for us. But when these saliva collecting capsules get attached to the cheeks of the school aged children, when kymograph starts recording the number of their saliva drops and children who memorize a small poem on one trial and develop a conditioned salivation reflex to the sound of metronome in the course of 5, 7 and, sometimes, 15 days with the reflex reinforced by sugar coated cranberries and when the author of this research summarizes it by saying: “the method used in the study can firmly put us on the road to systematic study of the phenogenetics of higher nervous activity, on the road to studying the history of personality and character development in physiological terms” – such discrediting of the brilliant initial neurophysiological idea of I. P. Pavlov turns, it seems, into the intolerable mockery of both the children and the science.1 This and similar unjustified transference of methodology from dogs to humans, this unwavering certainty in the unquestionable advantage of the method of counting saliva drops over any others to understand the “personality and character development” indicate, in the first place, the invincible force of traditions, rooted habits and dogmas, the inhibiting force of which to the progress of science is obvious. That which was a great victory fifty years ago and will always remain in the history of physiology as an outstanding milestone on the road of physiology becoming a materialistic science currently begins to more and more buckle and crack from the pressure of new ideas, new facts, new knowledge – and it would have been a pity if the scientific thought did not flutter in the eternal strive to move ahead but froze instead forever on the same level only because at some point in time this level constituted a great scientific achievement. The above comparison of the conditioned reflex salivation method using cranberries to the analysis of children’s personality and character reminds the author of his experience as a young man of attending a laboratory headed by the old and well-respected scientist. He went through his 1

Kanaev P.: E\perimentalnaya Genetika Vyisshey Nervnoy Deyatelnosti Cheloveka [Experimental Genetic of Higher Nervous Activity in Humans]. Uspehi Sovremennoy Biologii [Advances in Modern Biology], 1948, v. 25, issue 1, p. 149.

The Main Methodological Principles

211

scientific training long before the simplest electrical technology appeared on the scene; the author was both astonished and touched when he saw that in the laboratory equipment of the honorable man all electrical devices – electric bulbs, bells, etc. were turned on from the other room by… pneumatic transmission similar to how the door bells in apartments used to work. The experimenter used a pump which was connected to a tube containing air that went into the second room where it was connected to the electrical switch attached to a socket of electric bulb. This image of the power of old traditions gave the author a useful and unforgettable lesson. Going back to the direct subject of this article, it is impossible not to mention that in the course of half a century since the main discovery of reflexology has been made a number of new facts as well as new methods of obtaining them was discovered. In particular, if we return to the significance of the salivation reflex as an indicator of the processes of higher nervous activity, in the time passed several of its weak points couldn’t help but be discovered. Neural processes – in conductors, synapses, and end apparatus happen at the lightning speed; the methods of recording bioelectrical phenomena showed that these processes are measured in milliseconds with decimal points while in measuring the functioning of saliva glands it is not always possible with any certainty to go beyond tenths of seconds. The complexity and variability of nervous processes are well known: their substratum in humans contain tens of thousands of motor neuro-muscular units (motor neurons) , hundreds of thousands of conductive fibers and (according to Economo) tens of billions of nervous cells. In the meantime the saliva secretion process unfolds in one dimension; as they say in applied mathematics, it changes in one parameter: in any given time period it is capable to produce only one number to characterize the processes that have taken place in that time (the number of drops, their general volume, etc.).2

2

Being used as indicators of neural reflex activity motion reflexes (nociceptive, self defense, etc.) exhibit on records also only one variable parameter though with some-

212

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Considering this inadequacy and lack of flexibility, it would be appropriate to remember the same motor acts to which this article is dedicated. Even if we consider just the external matter of their motor composition, these acts, originating from the same central nervous system that the complex secretion, present a significantly higher range of possibilities in the role of indicators. Movements can be performed very fast (in humans – up to 25–30 meters and up to 9–10 oscillation cycles per second; in insects – it is up to 500 oscillations and more per second). The human motor apparatus consists of hundreds of joints and even more degrees of freedom – the number from which contemporary engineering remains very far. Each of these degrees of freedom constitutes an independent variable parameter that describes effector brain processes and – potentially – can be recorded with any degree of precision. This overwhelming abundance and variability of the minuteness and structural details of the live movement is far from being mastered by the contemporary laboratory equipment; however, we should note that the staff of the Central Scientific Research Institute of Physical Culture (ZNIIFK) improved the technique of movement recording to the point where it is now possible to register up to 50 movement parameters at a time, with the resolving capacity of up to two hundredth of a second and higher. The possibilities of further improvement of registration capacities here are absolutely limitless. Even more promising are the motor acts as indicators of nervous activity if they are approached from the internal perspective, from the point of view of the structure of meaning. As contemporary comparative Soviet physiology established both motor resources of vertebrate and their central nervous substrates underwent a long and very complex process of evolutionary development. This development unfolded via original consecutive dialectic leaps, as a result of which the brain structure was enhanced by the new structural elements that controlled more ancient structures and the motor system acquired in its possession the whole new class

what greater variability than salivary secretion.

The Main Methodological Principles

213

of movements that were capable of solving motor tasks of increased complexity. In this way gradually developed the air and ground locomotion, the movements of more sophisticated hunting, dwellings building, the movements of raising the young – literally and in terms of teaching, the movements of cleaning, dancing, labor and, finally, human speech and writing. All these “levels of movement construction” as defined by contemporary physiology, that developed consecutively and are of different evolutionary age ranging from hundreds of millions to several thousand years old, are still present in human beings forming the hierarchical structure of mutual subordination. In these multi-level structure a man is at least two levels higher than animals, of which the upper one belongs to him exclusively (the level “E” of speech and writing), and the one below (level “D” of interactions with objects and chains of meaning) can in rudimentary forms be observed in higher mammals. Interestingly, the most ancient lower levels that developed in fish, amphibian and reptiles are also present in humans together with their brain substrates and the array of feasible motor tasks (certainly with the number of corrections and improvements in the form of adaptive changes). These lower levels partially continue to regulate in humans the most ancient and primitive in the sense of meaning motor acts (swallowing, scratching, swimming, walking, etc.); to some extend they entered in physiological cooperation of sorts with the higher, exclusively human levels that are controlled by the cortex. It is exactly these lower cooperational levels that provider technical, “background”, coordinational trimmings for complex meaningful movements, such as labor, military, sport, etc., supporting them with the appropriate corrections and with those auxiliary coordinational structures that are called automatisms. Thus, complex highly structured human motor acts are conducted under the guidance of the whole orchestra of brain levels, the highest of which (the leading one) carries out and corrects the crucial part of the movement – its meaning, thus providing for success in resolving the motor task as a whole; the lower levels assume subordinate, background roles, work within this movement without participation from consciousness and provide for it precision, order, smooth-

214

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

ness and economy – in other words, everything that distinguishes the highly developed motor habit from movements of a novice. Based on all of the above, the motor acts present as highly suitable to use as objective, external indicators of motor activity. Certainly, the initial position should consider the motor act as an integral structure that is united (or, as they say, integrated) by the whole meaning of the motor task at hand as well as its own plan that realizes this solution. Artificial, naive attempts made by particularly faithful reflexologists to abide by the language of reflexology ad absurdum and to portray any integral meaningful act as a chain of reflexes3 should be emphatically rejected. The advantages of integral motor acts as indicators over all the other ones known to us consist in the fact that in movements that have different meaning structures we can see the direct representation of systems of different levels and stores of the brain from the most ancient and lowest ones that control breathing, swallowing and coughing to the highest ones, exclusively human levels of symbolic actions. Here the necessity in any kind of conditioned connections between the indicator and the process under research at one or the other higher structural brain level is no longer relevant. This conditioned combination of higher and lower created a genius way out when no other ways of indication were available for experimental technology and for development of physiology. Now that motor acts are principally decoded as unconditional, as the direct external 3

For example, A. N. Krestovnikov (“Human Physiology”, Moscow, 1938, p. 69) reports: “High jump with a running start is a complicated combined action of tonical proprioceptional reflexes. The jump consists of acceleration, push-off, flight, clearance, straightening up, and landing. Acceleration is a reflex of displacement and a reflex of support. This turns into the reflex of push-off (rebound reflex), then into the active reflex of lifting (jumper swings leading leg up). The leg swing induces reflectory extension of the remaining load bearing leg. The pushing leg becomes airborne and lifts further from the ground after downward movement of leading leg begins once it clears the bar…. Finally, after straightening one can observe the reflex of landing turning into the reflex of body support during contact with the Earth.” We do not doubt that the reflex of bowing that followed this jump induced a stormy reflex of applauding in the public, and the reflex of going home by tram in the actor. Similarly in hell described by Scarron the coachman’s shadow cleaned the mud’s shadow from coach’s shadow using the brush’s shadow.

The Main Methodological Principles

215

reflections of the processes occurring in central nervous system from top to bottom, this question was timely elevated to the new, dialectically higher level. Certainly, a more complex and flexible indicator needs more complex decoding methods; complex, in particular, because, as we have already noted in the beginning of the article, the realization of movement along with internal forces includes always an external force field, which has to be skillfully identified and sift through. But this is the question not of principle but of technology, the question of new Champollion appearing to decipher these hieroglyphs, and the young Soviet scientists would, without a doubt, produce one. And then we will be able, using these documents of unconditional, flexible and precise reflections of nervous activity – both high and low – to discover many new, opening now in front of us pages of fascinating and strict dialectical materialistic science of one of the most current and miraculous creations of nature – the human brain.

New Lines of Developments in Contemporary Physiology (1962) Every stage in the development of new production forms puts new demands on the already existing branches of science, while at the same time creating new scientific disciplines that are called upon to respond to those demands and highlight the paths of their further development. Quantum and nuclear physics, and in the last decade – cybernetics are the examples of these new branches that emerged in front of our generation’s eyes. In the newborn disciplines as well as in old sciences entering the new stage of their development, the emergence of new problems always goes hand in hand with the development of corresponding new research methods. The group of biological sciences, and, in particular, the one science that is the subject of special interest to us – physiology, is currently experiencing exactly such a turning point. Unlike the physiology of the last century that was far removed from the demands of practice, in the years after WWI an applied group of sciences has emerged including psychophysiology of labor, skill and sports as well as professiographic complex. The problems of human physiology moved to the forefront against the directives of old physiology that remained the animal physiology all through the 19th century. Instead of lingering on these half a century old trends, let us consider instead those changes in direction, which physiology is experiencing now, in front of our eyes. We will first discuss the emerging new set of scientific problems that can be viewed as a “leading variable” of sort; we will then very briefly look at the group of the new methods that attempt to address them. In the area of applied science, one can’t help but notice the cooling off attitude towards the issues of physiology of physical labor that only several decades ago played the leading role in the form of labor energetics, biomechanics, medical monitoring, etc. Naturally, due to the progressive shifting of the main point of professional interest towards more subtle and

New Lines of Developments

217

intellectual aspects of workers’ participation in automated industrial processes, new problems that were never even considered before, came to the forefront of applied physiology. It appears that there are two main groups of problems that have emerged. One of them, most closely connected with cybernetics and responsible for its birth, is the problem of human activity as a link in the complex that connects workers and machines or technical devices. The issues of rational management of those elements of the complex which are either impossible or inexpedient to entrust to machines as well as the issues of the organization of this two-sided connection that lead to the totally new aspect of the physiology of receptors and complex forms of reactions also belong to this group. To give a very few examples of such aspects, I will name: the problem of relations between noise and signal; the analysis of the thresholds of configurations recognition and differentiation; finally, the problems of coding and in general all the multiple points of connection between the receptor physiology and the general information theory. The second in the group of questions mentioned above, which also could only have emerged once the development of technology has reached its current level are the issues of human activity in the strongly unusual circumstances that put additional heavy demands on the organism and its ability to adapt. The first place – based not on the industrial importance but rather on the bright heroics of our national achievements – belongs here to the issues of activity and behavior of the organisms during space flights in the periods of acceleration/deceleration and weightlessness as well as during those, still inevitable, fluctuations from the state of optimum comfort that we have not been able to eliminate even with the thorough conditioning and securing of the spaceship’s cabin. But even besides the space explorations, that quite obviously will remain the destiny of a few selected ones for a long time, the contemporary technology presents an abundance of such activities that place high demands on the central nervous apparatus of human beings.

218

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Theoretical thought in physiology turned out to be significantly more inert in its response to the problems posed by the practice of life. Compared to the wide range of practical applications, briefly mentioned earlier, theoretical achievements and even projects are quite modest. Undoubtedly, our duty, and especially the duty of the young generation of physiologists, is to bridge this gap, to search for and formulate the new starting points of research, working hypothesis and principal reevaluations. Currently we can identify two theoretical trends that, although unquestionably new, have already managed to some extend prove their rights to existence and formulate their initial tasks. One of them is the cluster of problems of physiological regulation that is closely connected with the theory of automatic regulation. The first few steps made by this theoretical approach after formulating its basic principles, were to research the stabilizing regulatory systems of the organism: systems of thermo- and chemoregulation, management of circulatory processes, etc. In the recent years several research studies emerged that focused on tracing the regulatory systems. The most advanced of these studies are the studies of the circular management of the pupil reaction and eye movements. Along with that, we see the expansion of research of muscle tone and muscle automatisms: the rhythms of wing and sound producing systems in insects, physiological clonus and tremors in higher animals and humans, the statics of standing, vestibular-otholit regulations of muscle tone, etc. The principle of cyclic regulations based on feedback, the key leading principle of all and every regulation of this kind, was formulated in the Soviet literature earlier than in the West: by P. K. Anokhin as it applies to the motor apparatus in 1934 and by the author in 1929. At the present time, following prolonged scientific debates on the issue, the leading and the absolutely unique importance of this principle is universally acknowledged. It is important to emphasize that the acknowledgement of this principle of cyclic regulations allowed to see in a new light and to gain deeper understanding of the unbreakable integrity of the organism in all its func-

New Lines of Developments

219

tions. The necessity of coordinated co-participation of sensory, effector and central systems in every act of the organism was also accepted by those physiologists who earlier supported the idea of the open reflex arc. But these ideas necessarily led to the understanding of every lasting process as a mosaic of consecutive reflexes interrupted every time at the end of the arc; and only the principle of a reflex circle that replaced it formed a real foundation for understanding the integral uninterrupted interconnection between all the above named systems both in time and in their coexistence. The second direction in the theoretical renewal of physiology is the emergence of physiology of activity that is being born right in front of our eyes. The necessity to expand the scope of functions that are subjected to physiological research to include the most important active actions as opposed to reactive processes that have remained almost exclusively the focus of physiology, becomes more and more urgent. The focus on reactive functions that are naturally determined by the external stimuli that cause them most probably developed because of the ease of their access for experimental research that allowed to study the majority of these processes using animals placed in special laboratory devices, often under anesthesia. The research problem was also easier to formulate; every time it came down to discovering a law, according to which the given “input” stimulus necessarily causes a certain reaction on the “output”. However, it is not difficult to see that such narrow understanding of the organism as a reactive machine leaves behind the most biologically significant manifestations of its activity where a living being on its own determines and formulates certain action tasks in response to a stimulus that is not necessarily determined by it unambiguously; where a living being does not go with the flow of the environmental stimulation but fights against the environment and the stimulation, trying to overcome them and change them in the way that is most biologically beneficial. It is easy to understand that the switch in the attention of scientific community to these processes of activity constitutes both a fluctuation from understanding organisms as “reactive machine” and a continued movement

220

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

away from the monopoly of the reflex arc as a building block of behavior, a monopoly that no longer plays a progressive role in the history of objective knowledge. The most unique and typical out of everything that physiology encounters when turning to the problem of activity is the fact that an action task formulated by a living being “from within” based on the present situation but not mechanistically determined by it, necessarily develops as an extrapolation of a future of some sort. It is only possible to rationally program an action based on the certain image or model of the result of this action and the reason to undertake it. But since what lies ahead can only be assessed or predicted in the form of “probability prognosis” (a very fitting term by I. M. Feigenberg), it becomes obvious that the approach to the analysis of the physiological processes outlined here should be based on the theory of probability and its newest developments, which we will need to discuss below. In conclusion of this section, I would like to note that besides the biological significance of those functions that fall under the “jurisdiction” of the physiology of activity, the later brings with it one more methodologically important step. The provision on the probabilistic modeling of the future that lays in the basis of the activity of all organisms starting from the lowest ones allows to create a strictly materialistic interpretation of such notions as rationality or goal-orientedness that until this day remained completely within the domains of vitalism and teleology. At the same time this provision and all its implications draws a very clear and principally important line between the abilities of living organisms and the contemporary robots. Physiology together with cybernetics is yet to search for and formulate those internal mechanisms on which the “reflection of the forthcoming in the present” that we are discussing here is based. Now we need to try to briefly classify and name those methods of contemporary physiology that are the most promising for the future development of the research outlined above.

New Lines of Developments

221

In regards to experiments and equipment, we obviously need to mention in the first place the extensive electrography group that emerged in direct connection with the development of technical electronics. The list of variations and fields of application of these methods is already wide and well-known. Thus, without naming all of them, let us focus only on a few enriched and unique ones. Among them are, first, complex methods of studying configurations: multi-electrode devices of electroencephalographic lead (M. N. Livanov, W. G. Walter) that strive to give an integral picture of the neural processes distribution in cortex; vector-cardiography technique that reproduces the full spatial picture of the varying electric fields of the heart, etc. The other “enriched” group of methods appropriately includes those where the process being registered is immediately analyzed or changed in some way to help gain the understanding of it. For example, some of the methods in this group include adder or integrators of the amplitudes of the oscillatory processes in the brain or muscle, synchronous analyzers of frequency spectrums, automatic correlographs as well as devices that significantly increase the signal/ noise ratio in barely detectable processes, etc. Finally, this group also includes micromanipulative techniques for studying the activity of single fibers or endings that allowed to detect the slightest manifestations of activity such as generator potentials, “miniature” potentials, the functions of Pacinian bodies or gamma-efferents and others. The same powerful resources of electronics currently made it possible to develop various practical applications of the principles of feedback and circular interactions mentioned above. Automatic instruments for temporary shut-down of the pulmonary circulation or the whole heart; automated devices for uninterrupted analysis and circular stimulation of heartbeat (M. L. Tsetlin), motor prosthesis controlled through amplified biopotentials from muscle stumps (Kobrinsky and Gurfinkel), etc. are just some of the most striking examples of such applications. As far as this direction, the path, undoubtedly, goes towards creating active sensoryable prosthetics with permanently implanted electrodes and transistors that are currently being developed at the Moscow Institute of Prosthetics.

222

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Moving from experimental methods to analytical it is important to note in the first place the rapidly developing penetration of mathematics in the area of physiological problems research and experimental results interpretation. Here the same powerful electronics technology created new means for different approaches to analysing experimental results as well as experimental modeling in the form of electronic machines both of the digital and analog types. While toy turtles and mice that once were considered the “latest trend in fashion” cannot in any way provide a serious support for scientific development, there are no doubts in real heuristic value of experimental modeling of another kind which mostly does not involve the creation of metal models. For example, the verification of working hypothesis on the functions of the neural networks of the brain through implementation of hypothetical programs into an analytical device and comparing the results generated by it to the functioning of living brain illustrate the experimental modeling capable to lead to valuable scientific conclusions. We have yet to say a few words about another way mathematics is penetrating biological disciplines. The entire history of science starting with ancient China and Egypt, shows that new chapters and directions emerged and developed in mathematics in direct connection with practical needs and general tasks. Every one of the consecutive mathematical disciplines always had as the foundation of its development the unfolding of newly defined scientific and technical questions and the demand for their quantitative interpretation. This was how infinitesimal calculus was born and developed significantly in the 18th century; in the 19th century out of almost entertaining problems of gambling analysis that occupied the thoughts of the old algebraists, the probability theory and statistics was born, etc. Each of these new directions came into being due to the fact that the assets of the old mathematics were lacking a key to “unlock” the principally new branch of natural sciences or technology. The same is happening in front of our eyes with “mathematization” of biology. That is why, along with the expansion of calculating abilities, mentioned above, that does not add anything significantly new, we see if not yet clearly

New Lines of Developments

223

defined but persistent development of mathematical disciplines either entirely new or not really thought of as meeting the demands of biology – similar to how not one of the 17th century scientists could even imagine the application of the elements of probability theory to the physics of liquids or gases. Analysis of variance and theory of errors found their applications in biology way before others. As the points of application continued to increase to include toxicology, bacteriology, genetics, ecology, etc., both of these disciplines currently continue to accumulate new and more precise methods of analysis. The interest in the general theory of information, prompted by the problems of cybernetics, led not only to establishing a strong mathematical foundation for it but also brought into psychophysiological and biological research the expansive area of mathematical logic. The attempts were made to apply both to the problems of speech physiology and pathology, analysis of neural network functions and the theory of nervous system coding (the problem of neural impulse specificity), etc. Finally, the rise of interest in physiology of activity with its interpretation of probability prognosis and its understanding of the struggle against the external environment to carry out the intended task, leads to attempts in understanding the dynamic “equilibrium” between the organism and the environment as well as homeostasis as the chains of active-conflicting relationships with the environment and also to use such branches of mathematics as general game theory, theory of conflicts and strategies etc., for the benefit of physiology, which earlier seemed like the least possible option. These and similar searches for fundamentally new directions in mathematics that are able to produce the best response to the demands of biology are so numerous that it does not seem feasible to name all of them. It is possible that in the nearest future we will see among them, for example, the theory of configurations the need for which is obvious currently in trying to understand the mechanisms of regeneration and morphogenesis, the principles of heredity transmission as well as the field

224

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

of object recognition that remains a mystery still; presently the most abstract divisions of the general sets theory, group theory, etc. It would be futile to even try to predict which of these directions will weed out, which ones will grow, which ones will re-emerge. But one thing is clear: the group of biological sciences currently has reached an important divide or mountain pass, beyond which – as it often happens in travels – there opens a wide panoramic view of unknown. This is where we must plan to direct our path.

From the Preface to A. V. Napalkov and N. A. Chichvarina’s Brochure “Brain and Cybernetics” (1963) Is it possible to model and entrust a machine with rational thinking? And if so – how can it be done? The enormous successes in electronics development that people could not even dream about 20–30 years ago, made such propositions fairly real. Fast acting computers turned out to be able to quickly and correctly solve complex mathematical problems. And naturally, the thought occurred: if these machines are suitable to perform such undoubtedly cognitive operations as solving mathematical equations, doesn’t it mean that in general they are capable of reproducing cognitive processes? It was remembered that the works and discoveries have existed already for nearly a century in the field of the so-called algebraic logic that demonstrated the possibility of transferring logical operations into the language of formulas similar to the mathematical ones. After that, only one step remained for these formulas to turn into programs for the electronic automatic machines. Indeed, cybernetics managed to create programs for the wide range of cognitive tasks that automatics was able to handle. Among those programs were such sensations as chess or music composition, as well as rather useful ones that had practical applications, for example, translating from one language to another, making a medical diagnosis, resolving economic problems, etc. Another equally natural idea also started to develop. Could artificial electronic models somehow clarify for us that which is happening in the depths and craters of the living brain? The more cognitive, logical operations we are able to program and reproduce via machines the more chances we have to detect and apply such devices and methods that have a profound similarity with the structure and functioning of the brain. Many notable scientists started to create the models of “neural networks”, which were not meant to resolve any practical problems but to credibly reflect the suggested cognitive mechanisms of the brain.

226

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

The development of these models, for example recognition and distinction of figures, classification of objects and notions, etc. started to gain momentum. And here unforeseen difficulties emerged. The automated machines which were created using such methods turned out to be incapable of reproducing some of the simplest brain functions. Currently, it is already being confirmed that this was one of those seemingly dead ends, which in reality mark the beginning of the sharp turn in the development of science, opening up new horizons. Such imaginary dead end occurred, for example, half a century ago in physics when failure to discover immobile “ether” and the theory of black emission led to the great revolutionary discoveries of Planck and Einstein. Something similar started to appear also in the field of cognitive modeling and (which is also typical) in some other areas. First, the conclusion was reached that, seemingly, ancient classical logic fail to produce significant practical use not by accident. Inferences such as “It is raining; one should wear a raincoat when it rains; it is raining today therefore I need to wear a raincoat” added very little to serious scientific thought, to say nothing about the expectation that logic theorems would propel the scientific thought forward, activating new discoveries. Secondly, it became clear, that even if electronic machines are able to resolve some cognitive tasks and create programs for them, they are only able to do that because of their operational speed, their ability to perform hundreds of thousands of operations per second. Indeed, for a machine to be able to translate a sentence from English into Russian, it needs to go through thousands of options that are stored in its mechanical memory in the form of separate elements. And, finally, the phenomenon called “reflex” has long been well known in physiology. If a living organism experiences some kind of an influence, it immediately displays a rational reaction to the information that is being transmitted along the afferent nerves to the brain. The famous discovery of conditioned reflexes by I. P. Pavlov showed that orga-

From the Preface to A. V. Napalkov and N. A. Chichvarina’s

227

nisms possess the capacity for the broad switching of signaling stimuli in such a way that, for example, any information can serve as a warning sign for pain if it preceded this sensation regularly for a number of times and if the brain had enough time to notice and register this regularity. It seemed very tempting to interpret the total behavior of the organism as a well programmed sequence or assembly of conditioned reflexes accumulated through experience. It was suggested that in unknown situation that was being encountered for the first time, the organism used the “trial and error” approach, i.e. responding to the stimulus through reflexes; that it registered and stored in memory separately those cases where the reflex led to a positive result and those where it turned out to be a mistake or a failure. This approach was enticing because of its simplicity and explicitness. Additionally, it was easy to model. Several years ago, it seemed you couldn’t find a single university where electronic turtles or magnetic mice were not being made, that extra-diligently followed all the rules of this theory both for conditioned and unconditioned reflexes. But this is where contradictions started to add up. It became obvious that living organisms do not act according to these principles. First of all, no living creature is reined by signaling stimuli. It actively seeks what it needs, chooses, “grabs” the important signals, and studies the environment using vision, extremities, and the sense of smell. Instead of passively following the path of accidental trials and similarly accidental successes and failures, it conducts the active search of what it needs. While engaging in any action, for example, searching for food, the living organism, obviously, creates a plan of this action and while performing it, the organism certainly adapts to external signals but they are not the ones that define its goal-oriented behavior. In the theory of automatics reflex-like behavior that is managed by precise signals is called the fully informed action. But in real life the animal does not have time to wait or search for the complete information about the state of environment. If it would have started considering this information in its entirety (similar to already mentioned translation machine) the predator could have easily caught it, the swamp could have

228

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

sucked it in, an avalanche or a car could have knocked it over. Being forced to live in a kind of constant “life stress” the organism has to actively and rationally pick out on its own the information that is most necessary, discarding everything that can be ignored. More and more data is being accumulated suggesting that the brain does not function based on the complete information according to the principle of cataloging either during perception with recognition or while performing actions. Let’s consider just one example. One of the most prominent chess players, M. M. Botvinnik, once explained that no player tries to even consider all the possible moves and their consequences during a game (this is exactly what the first chessplaying machines did), but, instead, chooses two or three possibilities based on the not even always conscious feeling of relative probability. Machines for the logical drawing of geometrical theorems, if the needed axioms and prerequisites are put in their “memory” in forms of programs, typically can be successful in resolving this task. But how? Only having gone through all the possible conclusions, the machine finally picks the right one. But does the brain act in the same way? It is not by chance that one ancient Indian manual instead of the proof of the theorem only contained a drawing with one word underneath it: “Look!” New and promising ideas poured in the science of active, constructive cognition as soon as the awareness emerged of how futile and wrong the old approach was. The easiness of modeling using the reflex principle turned out to be more of a negative characteristic for it. Not surprisingly, the ”mice” and the “turtles” became so completely outdated. The active nature of the brain, working on incomplete information and estimations based on probability, the deepening of the idea of algorithm which earlier was interpreted only as a calculating recipe but not as a directing plan of actions – all the entirety of new concepts and approaches lately became known as heuristics – the term that has not yet become colloquial.

From the Preface to A. V. Napalkov and N. A. Chichvarina’s

229

Heuristics refers to a new connection between the biological science of rational, creative thinking and the work of engineers on creating the new generation of machines that even if not “thinkers”, are in the very least advisors to human beings in the field of creative thought.

Remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay “Mechanics in Biology” (1964)1 N.A. Bernstein Corresponding member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Doctor of medical sciences Most of Tsiolkovsky's creative energy was absorbed by the theory and technical implementation of cosmic flight. Still he found time to address a wide range of problems, and he attempted to build a bridge between mechanics and biology. Today we would regard such work as belonging to biophysics or biomechanics. Tsiolkovsky wrote the first version of his essay on "Mechanics in Biology" in 1882, over 80 years ago. He then let it rest for many years and picked it up again in 1920, by which time his understanding had matured and he had acquired fame as a first class scientist. Konstantin Eduardovich reworked the text in light of his own studies of the mechanics of airplanes and Zeppelins (dirigibles). Since Tsiolkovsky's time, science and technology have progressed with tremendous speed so that some of his conclusions have since become obsolete and lost their scientific relevance. Tsiolkovsky could rely on very little if any relevant empirical knowledge. There was much he just had to assume in developing his theories, for example concerning muscle force in man, the loadbearing capacity of the skeletal system, the frequency of wing movements in insects and birds, etc. Tsiolkovsky's essay is published here in its 1920 form. By and large, it has not lost its value, revealing Tsiolkovsky's unique talent and the gift to popularize that was so characteristic of him.

1

The original paper appeared in K.E. Tsiolkovsky (1964), Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 4 (pp. 454–458). Moscow: Nauka. It was translated by I.M. Rubin and edited for clarity. Reprint of the translation with permission of Human Kinetics Publisher. The translation appeared in Motor Control, 2000, 4, 262–272.

Remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay

231

Let us imagine two geometrical bodies, or statues that are completely similar to each other, the one being bigger than the other by a linear factor P ( P = 2 , 10, 100, etc.). We can say immediately that all corresponding surface areas of the larger object are P2 times bigger than those of the smaller one, and corresponding volumes P3 times. Assuming a homogenous composition of, for instance, marble or bronze, the masses of corresponding parts will also differ by P3. That is all there is to say if we analyze two inanimate three-dimensional objects of homogenous composition that are geometrically similar to each other. If now we start to think about living, moving organisms, say two different ones with as much geometrical similarity as possible, and again a linear coefficient P, our analysis becomes much more complex and rich. We are confronted with complications right from the beginning. This we can see, for instance, if we allow forces to work on our figures. Take the simplest example. We assume that our statues represent human beings with their arms hanging down; the linear coefficient is 10. Now the hands are carrying proportional loads, different by a factor P3, that is to say, 1000 times. But the surface areas of the cross-sections of the hands differ by not more than P2 = 100 times. Consequently, the strength in the larger statue (per unit of surface area) must be 10 times bigger, and if we start to slowly increase the load for both hands, it is the hand of the larger statue that will break first. When the arm is lifted in the shoulder to a horizontal position, the torques will differ by a factor P4, that is, 10.000 times, while the load-bearing capacities differ by P3, or 1000 times. Again, the situation is 10 times more difficult for the larger figure. Take two homogenous cubes, with a linear similarity coefficient P = 10, and drop them from the same height onto a hard surface. The situation will be similar to that with the statues: mass and weight of the bigger cube differ by factor 1000 from those of the smaller one, while the surfaces that absorb the shock differ by not more than 100. To increase the similarity, we could also drop the larger cube from a point that is 10 times higher, giving it 10 times more kinetic energy, which then would create even bigger problems.

232

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

For such problems in theoretical mechanics, Newton already formulated the theorem of dynamical similarity in his famous book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. This theorem of dynamical similarity leads to general formalisms, derived by Newton, which have been applied in recent tests with models, for instance with miniature ships in special test ponds. It turns out that Newton's formalisms really contain all cases one may encounter with non-living objects. The question is whether these formalisms are also valid for all problems concerning the behavior of living organisms, that is to say, in biomechanics and biophysics. We believe Tsiolkovsky was the first in science to ask this question. Certainly, Tsiolkovsky discussed the fundamental paradox in the relationship between load increase and increase in load-bearing capacity, as can be seen in living nature to the same degree as in the examples above. While Tsiolkovsky analyzed all the problems included in Newton's formalisms, he observed specific complications, of a different kind, as to the similarity relations in living organisms. Such complications had not been found, and could hardly have been found in inanimate mechanics. We will present the first, maybe the most important complication of this kind. Let us think of two animal species that are geometrically more or less similar, with a linear coefficient P = 10 as in the examples above. Instances of such pairs would be the small tree frog together with the gigantic bullfrog from Japan, or the Kiwi, a small contemporary bird species from New Zealand, together with Dinornis moa, a recently extinct giant bird from the same area. In each pair, lungs are used for breathing, that is to say, air-filled bags with many small interior compartments – alveoli – so that the usable surface area is increased just as in the radiators of central heating or in motor cylinders with air cooling. Let us analyze two cases. In the first case, the linear dimensions of the alveoli differ by a factor P = 10, in accordance with the general similarity between the two species. In the second case, we view the alveoli as delicate instruments for gas exchange in breathing, their absolute dimensions being the most important factor for their functional success. In this second case, the 1000 (P3) times bigger lung of the larger animal will have

Remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay

233

1000 times more alveoli than the lung of the smaller animal, while the alveoli themselves have the same dimensions. What would happen in these two cases? In the first case, the alveoli take part in the general similarity, differing by a factor 10 in their linear dimensions, while their functional surface areas differ by a factor P2 = 100. In accordance with the strong assumption of perfect similarity, their number is bigger in the larger animal by a factor P3 = 1000, which implies that the oxygen supply will be 10 times more difficult in the larger animal. In the second case, the dimensions of the alveoli remain unchanged – as we assumed to be necessary for their functioning. Obviously, the number of such alveoli will be proportional to the volume of the lungs, that is, P3 = 1000 times bigger in the larger animal. The surface area for breathing increases with the same factor so that the usable area is the same in terms of the mass of the animal, independent from the absolute dimensions.2 Evidently, we have to establish the actual facts, measuring the organs and systems in order to pinpoint which road nature has chosen for their evolution. We agree with Tsiolkovsky that such examples are nothing special; on the contrary, they are typical of the differences one always finds between living organisms and Newton's simple law. Research is needed on the structure and composition of bones, the properties of the vascular system, the number and distribution of digestive villi in the stomach and the intestines, and finally the strictly standardized but differential configurations of elements in the construction of the liver, the kidneys, the glands, and the nervous system. Only careful investigation will reveal which of the two extreme cases given above is closest to the actual situation of any of these organs. It is not necessary that the exponent of P be exactly equal to 2 or 3, as in the examples above; in reality it may be some fraction between 2 and 3, and some data suggest that the exponent can even be larger than 3 or smaller

2

This has to be Bernstein’s slip of the pen. The number of alveoli of larger animal with larger alveoli has to be the same as of the smaller animal (Editor´s note).

234

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

than 2. Tsiolkovsky uses the letter H for this changeable exponent; he couldn't help but ascribe some hypothetical meaning to such exponents. In his day, experimental study, which is the only right way to approach such a problem, hadn't even begun. In our time, comparative physiology and especially the new physiology of regulation has already clarified several of the enigmas of 50 years ago. Tsiolkovsky had his own fields of interest, leading to an emphasis on particular problems. First, the energetics of the movements of living organisms: running, jumping, mountain climbing, swimming, etc.; second, the comparative mechanics of the wings of small and large organisms (insects and birds), in relation to the gigantic 'artificial' wings in birds constructed by man – airplanes. Time and again, Tsiolkovsky gives telling examples of the dialectical transition of quantity into new quality, related to changes in the relative dimensions of wings (surface area, thickness, etc.), their construction and material composition, the movement kinematics of flying, etc. Tsiolkovsky sometimes deviates from the strict, somewhat dry presentation of his calculations, equations and tables, allowing for scientific fantasies. He depicts what would happen if the linear dimensions of living organisms would change by P = 10, 100, or 1000 in one or the other direction. He describes how the increase of P leads to additional demands if the animal is to maintain an upright position in the field of gravitation because of the fact that its weight increases by a factor P3, which would finally crush the animal. Tsiolkovsky presents an image of imaginary human beings with P = 1/1000, showing how different their world would look, in which respects life would be easier for them, and how problems that are trivial to us could be insurmountable for these ultra-Lilliputians. Useless fantasies? The reader may think so, but such an opinion would reveal scientific shortsightedness. In his essay, Tsiolkovsky gives instructive examples of how such a kind of analysis is becoming more and more relevant in our contemporary situation. As a matter of fact, we cannot change the dimensions of our body by a factor 10 or 100.

Remarks on K. E. Tsiolkovsky’s essay

235

But very similar changes in condition can be observed on other celestial bodies of our solar system – on celestial bodies which will really become accessible to us in the near future, to begin with the nearest one, our satellite, the moon. On the surfaces of these bodies the strength of gravitation can be extremely different – from very high on Jupiter to infinitesimal as on the small asteroids. Our cosmonauts will soon meet with increased or diminished gravitation on these heavenly bodies. The effects will in many respects be similar to changes in physical dimensions on our own planet. Such effects include the stresses caused by the large acceleration in the active phase of the cosmic flight – stresses that have actually been experienced by the cosmonauts during training in the centrifuge or during actual departure into space. After Tsiolkovsky, many scientific-utopian novels and stories were published, conveying the impressions and problems of the imaginary space traveler after landing on some cosmic object; we should never forget that Tsiolkovsky pioneered the way, not only giving vivid descriptions but also trying, for the first time, to analyze the relationships between the dimensions of a living organism and its statics and dynamics, as well as gravitation. That is his everlasting merit.

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting (1964) It would hardly be possible to find among the human motor skills another one as complex as the skill writing. In terms of its structure this motor skill is even more complicated than verbal speech. Indeed, even if we look at the act of writing just from an external perspective, it would become clear how many hand and arm muscles and joints concordantly and harmoniously participate in this process; the number of tongue and throat muscles that are jointly involved in verbal speech is obviously much less and there is only one joint in these organs – paired intermandibular. It is common knowledge that any normal person can talk from the early childhood (by the age of 4–5 children already can talk impeccably) whereas children have to learn how to write when they go to school and the cursive writing forms only in later grades, in other words, it requires a decade of constant practice. There is one more difference between writing and verbal speech but we will only note it here in passing. In order to write, one needs materials and tools – where and with what to write. That is why, historically speaking, writing kept acquiring new adaptive forms. Contemporary forms of writing, cursive in particular, are extremely young. They are tens of times younger than verbal speech. Even three hundred years ago writing looked much different. This deprives us of any way to consider here the hereditary predisposition which, unquestionably, exists in verbal speech. If a young child masters speech almost instinctively, mastering of writing requires conscious learning and multiple exercises in this complex and multilayered skill. If a hundred years ago physiologists and psychologists did not see in writing anything beyond the purely external, biomechanical complexity and even discovered a special “writing center” in the brain – a small area of cortex which supposedly served as a command headquarters for managing all the aspects of the writing process, currently science looks at it quite differently. A tragic experience of two world wars played a major role in under-

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

237

standing the actual relationship. Study of multiple wounds of different areas and parts of the brain showed that injuries to almost any part of the brain cause movements’ disorder. Clearly, these abnormalities are the most evident in the most complex skills such as writing. But it also became quite clear that whenever parts of the brain became damaged, the disturbances caused by these injuries can be very different; in particular, the skill of writing can suffer in a number of different ways. Only then the complexity and multiplicity of the controlling devices in the brain which joint and coordinated functioning is needed for the act of writing to occur became evident. In this essay we will omit the initial stage of mastering the skill of writing, which has been studied by psychologists the most, that of transferring (or decoding – to use the modern term) of the sound and vocal image of the word into its letter, traced image.1 Even in languages such as Russian which is characterized by the relatively close correspondence between the sound and the letter composition of words (the word is spelled almost as it sounds) this auxiliary skill of decoding of the so-called “phonemes” into the so-called “graphemes” is acquired with difficulty. Here it usually helps to say each word out loud. The observations of children in a school setting showed that if they are directed to write a dictation with their mouths wide opened or slightly biting on their tongue, children make seven times more mistakes. Let us consider this initial stage more or less complete and turn to the observation of how the motor component of writing (the so-called psychomotor component) becomes gradually organized. These observations will show us that the systems of writing control are even more complex than what the data obtained when studying the brain injuries allowed us to think and will also reveal to us an amazing example of the intricately organized multi-level regulatory system which represents exactly the 1

About this stage see: Luria A. R.: Ocherki Psihofiziologii Pis'ma [Outline of the Psychophysiology of Handwriting]. Moscow 1956; Gur'janov E. V.: Razvitie Navyka Pis'ma u Shkol'nikov [The Development of Schoolchildren Handwriting Skill]. Moscow, 1940.

238

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

type of systems currently being thoroughly studied in the automatic control theory. The fact is that the motor devices in our body, in particular the motor apparatus of arms and hands are abundantly flexible and capriciously difficult to control at the same time. To begin with, even the simplest movements such as bending and unbending of the knee or the elbow require the coordinated participation of two muscles with opposite functions. Actually, our muscles are elastic bundles which are only able to perform the act of pulling but not pushing. Many times I showed my audience the experiment that always produces lively reaction and is very indicative of how complicated the process of controlling the simplest movements with the help of elastic ties is unless it is based in the habit and past experience. I would attach to the belt of the subject in the front an upper end of a ski pole and a 2 kg weight and two rubber tubes to its lower sharp end with a ring. Aiming the sharp end directly ahead and giving the subject the two rubber tubes in each hand I would ask him to come to the blackboard and using the tubes as reins to outline the large figure drawing (square, circle, etc.) on the board. The pole in this experiment represents the bone, the place where it is attached to the belt – a flexible joint and the rubber tubes – represents two opposing muscles. The audience always laughed at uncertain trembling movements of the sharp end of the pole. No matter how hard the subject tried to perform the task well, his movements would mostly resemble the movements of a weak old man. Meanwhile, this plain experiment modeled a simple situation where only one link was controlled by two muscles. In real life we (just like animals) remain in perfect control of all movements of our body that is equipped with not just two but hundreds of muscles and no less degrees of freedom of joint flexibility. Our main working organs – arms and hands – have approximately thirty degrees of freedom from the shoulder blades to the tips of our fingers and about the same number of indepen-

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

239

dent muscles. We also should add that regulations play the necessary part of the muscle control process: regulation of movement precision in some muscles, its strength, smoothness, rhythm, timeliness, etc. in others. The principle that allows to achieve the state when every component of the control process is performed correctly and the whole “ensemble” achieves the full and precise coordination, can most accurately be called the principle of multilevel regulation. This principle as it applies to living organisms has long been discovered by Russian physiology. It refers to the fact that responsibility for controlling the process of movement is distributed between an entire set of subsystems with different tasks. These subsystems are controlled by one another in a variety of ways and all together they form a pyramid of a kind that consists of brain devices and communications. Each of these subsystems is organized as a circle that is based on feedbacks (Picture 1).

Figure 6.2 (Picture 1) Flowchart of "reflex circle" model controlling the subsystem of musculoskeletal apparatus (russian original).

240

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

In accordance with its responsibilities this “reflex circle” constantly receives reports from numerous sensors spread all over the body: from muscle-joint and tactile organs, organs of vision, equilibrium, etc., and based on this information, corrects and controls movements. Thus, the functioning of these regulatory systems resembles the work of programmed devices that currently have become widespread in automated technology. These subsystems that control precision, strength and coordination of movements and are controlled by each other, all together are managed by a superior or leading brain command system which consists of the upper most mechanisms of the brain cortex. This system controls the goal and the meaning of the movement or the action that is being performed. Only feedback signals that are addressed to this leading system reach our consciousness and we only become aware of the commands to the inferior brain and movement organs when this system sends them. All those regulatory commands that are technical as opposed to those related to meaning, and that are performed by the secondary control circles do not reach our consciousness: it is said that they are performed automatically. Now we can imagine what a large and at times lengthy work needs to happen in order to adjust the functioning of all this “orchestra”, especially when it comes to a complex skill! The development of any new skill is started and is being initially carried through by its leading system, the system of meaning. All the “trimming” of a movement: the curbing of the tremor because of the lack of muscle coordination, the accurateness of replacements, evenness, presence of rhythm and such occurs later, in a gradual manner, whereas the leading system, which is not designed for such trimming alterations, first leads the movement “haphazardly” to the degree that the system’s technical resources allow. Let us present the quick overview of how a child gradually learns to write, how the skill becomes automated and how he gradually assigns the lower systems of his brain the task of “technical trimming” of this skill . I borrowed the samples exhibited here not from the notebooks where child-

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

241

ren put forth an effort based on teacher’s directions and out of fear of that teacher. The correspondence where the child is on his own and not following a teacher’s directives is much more indicative. The image of a block letter already familiar to the child is presented to his leading brain system. He starts drawing letters one after another, the pencil noticeably trembling in his hand because he is untrained for small movements. This can still be called drawing as is evident by the fact that the child does not always distinguish between the essential and secondary elements of letters. He gets in a hurry, gets tired fast because of exerting intense efforts and the ideas that are running fast through his head appear on paper so frustratingly slow. The writing that started very thoroughly in small letters becomes wider, more coarse and hurried. Often, while the brain is trying to remember the form of the next letter, the pencil impatiently and absentmindedly moves around in the same place turning the already finished letter into a lump or an ink blot. Interestingly, at times the mirror images of letters appear on paper instead of the correct form and occasionally one can observe the spontaneous overproduction of these mirror images where only symmetrical letters (such as Russian letters “{” or “%”) are written correctly. (It is important to note that this phenomenon has nothing to do with being left handed, its origin is quite different). Still only using his leading brain system and having overcome only the initial trembling of the pencil, the child tries to write in a cohesive cursive. His efforts to not, at all costs, move pencil away from the paper look amusing. All this is manageable only with letters of larger size because much finer coordination is needed for small precise movements which the child hasn’t developed yet. Switching to using an ink pen requires that children overcome one more difficulty and develop a new automated act. They are directed to write using “pressure”, in other words, to control, along with muscles that are responsible for movements on the paper surface also those that apply pressure perpendicular to the paper. This places a new demand on the distribution of attention: the outlines of letters become uneven and the

242

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

pressure points – overly bold. I’d like to point out that currently we see the wise tendency to let children use pens from the beginning so the “pressure” problems do not occur; this, of course, eliminates the unnecessary difficulty. The letters written with ink become smaller and more confident; the speed of writing increases and here comes the next stage that is very interesting for physiology: one of the most ancient and deepest-laid regulatory subsystems becomes activated. In the writings by a 10–12 years old child who fully mastered the art of writing everything is in the right place except one element which is noticeable right away when comparing his writing to that of an adult. The letters written by a teenager are awkward, not uniform and often are not connected (the early vain copying of “connected” letter writing has long been forgotten), the letters look rather unattractive and feeble. Here one can also observe perseverations, i.e. absent-minded trampling in the same place. Perseverations depend on attention problems and often are seen in children’s writings either in the form of drawing a lump or in the form of repeating the same syllable or word on paper. I specifically mentioned this phenomenon because it can often be seen in cases of brain injuries (very definitely located in the left hemisphere of the brain) while in normal children it confirms the existence of the complex multicentered organization of the writing process that has been mentioned earlier. Let us now turn our attention to the process which finally transforms the awkward letters of adolescents into smooth and easy cursive writing. It is important to point out that one of the most ancient in terms of the history of development and the most popular movement among animals is rhythmic oscillation along the sine curve or its close approximation. Such are the movements of bird wings, human running or walking; dog’s scratching movements, etc. If such circular, elliptical or straight line oscillations are combined with gradual movement along a straight line, then the oscillations turn into a curve that is called cycloid. Such curve is created by, for example, any point of a moving wheel. The similar cyc-

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

243

loid appears on paper if the fingers that hold a pen or a pencil oscillate rhythmically, bending and unbending while the upper arm muscles evenly move the wrist and the hand from left to right. And, thus, what we can say about the real cursive writing is very similar to what we can say about modulated oscillations of carrier frequency during radio translations. In our case the cycloid movement of hand and fingers represents such “carrier frequency” while the leading brain system of the writer modulates the oscillating background making it meaningful and transforming the cycloid loops into a meaningful code of letters and words. The leading brain level is only able to get to this lowest subsystem seated in the depths of the brain subsystem that controls the smooth oscillating background of movements in the very last place. And only when it gets involved in the job of writing, the complex multi-level control pyramid is completed and enforced to such extend that the handwriting remains the same for the rest of that person’s life. We also need to say a few words about the important characteristics of writing – handwriting. Right away I’d like to note that while the neurological structure of writing is well known, which I intended to show above, the problem of understanding what handwriting is and its mechanisms is still full of questions marks. Meanwhile, this problem might very well be the most interesting of all. We have already noticed in many human movements a number of persistent individual characteristics that constitute that particular movement’s character and manner. We even discovered a suitable prefix in Russian language “” – -, - , - , - 2 that is often used to describe them. What are these important characteristics? First, although no skill movement is exactly the same as the one that came before or will come after no matter how strong the skill is, the general image or the “face” of the movement remains so stable that we 2

Russian words for “gait”, “run”, “handwriting”, “habit” (Translator´s note).

244

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

recognize it at first sight. When you go to a bank, you can easily withdraw money based on your signature although it is most probably not identical (using the mathematical language “not congruent”) either with the sample that the bank has or with any of its repetitions. The same is true for the timbre of a voice, the pronunciation accent or a gait by which a person can be recognized even after many years. Secondly, surprisingly little is known about another characteristic of handwriting (we again will focus on it): it remains unchanged and typical whether we write big or small letters; whether we write in front of us or on the side, on the paper using pen or on the blackboard, etc. even though in all of these cases we use very different muscles and muscle combinations. It seems as though the image and the look of letters find their way from the command post of the brain through any executive organ of the body. Even more: the character and, essential, so to speak, characteristics of handwriting remain intact even when we try to write with our wrists, elbows, mouth, feet, etc. In the “Science and Life” magazine (#8, 1963) the pictures from one of my papers3 were published clearly showing this phenomenon. The in-depth mechanism of the smooth cycloid movements alone is not capable of such switching and that is why writing with all these unusual organs loses the feature of fast writing. Maybe even more fascinating is the fact that people with two prosthetic arms who, of course, need to practice this ability to switch particularly vigorously, demonstrate even stronger examples of the constancy of handwriting. Third, another mysterious feature of handwriting is its quality of being lifelong. The author of an entry made in a diary in 1920 repeated, upon my request, the exact text of this entry in the current year, 44 years later. Comparing these two entries one can say that handwriting, similar to finger prints, is an inalienable feature of every human being. Even if one significantly changes the handwriting on purpose, the

3

Bernstein, N. A.: O Postrojenii Dvizhenij [On the Construction of Movement]. Moscow: Medizina 1947, p. 93.

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

245

ineradicable similarities remain. It is very possible that this stable constancy of the individual handwriting together with a vast variety of its appearances in different people led to the thinking that handwriting can possibly reflect thoroughly and in a pronounced way people’s character and their personality. Would it be possible, though, to seriously consider various attempts (typically broadly advertised) to proclaim that the exact science of graphology already exists today? Bourgeois journals and newspapers (and pre-revolutionary Russian press as well) to this day are abound with the offers for readers to send in the sample of the handwriting with or without two enclosed stamps to receive the exact description of the reader’s character and even the whole horoscope predicting the future for years ahead. Even if we ignore these “prophecies” and “predictions” of obvious con artists, we still cannot consider graphology a scientific discipline. Graphologists claim that they discovered the relationship between the handwriting and the person’s individual characteristics, his character. But it is unlikely that we can take the statements such as that the letters tilting to the left point to stubbornness while strong tilt to the right indicates sensitivity; that round letters signify kindness while letters connected together typically suggest someone who is dreamy, separated letters – sensibility, etc. seriously. Certainly, we have no reason to believe that this is true. Clearly, the reality is more complicated and less obvious. In literature on graphology one can come across statements such as “If some letters such as , , , , , , , 4 extend below the line, this indicates a mind that is clear and bright, ability to think and persistence in reaching one’s goal”. And the following statement sounds like an obvious fraud: “If in the capital letter M both outside lines are equal in height while the lower

4

These are letters of the Russian alphabet (Translator´s note).

246

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

hook of the left line is very small, this shows a person’s exalted nature, that is cold and even-tempered, not shy and ability to write laws”. This brilliant statement just speaks for itself: “If the letter “” in the word “”5 crosses with the one before it, this indicates the feeling of shame and a wish to change one’s name so it is not recognized”. And according to some graphologists, handwriting also reflects… the appearance: PEOPLE WHO ARE BLOND “Even lines, small letters, letters tend to get narrower towards the end of the line, the handwriting is legible but stretched out”. DARK-HAIRED PEOPLE “The lines go upwards, letters are carefully written and beautifully shaped which is particularly prominent in the hooks of the capital letters; the letters are proud, elevated”. MEDIUM-HEIGHT PEOPLE “At the end of the line, the last three letters are lowered; at the start of the line letters are compressed, even; they become more spread out and get lower towards the end”. PLUMP PEOPLE “For the most part, the second half of the letter is pressed rather than the first, some letters are small, illegible, and incomplete”. What should we think about contemporary graphology? Let’s look at the similar example from another, comparable field. Who will argue that based on a person’s appearance, his face, his glance, and his facial expressions one can make conclusions about the person’s character? The old expression “The face is the mirror of the soul” has a lot of truth in it. While this is true, physiognomy has still not become a science and, strictly speaking, does not have even one firmly established conclusion in its arsenal. 5

Russian for “seek” (Editor´s note).

A Few Words on Writing and Handwriting

247

So far we have been unable to find a solid scientific method, a key which could unlock the chest where the information on the connection between the person’s appearance and their personality traits is stored. Therefore, we should exercise even more caution towards those “methods” of understanding someone’s character, that are utilized, for example, by palm readers, where no indications exist of any meaningful connections between a person’s inner characteristics and the lines of their palms. Here, it is too easy for the substitute product created by the con artists’ pragmatic aspirations to pave the way. In the areas where real science is still unable to draw precise and verified conclusions, on one hand, we see the emergence of utilitarian impatience, and, on the other, striving towards its enterprising obsequiousness. Wishful thinking is present; superficial and hurried guesses, at times sophisticated, at times amazingly naive and simple-minded replace valid conclusions. People’s gullibility is used to push immature or obviously low quality products. That is what is happening with contemporary graphology which for now should be considered pseudoscience. It is doubtful that we need to justify to the reader the lack of foundation of one of the graphology’s claims – that it can predict the person’s character and fate based on their handwriting. Here the careless deception supported by financial interests, is clearly obvious and graphological fortune telling is not at all superior to interpreting patterns of coffee grounds or the notorious idol of Moscow merchants of the last century Ivan Yakovlevich Koreisha. However, would it be justified to consider graphology unproductive in general? Is there hope to get something real and scientifically justified in such areas, for example, as defining a person’s temperament, his personality traits, may be even his tastes and inclinations, etc.? Does the current impotence of graphology mean that it will remain that way in the future? Does the fact that the one-time famous treatment of nervous illnesses by mesmerism with the help of “magnetic pool” turned out to be a fraud, mean that these illnesses are incurable? Because of the progress of the medical science many of them can now be successfully cured. There is no

248

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

doubt that in living organisms everything is literally connected with everything, and personality traits necessarily reflect in individual’s facial features, handwriting, gait, timbre, intonations of the speech, etc. But these traits are written in codes that contemporary science is still unable to read and decode. It is more than possible that in the nearest future it will become achievable and we will begin talking about actual scientific graphology and physiognomy. It is very possible that the path for this truly scientific approach will be paved by bio-cybernetics – this young but very promising offspring of our time.

BERNSTEIN'S HERITAGE Motor Control, 1999, 3, 225-236 © 1999 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

The Active Search for Information: From Reflexes to the Model of the Future (1966)1 losif M. Feigenberg2 and Onno G. Meijer In the last year of his life, 1966, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Bernstein knew that he was terminally ill. He called me [I.M.F.] to his home, where I found several other colleagues, which was unusual since mostly we met in private only. In a light, optimistic tone he asked each of us what we were planning to do. For me personally, it was clear that I had to go on with my work on probabilistic prognosis. Bernstein agreed. Somewhat later, I understood that he didn't want to see any doctors, because it would be useless and a waste of time. His self-diagnosed cancer was beyond surgery. In that last year, Bernstein worked very hard and published a number of papers (cf. Feigenberg, 1988, 1990). He also worked on two books, the English translation of his most important papers (cf. Bernstein, 1967), and a Russian book, Outline of the Physiology of Movements and the Physiology of Activity (cf. Bernstein, 1990). Both books were published shortly after his death. Given the pressure he must have been under, it is amazing that he still found the time to publish a short paper, "From reflexes to the model of the future" in the popular journal Nedelja (The Week), published here for the first time in English. Whenever I visited

1 2

Reprint with permission of Human Kinetics Publisher. Iosif M. Feigenberg, emeritus professor of psychophysiology, can be reached at P.O. Box 11244, Gilo, 91112, Jerusalem, Israel. Onno G. Meijer is with the Faculty of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Uniiversiteit, Van der Boechorststraat 9,1081 | Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

250

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

him in that last year, things were as before – we would talk about my work rather than his problems, and he gave me inspiration to proceed. A couple of days before his death, Luria called, telling me that Bernstein's health was deteriorating quickly. At the funeral, Gel'fand emphasized in his speech that Bernstein had been a brilliant physiologist and an excellent mathematician. When we walked back, Tsetlin stated sadly that he feared Bernstein would very soon be forgotten and that his ideas would continue to live under the names of other authors. It was then that I began to dream of publishing Bernstein's last book in the Classics of Science of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (cf. Bernstein, 1990).

Bernstein's Political Testament To the best of our knowledge, the present paper is the only publication of Bernstein's with "model of the future" in its title (cf. Feigenberg, 1988, 1990). One may wonder why this is the case. It must be emphasized beforehand that this is a popular paper, written by Bernstein just before his death. The paper is interesting because it reveals why he deemed the physiology of activity to be important, not only within his own science but also from a broader point of view. It is fairly easy to dismiss Bernstein's physiology of activity as the ramblings of an old man who fell back to dualism after his earlier success. In our opinion, however, Bernstein's physiology of activity should be taken seriously by historians as well as scientists. We offer two reasons for this point of view, one concerning the "politics" of Bernstein's intellectual biography and one concerning the scientific expediency of using the concept "model of the future" to explain specific experimental data. The main point of Bernstein's now famous 1935 paper on coordination and localization was to attack Pavlov's idea that conditioned reflexes are related 1:1 to specific cortical cells ("the cortex as a distribution panel with push buttons," Bernstein, 1935/67, pp. 19–20). Unfortunately, Bernstein's timing could not have been worse: In 1935, the 15th

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

251

International Physiological Congress was held in Leningrad and Moscow, with Pavlov as chairman (Babkin, 1974; Solandt, 1935). At the time, Pavlov enjoyed "enormous prestige" in Russia (Barcroft, 1936, p. 484), while he was also a member of the Royal Society. Worldwide, Pavlov was regarded as the "doyen [dean] of physiologists" (p. 483). The next year, Bernstein finished a book in which his critique of Pavlov's mechanicism had been worked out in much greater detail (cf. Bernstein, 1936). In the same year, however, Pavlov died, and Bernstein deemed it unseemly to publish his book now that Pavlov could no longer defend himself. Nevertheless, he continued to depart from Pavlovianism, particularly in his book On Dexterity and its Development (cf. 1996), in which he emphasized that animals with a cortex solve motor problems in always novel ways. Instead of Pavlov's passive view of the animal, Bernstein was developing an active view. Then, disaster struck. Anti-Semitism was on the rise, and articles were published against Bernstein, first in the journal Theory and Practice in Physical Culture, then in the Pravda (Feigenberg & Latash, 1996). From June 28 through July 4,1950, the joint session of the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences was held under the title, Scientific Session Dedicated to the Problems of the Physiological Theory of Academician I.P. Pavlov (Akademija Nauk SSSR & Akademija Meditsinskikh Nauk SSSR, 1950). Under the guise of Pavlovianism, Bykov and Ivanov-Smolenskii (leading "neoPavlovians") attempted to dispose of their adversaries. [I.M.F.] I was too young, and too unimportant, to be allowed into the main hall. We were sitting in a small room, listening to the discussions through loudspeakers. We could hear them, but they could not hear us. The attack was mainly on Orbeli, Pavlov's trusted student. There was no one who wanted to takeover Bernstein's job, so there was no major speech against him. Still, now that Pavlov's epigones were in power, we knew that it would be impossible to discuss Bernstein and his views in public.

252

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Bernstein was fired in 1950, to be rehabilitated a short time after Stalin's death in 1953. Nevertheless, the spectre of neoPavlovianism continued to haunt him (cf. Bongaardt, 1996). Much of Bernstein's later work was dedicated to the idea that animals are active, the "physiology of activity," clearly in conflict with the view of the neoPavlovians. Even in the 1960s, discussing such ideas invited difficulties. At the time, Khrushchev's government attempted to stimulate experimental science, while the apparatchiks tried to consolidate their own power. From May 8 through 11,1962, another joint session was organized, this time also of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Filosofii, 1963; cf. Graham, 1987). Bernstein gave a paper on his physiology of activity, written first for an "official version" in the stenographic notes of the joint session (published as Bernstein, 1963), and then for "real scientists" in the Voprosy Filosofii (Questions of Philosophy; Bernstein, 1962). From the neoPavlovians, Lekhtman was chosen to attack Bernstein: Bernstein's archaic interpretation of voluntary actions as spontaneous acts of the nervous system, involuntarily creates a feeling of bewilderment. Clearly, we have here an unambiguous statement of an indeterministic view of voluntary movements as being independent from the environment, a notion which was rejected by materialistic science already a long time ago. (cf. Lekhtman, 1963, p. 554) And so Lekhtman rambles on for 7 pages. Of course, Bernstein didn't get arrested and couldn't even lose his influence on the scientific establishment – he had none. Nevertheless, one clearly sees that the "official" version of his paper (1963) is much more careful in tone than the "scientific" one (1962). He had to tread with care. It is highly significant that, in 1966, Bernstein decided to include the scientific version of his 1962 paper in the English translation of his most important works (Bernstein, 1962/67). And we are convinced that also Bernstein's 1966 Nedelja paper on the model of the future should be

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

253

understood in the context of neoPavlovianism. It was his final day of reckoning.

The Model of the Future Apart from the politics of Bernstein's intellectual biography, there are also scientific reasons to take the model of the future seriously. These center around the concept of information. NeoPavlovianism assumed a direct relationship between the physical intensity of the stimulus and the strength of the response (Gray, 1979). The orienting reaction shattered this image, since it is related to the quality and not to the quantity of the stimulus. An orienting reaction occurs whenever the organism perceives something novel, something unexpected. Hence, the orienting reaction cannot be understood without die concept of "information" (as opposed to the physical quantity of the stimulus; cf. Bernstein, 1961/67; Feigenberg, 1966). Recognizing the unexpected suggests that the animal was expecting something else. Such a model of the future can only be a probabilistic prognosis of what would normally occur if nothing else would intervene (Bernstein, 1961/67; Feigenberg, 1969). It has been shown that organisms are quite good at discovering the probabilistic structure of groups of events. Consider for instance the experiment of Feigenberg (cf. 1998), in which healthy human subjects were confronted with series of four different stimuli, having to react differently to each of them. When offering the stimuli, the experimenter chose the first one randomly, the second one randomly from the remaining three, etc. After four stimuli, a new series was offered, randomized as before. In this way the probability of a particular stimulus to appear was: 1/4, 1/3,1/2,1, again 1/4, and so on. Reaction times (Tj) were measured. It was found that Tj > T2 > T3 > T4, subscripts referring to the place within one series of four. Thus, subjects recognized that each set of four stimuli formed a dependent chain, while the fifth stimulus would be completely independent again.

254

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

The above interpretation of the orienting reaction and the concept of "probabilistic prognosis" have proven to be very useful in interpreting schizophrenic defects. In schizophrenia, the orienting reaction is often lacking, as if these patients do not know what to expect (cf. Feigenberg, 1971). In the 1960s, E.M. Bogdanov performed some experiments which not only confirm this interpretation but are also difficult to interpret on the basis of more mechanicistic theories (cf. Feigenberg, 1972, 1974). Subjects were shown a blurred image on a screen, gradually brought into focus. They had to indicate the moment when they recognized the image. It turned out that healthy subjects recognized normal images quicker than patients did, while abnormal images were recognized quicker by the patients. With normal images, healthy subjects are helped by their knowledge of the probabilistic structure of visual events, but with the abnormal images they are hampered by this same knowledge! Again, it appears to be the case that patients with schizophrenia do not use such a probabilistic model of the future, or maybe do not even have one. The above illustrates that there were, and still are, good scientific reasons to use the concept "model of the future," or a similar concept. What Bernstein added to this model of what would normally happen was his "model of the needed future." If this needed future would not coincide with the expected future, then the organism had to make a plan. In a way, this is "information processing" as it was also coming of age in the West. Since Bernstein's days, information processing has turned so much into a quantitative science (cf. Meijer & Roth, 1988) that it may be hard to remember the qualitative difference between information and the physical properties of a stimulus. More important, Bernstein not only stressed the active role of the organism (cf. Gibson, 1979) but also insisted on creating a naturalistic theory of information.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

255

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future3 N.A. Bernstein Corresponding member of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR Key Words: motor control, physiology of activity, conditioned reflexes

Today, we are witnessing an onslaught of new ideas in all fields of the life sciences. These ideas have proven to be very fruitful, both in themselves and in their practical applications, considerably enlarging the power of man over living nature. Let us inform you, in a few words, about a very young but already promising sprout of biology – the biology and physiology of activity.4 As we all know, the demands of industrial production and of defense have continued to grow and to become more complex. In the last two or three decades5, this has led to the emergence and maturation of a new science, cybernetics, the theory of control and communication. Theoretical and applied cybernetics have splendidly served those branches of industry that called it into life. At least one aspect of cybernetics, that is, control, was discovered to be typical of living nature, nowhere to be found in the inorganic world as long as man does not interfere. This fact turned out to be extremely useful to cybernetics, because the

3

4

5

The paper appeared in the popular weekly Nedelja (The Week), 1966, Vol. 20, pp. 8– 9, shortly after Bernstein's death. It was translated by Ines M. Rubin and edited for clarity. Lev Latash has pointed out that this idea of "activity" entails the notion of "initiative" (cf. Meijer & Bongaardt, 1998), The Russian aktivnost, the opposite of passivnost, refers to a situation in which the subject makes something happen. Maybe the translation "physiology of action" would be the most appropriate, but because the term activity is generally known fiom Vygotsky's psychology of activity (cf. Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994), aktivnost will be translated as "activity" throughout this paper. It is left to the reader to decide whether these developments began with Wiener's work in World War % (cf. 1948),  with Bernstein's own 1935 publication (cf. 1935/67). Note that Bernstein's takes the definition of "cybernetics" from Wiener's work.

256

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

science of life, biology, could suggest highly efficient solutions for a large number of technical control problems. To the engineers, biology revealed systems for regulation, control, and even communication, which are wonderful in their perfection and can be found in many species in the animal world. As a separate line of scientific inquiry, "bionics" developed, best defined as the imitation of living systems and their use in technical applications. The fact that was mentioned above also prompted the biologists themselves to think about control. Actually, it was only under the impact of cybernetics and its practical applications that biologists, for the first time, occupied themselves with asking what is the nature of "control," and why and how it arises in the world of plants and animals. First and foremost, we want to emphasize that control and controllability never and nowhere come into being in isolation, as phenomena that exist just for their own sake. Control is needed whenever a task6 is set, a goal is determined that has to be reached.7 It is essential that the wings or the extremities of an animal are controllable, so that they can obediently carry the animal in the direction needed, to the point where something attracts it to walk or fly toward. The human arms and hands consist of chains with many links;

6

7

[I.M.R.] Bernstein uses the term zadacha, which usually translates as "task"; when this task has to be "solved," zadacha will be translated as "problem." Bernstein popularized the notion of "controllability" in his On Dexterity and its Development, written in 1945–46 (cf. 1996). Then, he stated: "Coordination i s . . . turning the movement organs into controllable systems" (p. 41, emphasis in the original). In the present paper, he puts controllability (and thus, coordination) in the context of goals and problems to be solved. From the late 1940s onward, Bernstein worked on the idea that animals solve motor problems. Solving such problems, he would state, depends on the animal's ability to lay down a model of the future, "the essence of the matter ... as yet unrealized" (Bernstein 1961/67, p. 150). These models arise from stochastic extrapolation of the past-present (cf. Meijer & Bongaardt, 1998). Bernstein's conception of such models was greatly influenced by the mathematical search theory of Gel'fand and Tsetlin (e.g., Gel'fand, Gurfinkel, & Tsetlin, 1963), which made it possible to understand how the animal arrives at a distinction between essential and nonessential variables.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

257

controllability8 is essential in making them obedient whenever a person is engaged in physical labor, or uses his or her fingers in writing or drawing. Last but not least, control and controllability are key factors in the most fundamental manifestation of life, that is, development.9 Notwithstanding all kinds of obstacles, and the complexity of living conditions, controllability and control guarantee that an acorn always develops into an oak, not a maple or a lime tree, and that the egg of a hen grows into a chicken, not a swan or a flamingo. It is exactly because living organisms develop in a goal-directed fashion, and act goal-directedly, that controllability emerged in the world of plants and animals. Humans and animals need a compliant controllability of their body organs, so that they can act on their environment as necessary. When a bird builds its nest, its actions are goal-directed; the bird doesn't move to and fro without a plan. It appears to be guided by something akin to a plan, or a goal to which its actions are leading. A predatory fish hunting for its prey, the actions of a monkey climbing a tree, the flight of an insect to a flower it needs, etc., all these and countless other examples are goal-directed actions.

8

9

In their introduction to the paper, the editors of Nedelja point out that Bernstein had already published some ideas on biological cybernetics in the 1930s. In this respect, it is remarkable that Bernstein himself does not refer to his theory of coordination (cf. 1935/67) in this 1966 paper. One may assume that he regarded his message concerning the model of the future so important that he didn't want to be distracted by any "technical aspect of movements" (Bernstein, 1961/67, p. 162; cf. Bongaardt, 1996, p. 40). Bernstein never claimed that, in order for development to be controllable, DNA must also be "coordinated." One year after the publication of the present paper, Stuart Kauffman (cf. 1993) made exactly that claim. Bernstein himself did envision that DNA somehow embodies a "model of the future." In 1962 he stated that "the organism possesses from the moment of fertilization of the ovum a coded model of its future development and a coded program of the consecutive stages in this development" (1962/67, p. 174). Bonner (cf. 1973) had similar views on the mechanisms of development, but critique was strong (e.g., Pattee, 1973), both because anthropomorphism should be avoided in understanding DNA, and because such "models" in DNA are genetically expensive. Nevertheless, even today the nature of "molecular intelligence" is poorly understood. How is it, for instance, that bacteria "recognize" whether they should ingest a particular plasmid from their environment, and how do they "decide" when to incorporate the DNA content of such a plasmid into their own genome (Garrett, 1994)? Or how does the AIDS virus "know" that it is in trouble and to then switch to a higher mutation rate (Goudsmit, 1997)?

258

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

The brain of a living organism receives information from its sensory systems about the present state of the environment, about what is happening now. In many respects, we still don't understand the inner workings of die brain, but to date we are allowed to conclude that the brain itself constructs an image or a plan of what should arise from the current environment, in accordance with the need of this particular living organism. Science still has a long way to go to understand in what code and in which form these images, or models of the needed future10, are laid down in the brain, but there is no doubt about their real existence, and their importance for the activity of living organisms. This is the most important, one could say the key contribution of theoretical cybernetics to biological science. Control and controllability are needed, and arise whenever a task requires active intervention on the environment, which can be planned in advance by die living organism in one way or another. Controllability allows the organism to pursue the accomplishment of this task in a goal-directed manner – within a given number of seconds or other units of time. This, in a nutshell, is what the biology (and physiology) of activity are about, the new science that emerged from biological cybernetics and that has already shown many facets of its practical applicability. Let us limit ourselves in this short essay to the physiology of actions in humans and in those animals that are very close to man. This will allow us to present a number of examples that reveal how much this new branch of science has helped in solving a large number of problems in an area where science, until recently, was at a dead end. Let us start with movements. Until not so long ago, science tended to ignore this form of living activity (the importance of which cannot be denied). It was completely unclear how to interpret the phenomena involved and how to make them accessible to research. It is important to 10

[I.M.R.] Although its meaning is clear, the Russian adjective potrebnoje is unusual. In Bernstein (1967), it was translated as "necessary" (e.g., p. 150). Pickenhain (Pickenhain & Schnabel, 1988) used erforderlich (e.g., p. 199). Potrebnoje refers to the subject who needs, so the translation "needed" seems more accurate.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

259

note that movement is virtually the only form of living activity that allows the living organism not only to interact with its environment but also to actively operate on it, and to change it as necessary. In the past, physiology failed to arrive at a deeper understanding of movement since it attached the greatest weight to the fact that in many cases movement starts after an external stimulus. In this way, movement was understood as belonging to the large area of so-called "reflexes."11 From the time of Descartes, reflexes were attributed an importance for the physiology of man and animals that was totally unjustified. In fact, the external stimulus can either be present or absent. More important, theories of reflexes did not even hint at an explanation as to why the movement presents itself in one way and not another. Nor was it clear what movements mean and what purpose they have. The physiology of activity succeeded in understanding these aspects in a different way, with deeper significance. Movement starts from, or is produced by, a motor task that is defined in the brain. The brain lays down a model of the needed future for this task and makes a draft of how, by which road, and in which stages one can go from the current situation to a future solution to the problem. In terms of cybernetics, this is called programming12 the action. Here, cybernetics has been very helpful to physiology in providing a valid definition. In order to put such a program to work, controllability of the locomotor apparatus of the body is needed. It has become clear that the control of this bone-joint-muscle system is realized under very complex 11

12

Note that Bernstein here begins to address the issue of neoPavlovianism. His attack (as in "totally unjustified," in the next sentence) is relatively sharp. While in 1935 Bernstein had entertained the idea that a "program" could pre-specify the timestructure of a movement (Bernstein, 1935/67, p. 24; cf. Bongaardt, 1996, p. 34), this 1966 paper reveals how dramatically his conception of "programming" had changed. If one compares Bernstein's 1966 statements with what later became classical views in the West (e.g., Keele, 1968; Schmidt, 1975), it is fascinating to see how for Bernstein, programs should be "more flexible, adaptable and variable" (see below), the more important they are. Bernstein's highly abstract notion of a "program" appears to entail that when the organism needs to achieve X, it should first reach x1, then x2, etc., searching for sensory information all the time about how far it has progressed, which obstacles present themselves, etc., ready to reprogram whenever needed.

260

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

conditions. Control and controllability ensure that the motor problem at hand can really be solved. It is important to note that almost any movement, as long as it is meaningful and goal-directed, will have to overcome this or that external force – the wind, resistance of the material or of an opponent, etc. None of these forces can be predicted, and the subject is not in control over them. Thus, in order to cope with these forces (and also with the reaction forces between the links, which in the extremities are connected by joints), one has to maneuver with flexibility and adaptability. Here our organism uses a rich regulating system that works with feedback,13 a mechanism that is also well known in technical automation. Several sensory organs provide the brain with information about obstructions and mismatches.14 From all that was said above, we now can understand the following. The clearer the actual motor task is, the more precisely it is determined in the brain. And the more the living organism needs to really solve it, the more flexible, adaptable, and variable must be the program for its solution, and the role of the regulating mechanisms that allow this program to be realized. In many actions, including uncomplicated ones, one can see this adaptive variability with the naked eye. Try to look at yourselves, for instance, when you hammer a nail into the wall, when you tie your laces or your tie a couple of times successively, sharpen your pencil, cut meat, etc. None of your repeated movements will be identical to any other one, although all of them will be expedient. In fact, they will be expedient because they are not identical. It should be clear by now that building up a motor skill – in sports, work, arts, etc. – consists of building up the controllability of that skill. 13

14

Note that Bernstein uses Wiener's (1948) term, rather than his own, more precise, "sensory corrections" (1935/67). One of us (cf. Feigenberg, 1994) remembers crossing a square, while pondering Bernstein's "model of the future." Doves were sitting in front of me, forming a ring. When I approached the doves, those who were sitting to my left stepped a little to the left, and those to my right stepped to the right. Thus a corridor was created for me. Then I made one step to the left, and all the doves flew up immediately. Apparently, there was a "mismatch" between their probabilistic prognosis of what would happen (cf. Feigenberg, 1998) and my stepping to the left.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

261

An exercise, if correctly applied, should never repeat one time after another the same means for solving the motor problem at hand – that would just be a pointless drill – but instead should repeat the process of solving it. In that way, the solutions will slowly become more precise to then reach perfection. Accordingly, movements are always variable and never identical, even in the case of the highest developed skill or aptitude. Precise physiological analysis has revealed that these variable differences among the successive realizations of a skilled movement have at least three different sources. First, as discussed above, the organism adapts to external disturbances which cannot be controlled beforehand. Second, variability results from the continuous updating of the everchanging inner states of the organism itself: the changing excitability of all muscle units, their blood supply, etc. Finally, there is search variability,15 stemming from the controlling and programming apparatus in the brain itself. This apparatus continues to be engaged in an active search for the best procedure to solve the given motor problem. It is through such continued search that movements acquire a high degree of stability with respect to different obstacles, that the motor skill acquires the potential to resist a large number of perturbing influences. Soviet cosmonautics has revealed the usefulness of correctly applied terrestrial training for the stability of motor skills, with respect to obstacles that were met under the extremely unusual conditions of space flight.16 By researching the control systems and the action systems of living organisms, the physiology of activity also opened new ways for the young science of bionics. Initially, bionics focused on the sensory organs of animals. In their diversity and perfection, these sensory organs stimulated the fantasy of the scientists. Today, bionics starts as well to collect material about the movement organs of animals, and the movement mechanisms involved, which also reveal a large number of 15 16

Cf. Gel'fand and Tsetlin (1961). Note the implicit suggestion that the most prestigious project of all, the conquest of space, is indebted to the physiology of activity.

262

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

marvelous "technical solutions." By way of example, we mention the enigmatic but real microscopic properties of the skin of aquatic mammals (dolphins), which ensure that the water streams around them in a laminar way, without turbulence, so they can swim with phenomenal agility and speed. We also mention the aerodynamic properties of the fringed structure of bird feathers, so far largely unresearched. This structure is different in feathers that are used for different motor tasks. Wing movements have very peculiar kinematics, both in birds and in flying insects. These wings possess a high degree of aerodynamical efficiency which, with our present technology, we are still not able to imitate. In the last decades, we have seen a great number of attempts to explain the mysterious problem of goal-directed bird migration over large distances, and the migration of aquatic animals in the oceans. Birds who make their summer nests in die North can find exactly the same earthen knoll in a forest, or the same ridge on a roof, where they built their nest the previous year. Turtles who live on the shores of Central America can cross the Atlantic and reach without mistake the tiny islands they have chosen for laying their eggs, often more than a thousand kilometers away from the continent. Dozens of plausible hypotheses have been proposed as to what it is that directs these animals when they perform such actions, and a large number of often very interesting experiments have been carried out. But it appears that only the physiology of activity can reveal why all this work led to the dead end, which is still where science finds itself in trying to solve this problem.17 Indeed, however different the detectors of, for instance, migratory birds may be, and however rich their assortment (there is no doubt about the rich supply in a migratory bird with such providers of information),

17

One may wonder why Bernstein doesn't discuss the ethological literature from the West. In the Soviet Union of the 1960s, popular works of Lorenz and Tinbergen were widely read. Scientifically, however, the study of animal behavior was supposed to proceed on the basis of conditioned reflexes. Thus, die scientific ethological literature from the West was very hard to find in the Soviet Union, a situation that only changed in the 1970s.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

263

what would the brain of the bird do with all the streams of information if there were no basis for comparison? The evolutionary origin of these kind of detectors, and the way and manner of their use, can only18 have their basis in the ability of the bird's brain to construct a precise inner model of the required route. Unveiling the nature of this model, and in what code it has been written in the brain of the bird or the turtle, will offer the only valid key for designing precise experiments that can solve the problem of the navigation mechanisms in these animals.19 Another branch of biocybernetics also takes its starting point in the physiology (and psychology20) of activity: heuristics, occupying itself with planned searches for optimal solutions and for action programs. At first, the technical problem of machine translation from one language into another appears to be very far removed from both physiology and activity. Still, this is an area where the fruitful new ideas from the scientific study of activity are becoming ever more influential. A new and promising starting point is found in the guiding principle that speech is an act that reflects active thought.21 Here, then, in a very short summary, are the many rich perspectives for theory and practice that are being opened to us by the physiology of activity, and the encompassing field of biological science, the biology of activity.22 18

19 20

21

22

This is a overstatement. The organism should know how to search for the route, but does not need any exact knowledge of the "required route" itself. It may be sufficient to activate a receptor, and then orient oneself by using the gradients in the field, as has been described for the movements of cells in the embryology of the brain (Edelman, 1988). Note that Bernstein does not offer a clue as to how these phenomena should be investigated. Such (almost) direct references to the work of Vygotsky (cf. Note 1) are extremely rare. It is unclear what Bernstein was thinking here. These were the days of almost unlimited optimism over the possible use of computers. In 1999, translating machines, as envisioned by Bernstein in 1966, still do not exist. At the end of the paper, one realizes that not much new was said, and that Bernstein didn't elaborate any of the more scientific reasons for using the concept "model of the future." However, there are several distinct characteristics of the paper: (a) it has "model of the future" in its title; (b) it does not mention the "technical aspect" of coordination; (c) the neoPavlovians are clearly attacked; (d) the practical use of the physiology of activity in cosmonautics is mentioned with apparent pride; and (e)

264

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Editor's References Akademija Nauk SSSR & Akademija Meditsinskikh Nauk SSSR. (1950). Nauchnaja sessija posvyashchermaja problemam fiziologicheskogo uchenija akademika I.P. Pavlova [Scientific Session Dedicated to the Problems of the Physiological Theory of Academician I.P. Pavlov]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. (Stenographical account, June 28–July 4) Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Filosofii. (1963). Filosofskije voprosy fiziologii vysshei nervnoi dejatel'nosti i psikhologii [Philosophical problems of the physiology of higher nervous activity and psychology]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. (Stenographical account, May 811,1962) Babkin, BJP. (1974). Pavlov: A biography. Chicago: University Press. (Original work published 1949) Barcroft, J. (1936). Obituary: Prof. I.P. Pavlov, For. Mem. R.S. Nature, 137,483484. Bernstein, N.A. (1936). Sovremennye iskanija v fiziologii nervnogo protsessa [Contemporary research in the physiology of nervous processes]. (Corrected proofs for a 448- page book, preserved by I.=. Feigenberg) Bernstein, N.A. (1962). Novye linii razvitija v fiziologii i ich sootnošenie s kibernetikoj [Trends in physiology and their relation to cybernetics], Voprosy Filosfii, 8,78-87. Bernstein, N.A. (1963). Novye linii razvitija v fiziologii i ich sootnošenie s kibernetikoj [Trends in physiology and their relation to cybernetics]. In Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Filosofii, Filosofskije voprosy fiziologii vysshei nervnoi dejatel'nosti i psikhologii (pp. 299-322). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

the work of Vygotsky is mentioned. These characteristics have led us to believe that Bernstein used this paper to show a large audience how much scientific progress in the Soviet Union had been hampered by neoPavlovianism. Maybe he just wanted to make sure his students could work in more relaxed conditions than those of his own life.

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

265

Bernstein, N.A. (Ed.) (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements. Oxford: Pergamon. Bernstein, N.A. (1967). The problem of the interrelation of coordination and localization. In N.A. Bernstein (Ed.), The coordination and regulation of movements (pp. 15-59). Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Original work published 1935) Bernstein, N.A. (1967). Trends and problems in the study of investigation of physiology of activity. In N.A. Bernstein (Ed.), The coordination and regulation of movements (pp. 143-168). Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Original work published 1961) Bernstein, N.A. (1967). Trends in physiology and their relation to cybernetics. In N.A. Bernstein (Ed.), The coordination and regulation of movements (pp. 169-183). Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Original work published 1962) Bernstein, N.A. (1990). Ocherki po fiziologii dviženii i fiziologii aktivnosti [Outline of the physiology of movements and the physiology of activity]. In I.M. Feigenberg (Ed.), Fiziologija Dviženii i Aktivnost' (pp. 243-462). Moscow: Nauka. (Original work 1966, published in Classics of Science of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR) Bernstein, N.A. (1996). On dexterity and its development. In M.L. Latash & M.T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 3-244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original manuscript written in 1945–46 and published 1991) Bongaardt, R. (1996). Shifting focus: The Bernstein tradition in movement science. Amsterdam. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit. Bonner, J. (1973). Hierarchical control programs in biological development. In H.H. Pattee (Ed.), Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems (pp. 49-70). New York: George Braziller. Edelman, G.M. (1988). Topobiology: An introduction to molecular embryology. New York: Basic Books. Feigenberg, I.M. (1966). Some features of the similarity and dissimilarity of conditioned and orienting reactions. In XVIII International Congress of Psychology, Symposium 3, Integrative forms of conditioned reflexes (pp. 90-94). Moscow.

266

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Feigenberg, I.M. (1969). Probabilistic prognosis and its significance in normal and pathological subjects. In M. Cole & I. Maltzman (Eds.), A handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology (pp. 354-369). New York: Basic Books. Feigenberg, I.M. (1971). Probability prognosis and schizophrenia. Soviet Science Review, 2,119-123. Feigenberg, I.M. (1972). Funktionelle Verbindungen der sensorischen Systeme. Stuttgart: Hippocrates. Feigenberg, I.M. (1974). Disorders of probability prediction in schizophrenia. Soviet Psychology, 12(4), 3-22. Feigenberg, I.M. (1988). Chronologisches Verzeichnis aller Publikationen N.A. Bernsteins [Chronological list of all Bernstein's publications]. In L. Pickenhain & G. Schnabel (Eds.), Bewegungsphysiologie von N.A. Bernstein (pp. 255-263). Leipzig: Barth. Feigenberg, I.M. (1990). Trudy N.A. Bernsteina [The works of N.A. Bernstein]. In L.M. Feigenberg (Ed), N.A. Bernstein, Fiziologija dviženii i aktivnost' (pp. 480-486). Moscow: Nauka. Feigenberg, I.M. (1994). Wahrscheinlichkeitsprognostiziering [Probabilistic prognosis], Mitteilungen der Luria Gesellschaft, 1, 5-8. Feigenberg, I.M. (1998). The model of the future in motor control. In M.L. Latash (Ed.), Progress in motor control, Vol. 1: Bernstein's traditions in movement studies (pp. 89- 103). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Feigenberg, I.M., & Latash, L.P. (1996). N.A. Bernstein: The reformer of neuroscience. In M.L. Latash & M.T. Turvey (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 247-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Garrett, L. (1994). The coming plague: Newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance. New York: Penguin. Gel'fand, I.M., & Tsetlin, M.L. (1961). The principle of nonlocal search in automatic optimization systems. Soviet Physics Doklady, 6,192-194. Gel'fand, I.M., Gurfinkel, V.S., & Tsetlin, M.L. (1963). On tactics used in controlling complicated systems in connection with physiology. In A.I. Berg (Ed.), Biological aspects of cybernetics (pp. 80-89). Washington, DC: Dept. of Commerce, Office of Technical Services. (Original work published 1962)

From Reflexes to the Model of the Future

267

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Goudsmit, J. (1997). Viral sex: The nature of AIDS. New York: Oxford University Press. Graham, L.R. (1987). Science, philosophy, and human behavior in the Soviet Union. New York: Columbia University Press. Gray, J.A. (1979). Pavlov. Brighton: Harvester. Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Keele, S.W. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387-403. Lekhtman, Y.B. (1963). [Discussion of Bernstein's paper.] In Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Filosofii, Filosofskije voprosy fiziologii vysshei nervnoi dejatel'nosti i psikhologii (pp. 552-559). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Meijer, O.G., & Bongaardt, R (1998). Bernstein's last paper: The immediate tasks of neurophysiology in the light of the modern theory of biological activity. Motor Control, 2, 2-9. Meijer, O.G., & Roth, K. (Eds.). (1998). Complex motor behavior: The movement-action controversy. Amsterdam: North Holland Pattee, H.H. (1973) The physical basis and origin of control. In H.H. Pattee (Ed.), Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems (pp. 71-108). New York: G. Braziller. Pickenhain, L., & Schnabel, G. (1988). Bewegungsphysiologie von N.A. Bernstein [N.A. Bernstein's physiology of movement]. (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Barth. Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260. Solandt, D.Y. (1935). International physological congress. Nature, 136, 571-575. Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, I. (Eds.) (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.

268

Selected papers of N. A. Bernstein

Acknowledgments We are grateful to Inessa M. Rubin, Alex Kozulin (Jerusalem), and Mark L. Schick (Tel Aviv) for their stimulating insights; Peter J. Beek, Claire F. Michaels (Amsterdam), Mark L. Latash (Penn State), and Eberhard Loosch (Erfurt) for their useful comments on an earlier draft; and G. Sander de Wolf for his help in preparing the final manuscript. Accepted for publication: March 14, 1999