Björn Brembs

"[Standing on the shoulders of
giants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants)"
is what scientists say to acknowledge the work they are building on. It
is a statement of humility and mostly accompanied by citations to the
primary literature preceding the current work. In today's competitive
scientific enterprise, however, such humility appears completely
misplaced. Instead, what many assume to be required is to convince
everyone that you are the giant, the genius, the prodigy who is
deserving of the research funds, the next position, tenure.

Facilitating this trend are
[journals](https://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2008/11_1/briefs/03/) who
actively contribute to the existing institutional [incentives for such
hype](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2013/08/29/study-even-in-science-america-skews-toward-hype/)
by claiming to publish "[the world's best
science](https://www.nature.com/citation_pages/images/nature_com.gif)"
or "[the very best in scientific
research](https://www.sciencemag.org/site/help/about/about.xhtml)" and
by simultaneously allowing only very few citations in their articles.

Thus, it should not come to anybody's surprise that we find more and
more articles in such journals , which claim that they found something
unique, novel and counterintuitive that nobody has ever thought of
before and that will require us to [re-write the
textbooks](https://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2013/10/time-to-re-write-textbooks-nature.html).

Point in case is the combo of the article entitled "[Temporal structure
of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor
learning
ability](https://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n2/full/nn.3616.html)"
with its accompanying [news-type
article](https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038%2Fnn.3633) (written
by scientists). Both articles claim that the researchers have made the
game-changing discovery that something long though to be a bug in our
movement system is actually a spectacular feature. It is argued that
this is such a huge surprise, because nobody in their right mind would
have ever thought this possible. Their discovery will revolutionize the
way we think about the most basic, fundamental properties of our very
existence. Or something along those lines.

Only that probably most people in the field thought it should be
obvious.

[Skinner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) is largely
credited with the analogy of operant conditioning and evolution. This
analogy entails that reward and punishment act on behaviors like
selection is acting on mutations in evolution: an animal behaves
variably and encounters a reward after it initiated a particular action.
This reward will make the action now more likely to occur in the future,
just as selection will make certain alleles more frequent in a
population. Already in 1981, Skinner called this "[Selection by
Consequences](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7244649)". Skinner's
analogy sparked wide interest, e.g. an entire [journal
issue](https://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=BBS&volumeId=7&seriesId=0&issueId=04),
which later appeared in [book
form](https://books.google.de/books?id=3nY7AAAAIAAJ&dq=variability+mutation+operant+selection&source=gbs_navlinks_s).
Clearly, the idea that reinforcement selects from a variation of
different behaviors is not a new concept at all, but more than three
decades old and rather prominent. This analogy cannot have escaped
anybody working on any kind of operant learning, except they are
seriously neglecting most relevant literature.

Elementary population genetics shows that the [rate of
evolution](https://books.google.de/books?id=257cnXAoREwC&dq) is
proportional to the rate of mutation. This means that [the more variants
a population has to
offer](https://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5400/404.abstract), the
higher the rate of evolution will be. This, as well, is very basic and
known since decades past.

It is thus no surprise that, for instance, [Allen
Neuringer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Neuringer) has been
studying the role of variability in operant conditioning for decades and
also our own lab is
[studying](https://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000443)
the neurobiological mechanisms underlying behavioral variability. It's a
well-known and not overly complicated concept, so of course people have
been studying various aspects of it for a long time. What was always
assumed, but never explicitly tested, to my knowledge (but see
**update** below!), is the relation between behavioral variability and
learning rate. Does the analogy hold such that increased behavioral
variability leads to increased operant learning rates, just like
increased mutations rates lead to increased rates of evolutionary
change?

Now, the authors of the research paper find that indeed, as assumed for
so many decades, the rate of learning in operant conditioning is
increased in subjects where the initial variability in the behavior is
higher. This is, at least to me, a very exciting finding: finally
someone puts this old assumption to the test and demonstrates that yes,
Skinner got something right with his analogy. To me, this alone is worth
attention and media promotion. Great work, standing on the shoulders of
a giant, Skinner. This is how science should work, great job, Wu *et
al*.! However, this was apparently not good enough for the authors of
these two articles.

Instead of citing the wealth of earlier work (or at least Skinner's
original 1981 article), the authors claim that their results were
surprising to them: "Surprisingly, we found that higher levels of
task-relevant motor variability predicted faster learning". The authors
of the news-type article were similarly stunned: "These results provide
intriguing evidence that some of the motor variability commonly
attributed to unwanted noise is in fact exploration in motor command
space."

The question is of course, if this is ignorance on the part of the
(seven in total) involved authors or a publication strategy, perceived
to be superior to the "standing on the shoulder of giants" approach (and
what a giant Skinner is!). It is, of course, moot to speculate about
motives or competence without asking the authors directly. Perhaps there
is even a third way besides incompetence or hype that I'm not aware of.

I don't know any of the authors personally, so I decided to ask a mutual
friend, [John Krakauer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Krakauer),
one of the leading experts in this field and whose papers the authors
cite, what he thought about these articles. Specifically, I asked him
what he thought about the citation of his article as a reference for the
surprising nature of their finding:

> Until now, motor variability has been viewed as an unwanted feature of
> movements, a noise that the brain is able to reduce only with
> practice^[8](https://jn.physiology.org/content/108/2/578.full)^.

In his reply, he corrects the authors:

> <div>
>
> It is true that in our paper we were focused on variability as
> something that needs to be reduced when best performance is required.
> That said, in the discussion we explicitly mention that variability
> can also be used for exploration. As an example of this distinction,
> we mention the difference in variability between when songbirds are
> rehearsing their song versus when they must perform perfectly for
> their mate.
>
> </div>

Apparently, at least one of the cited authors finds this citation not to
be in order. With regard to the original article, John wrote: "Given
that we posited that there is an operant component in error-based
adaptation in 2011, I'm glad to see that their results are consistent
with this view."

It appears to me that the authors may know the relevant literature and
selectively cite it in order to make their research results appear more
earth-shattering and novel. If that were the case, it is up to anyone to
speculate what the motivations behind this strategy were. In the best of
all worlds, the authors do know their ways around the more modern
literature of their specific subfields, but are unaware of the
historical work in their field nor of the relevant work in related
fields. In this case, the two papers are prime examples of the
insularity of some fields of inquiry and demonstrate how more deep and
interdisciplinary reading/training could improve the isolation of highly
specialized fields in science. That being said, the authors being
unaware of such a prominent concept at the heart of their method would
constitute an indictment in its own right, at least in my books. Then
again, one can never be sure to have read all the relevant literature
and perhaps this can happen even to the best of us?

The news-type article doubling down on the hype reveals another aspect
that has been worrying me for some time now. Given that the most
important factor for a manuscript to be published in the most
high-ranking journals is to get past the professional editor, the
ensuing peer-review is likely to be biased in favor of publishing the
paper. For one, the reviewers being experts in the field, they can cite
the resulting paper and make their own research look hotter. Moreover,
if the manuscript is published, it offers the chance of padding their
resume with such fluff news-type articles and get (or keep) their own
name out and associated with the big journals. Obviously, any
publication in such high-ranking journals benefits not only the authors
themselves, but also the field at large, creating a whole new set of
incentives for peer-reviewers and authors of news-type articles.

**UPDATE**, February 10, 2014:

Allen Neuringer just sent me one of [his
papers](https://web.reed.edu/psychology/docs/LearningToVary.pdf) in
which he showed that training rats to be highly variable enabled them to
learn a very complicated operant task, when animals trained to be only
moderately variable failed to learn the task or did do only very slowly:
[Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9 (2),
250-258](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2FBF03196279). In
contrast, Doolan and Bizo (2013) have tried to duplicate these findings
in humans and [failed](https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-349000232.html).
Thus, the principle behind the experiments of Wu *et al.* have already
been tested and established in a mammalian model, just not in humans.
Thus, it's still good to see that humans are no exception in these
processes, no doubt about that, but surely there is nothing
revolutionary or even surprising about this work. On the contrary, based
on work in rats, and from predictions many decades ago, the results
presented by Wu *et al.* are precisely what we would have expected.
Needless to say, the authors cite neither Skinner nor Neuringer.


“Standing on the shoulders of giants” is what scientists say to acknowledge the work they are building on. It is a statement of humility and mostly accompanied by citations to the primary literature preceding the current work. In today’s competitive scientific enterprise, however, such humility appears completely misplaced.

Hiding the shoulders of giants?

**UPDATE**: I'm still not completely sure I understood Churchland
accurately, but there are
[comments](https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Bj%C3%B6rnBrembs/posts/bep7LyTYhDS)
suggesting I may just have completely misunderstood her replies to the
interviewer. Read the interview and judge for yourself!

I really like [Patricia
Churchland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Churchland). I've
read some of her articles, know a little about her conceptual framework
of 'neurophilosophy', really enjoyed her recent interview with Kerri
Smith on [Neuropod](https://castroller.com/podcasts/Neuropod/3839213)
and so on. I feel that we agree on pretty much anything and I think I'd
like her book she's promoting in recent interviews, if I were to read
it. But this morning a read a statement from her, which I found very
hard to understand. The statement appears in an interview for the New
Scientist, re-published on
[Slate](https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/12/the_self_as_brain_disturbing_implications_of_neuroexistentialism.html):
After she states that it's causal links all the way back to the big bang
and nothing we do has any impact on that, she states:

> If you are crippled by the thought that it is causality all the way
> back, you have essentially made a decision to make no decisions. That
> is very unwise. If by thinking that free will is an illusion you
> believe that it does not matter whether you acquire good habits or
> bad, hold false beliefs or true, or whether your evaluation of the
> consequences of an option is accurate or not, then you are highly
> likely to make a right mess of your life.

Apart from the slight non-sequitur of first saying what we decide makes
no difference whatsoever as it's all determined anyway and then turning
around and warn of the consequences bad decisions can have, what I find
particularly surprising is that she apparently doesn't find it troubling
at all to tell people to completely ignore that science she thinks tells
them to quit worrying about the consequences of their actions. I could
paraphrase her sentence above "It's very unwise to let your life be
crippled by pesky scientific facts!" In her words, taking science at
face value and derive a self-consistent world-view from scientific data
amounts to "metaphysical goofiness". Do I understand her correctly that
we should simply make up our own world and behave in it as we see fit,
scientific evidence be damned? Or, more sinister, only reference
scientific evidence if it suits your world-view and if it contradicts
it, it's ok to ignore it?

Now, given the scientific evidence, there is no justification for a
belief in determinism anyway. In that respect, [determinism is like a
religion](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n807.html): scarce
evidence, if any, but many adherents nonetheless. As such, there really
is no need to embrace non-sequiturs or to ignore scientific evidence:
science leaves us plenty of
[elbow-room](https://www.amazon.com/Elbow-Room-Varieties-Worth-Wanting/dp/0262540428)
to allow for a [scientific
concept](https://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/14/rspb.2010.2325)
of [free will](https://vimeo.com/72751046) ([recent
article](https://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00920/full)
pretty much along the same lines). It is thus very surprising that
Churchland not only doesn't follow the evidence on determinism, but
moreover appears to suggest to ignore evidence if it doesn't correspond
with the way we'd like to live.

I'm not quite sure what to make of all that.


<strong>
 UPDATE
</strong>
: I’m still not completely sure I understood Churchland accurately, but there are comments suggesting I may just have completely misunderstood her replies to the interviewer. Read the interview and judge for yourself! I really like Patricia Churchland.

[updated]Churchland: “Ignore science and live a make-believe life!”

[[![ResearchBlogging.org](https://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb2_mid.png){decoding="async"
style="border: 0;"}](https://www.researchblogging.org)]{style="float: left; padding: 5px;"}This
year's Winter Conference on Animal Learning and Behavior
([WCALB](https://www.american.edu/cas/psychology/wcalb/)) will be on one
of my oldest and most central research projects, the commonalities and
differences between [operant](http://brembs.net/learning/operant.html)
and [classical](http://brembs.net/learning/classical.html) conditioning.
I picked this project for my [Diploma (Master's)
thesis](http://brembs.net/diploma/) way back in 1995, because I had
learned about these forms of conditioning in high-school and couldn't
believe it when I heard that nobody knew how the brain was doing it.

Little did I know back then, that already in the 1930s [B.F.
Skinner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) and the students
of [Ivan Pavlov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov), Konorski
and Miller,
[had](https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Twotypes/twotypes.htm)
[started](https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Konorski/)
[discussing](https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/ReplytoK/reply.htm)
[how](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.1937.9918010#.UlO-VBCF04g)
operant and classical conditioning are similar and how they differ. It
wasn't until I had started my [PhD on this
topic](http://brembs.net/dissertation/), that I had found these gems in
the dusty bound volumes of our library. Many of the arguments and
questions raised in this soon 80 year-old exchange became the basis for
my research program in the following now almost 20 years. When I
embarked on this project, six decades had already passed with
significant progress, but without answers to these fundamental
questions.

The first major breakthrough from my perspective came with our discovery
that operant and classical processes can be [genetically
separated](http://brembs.net/rut-pkc), using the right behavioral
experiments. The experimental separation of 'Skinnerian' and 'Pavlovian'
components had not been possible before. These results showed that what
made these processes different was not *how* the animal was learning
(i.e., operantly or classically), but *what* it learned (i.e., about
external stimuli, e.g. Pavlov's bell, or about their own behavior, e.g.
pressing the lever in a [Skinner
box](http://brembs.net/operant/skinnerbox.html)). Thus, in order to
avoid confusion between the procedures (operant vs. classical) and the
mechanisms, we had to come up with descriptive terms for the learning
mechanisms. After much discussion and back-and-forth, we arrived at
'world-learning' for the mechanism that detects and processes
relationships in the external world and at 'self-learning' for the
mechanism that detects and processes the consequences of an animal's own
behavior.

The main reason why traditional experiments failed to uncover this
distinction appears to be that the depressed lever in a Skinner box
constitutes an external stimulus that signals food for the animal, just
as Pavlov's bell does for his dogs. Much like Pavlov's dogs would bark
at the bell when hungry, rats in a Skinner box use whatever means they
have to press the lever -- the specific behavior for pressing the lever
is not relevant and hence not learned. Skinner himself noted that "The
lever cannot be removed" as a technical problem in studying the
processes involved in his type of conditioning. In our experiments, we
were able to overcome this problem and find the genetically separable
mechanisms, which later were shown by other groups to be evolutionarily
conserved.

We have since found out that the [two learning mechanisms
interact](http://brembs.net/learning/drosophila/habit/) in order to
establish adaptive behavioral choice and allow the animal to always
establish the right equilibrium between efficiency and flexibility while
it is balancing the need to explore new resources with the need to
exploit the resource at hand.

Now, after all these years, it is the greatest honor to be invited to
give the keynote address to an entire session just on this research
topic. Granted, this is not a major conference with thousands of
attendees -- it is a small meeting with only a few dozen people.
Nevertheless, after almost two generations of researchers came and went,
these people are the remaining experts for a field long abandoned by
many colleagues as an unsolvable problem. If you find this long-standing
and challenging research topic as exciting as we do, I invite you to
join us in Winter Park, Colorado this coming February 8-12, 2014.

**[Information from the
organizer:]{style="text-decoration: underline;"}**

The *Winter Conference on Animal Learning and Behavior* will convene in
Winter Park, Colorado from Saturday evening, February 8, with departure
Wednesday morning, February 12, 2014. If you are interested in attending
WCALB 2014, please send your small *refundable* deposit by [October 21,
2013]{style="text-decoration: underline;"} so we know how many
condominiums to reserve. See "**\*DEPOSITS\***" section below.

**\*KEYNOTE ADDRESS\***

"Pavlovian and Skinnerian Processes are Genetically Separable"

Björn Brembs, Universität Regensburg

*Abstract*--The commonalities and differences between operant and
classical conditioning have been debated ever since Skinner and Konorski
embarked on their epic exchange about "two types of conditioned reflex
and a pseudo type" in the 1930s. New techniques that surmount
experimental design problems identified in early research allow for a
much improved separation of the two types of conditioning. These
technical advances, combined with modern genetic manipulations, provide
evidence that Pavlovian and Skinnerian processes separate not between
the learning procedure (operant vs. classical), but between learning
content (self vs. non-self). The picture emerging today reinforces
Skinner's early insight that operant conditioning is a composite
situation, comprised of a 'Pavlovian' component (learning about stimuli
-- 'world-learning') and a 'Skinnerian' component (learning about the
consequences of actions -- 'self-learning'). A research program that
distinguished these processes genetically is described.

 

Björn Brembs is Professor of Neurogenetics at Universität Regensburg. He
obtained his doctorate in genetics and neurobiology from Universität
Würzburg and has done post-doctoral research at the University of Texas
Houston Health Science Center.Thematically, Dr. Brembs' research
concerns the general organization of behavior with regards to reward and
punishment with the objective of better understanding how brains
accomplish adaptive behavioral choice.

** \*FOCUS SESSION\***

"Operant and Classical Learning: Comparisons and Interactions"

Allen Neuringer, Peter Killeen, Jeremie Jozefowiez (Université Lille
Nord de France), Michael Commons, Karen Pryor and Stanley Weiss have
already joined the Focus Session. The format is presentations (up to
25-minutes) with extended discussion among participants in a Research
Seminar Session. Additional qualified participants can be added. Let me
(sweiss@american.edu) know if you would like to join this session.

**\*MEETING, WINTER PARK AND ACCOMMODATIONS\***

The Winter Conference is a friendly and informal meeting that provides
an opportunity to combine intensive, scientifically rigorous discussions
--- related to animal conditioning, behavior and learning --- with
skiing at one of Colorado's premier ski areas, Winter Park. See website
(https://www.american.edu/cas/psychology/wcalb/index.cfm) for breadth of
WCALB paper sessions that reflect participants' research interests. All
participants are invited to make a presentation and suggest topics.
Graduate students are welcome and can present with their advisor's
endorsement.

There is downhill skiing for all skill levels, up to black diamond, as
well as excellent cross-country skiing in the Arapaho National Forest,
Devil's Thumb and Snow Mountain Ranch. The majestic snow-covered Rockies
in winter are breathtaking.

The all inclusive cost for registration, four days in a shared Snowblaze
condominium, an opening buffet reception and dinner at a fine Winter
Park restaurant is *only* \$375/person or \$750/couple (couples have
their own room, usually with private bath, in a condo). The Snowblaze is
located in Winter Park near restaurants and shops. It has an excellent
health club with sauna, steam room, hot tub, pool, weight room and
handball courts. All units have complete kitchens.

If available, a *family* can have an entire 2-bedroom condominium unit
for \$1,125 plus \$115 for each person over three. The 2-bedroom units
each sleep up to six people if a convertible sofa in the living room is
used. All family members are invited to the opening buffet reception,
Conference dinner and sessions.

** \*DEPOSITS\***

We will be in the Colorado Rockies just a week before the prime ski
season starts. Therefore, condominiums must be reserved early. If you
think you would like to attend WCALB 2014, please let me
(sweiss@american.edu) know ASAP by e-mail and send your \*refundable\*
(until November 30) deposit (\$50 per person, \$100 per couple, \$200
per family) by **[October 21,
2013]{style="text-decoration: underline;"}**. This will help insure a
place for you in our limited number of reserved condominiums. Make
checks out to Stanley Weiss, WCALB with "WCALB 2014″ in the lower left
corner. [Final payment is due November 30,
2013]{style="text-decoration: underline;"}.

Please send your payment to:

 

Stanley Weiss, Convener  
Winter Conference on Animal Learning & Behavior  
Department of Psychology  
AmericanUniversity  
Washington, DC 20016

 

**We will do our best to include late registrants in the Conference**,
but often they have had to pay substantially more for their
accommodations because our reserved condominiums were full.Therefore, if
you are interested in attending the Conference *let me know soon* and
send your refundable (until November 30) deposit. A CALL for
presentations will go out to registered participants in early
December.If you have any questions or suggestions, contact me at
sweiss@american.edu.

I hope to see you in Winter Park!

Stan

 

Stanley J. Weiss  
Professor of Experimental Psychology Emeritus  
American University  
Washington, D. C. 20016  
Phone: 301-656-3454  
Fax: 202-885-1023  
e-mail:sweiss@american.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[B. F. Skinner (1935). Two Types of Conditioned Reflex and a Pseudo Type
[The Journal of General Psychology, 12]{style="font-style: italic;"}
(1), 66-77 DOI:
[10.1080/00221309.1935.9920088](https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1935.9920088){rev="review"}]{.Z3988
title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+General+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1935.9920088&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Two+Types+of+Conditioned+Reflex+and+a+Pseudo+Type&rft.issn=&rft.date=1935&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=66&rft.epage=77&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1935.9920088%23.UlO1WhCF04h&rft.au=B.+F.+Skinner&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CPsychology%2CNeuroscience%2CBehavioral+Biology%2C+%2C+Learning%2C+Quantitative+Psychology%2C+Behavioral+Neuroscience"}  
[J. Konorski, & S. Miller (1937). On Two Types of Conditioned Reflex
[The Journal of General Psychology, 16]{style="font-style: italic;"}
(1), 264-272 DOI:
[10.1080/00221309.1937.9917950](https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1937.9917950){rev="review"}]{.Z3988
title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+General+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9917950&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=On+Two+Types+of+Conditioned+Reflex&rft.issn=&rft.date=1937&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=264&rft.epage=272&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9917950%23.UlO-VhCF04g&rft.au=J.+Konorski&rft.au=S.+Miller&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CPsychology%2CNeuroscience%2CBehavioral+Biology%2C+%2C+Behavioral+Neuroscience%2C+Learning%2C+Quantitative+Psychology"}  
[B. F. Skinner (1937). Two Types of Conditioned Reflex: A Reply to
Konorski and Miller [The Journal of General Psychology,
16]{style="font-style: italic;"} (1), 272-279 DOI:
[10.1080/00221309.1937.9917951](https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1937.9917951){rev="review"}]{.Z3988
title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+General+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9917951&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Two+Types+of+Conditioned+Reflex%3A+A+Reply+to+Konorski+and+Miller&rft.issn=&rft.date=1937&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=272&rft.epage=279&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9917951%23.UlO-8RCF04g&rft.au=B.+F.+Skinner&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CPsychology%2CNeuroscience%2CBehavioral+Biology%2C+%2C+Behavioral+Neuroscience%2C+Learning%2C+Quantitative+Psychology"}  
[J. Konorski, & S. Miller (1937). Further Remarks on two Types of
Conditioned Reflex [The Journal of General Psychology,
17]{style="font-style: italic;"} (1), 405-407 DOI:
[10.1080/00221309.1937.9918010](https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1937.9918010){rev="review"}]{.Z3988
title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+General+Psychology&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9918010&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fresearchblogging.org&rft.atitle=Further+Remarks+on+two+Types+of+Conditioned+Reflex&rft.issn=&rft.date=1937&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=405&rft.epage=407&rft.artnum=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1080%2F00221309.1937.9918010%23.UlO-VBCF04g&rft.au=J.+Konorski&rft.au=S.+Miller&rfe_dat=bpr3.included=1;bpr3.tags=Biology%2CPsychology%2CNeuroscience%2CBehavioral+Biology%2C+%2C+Behavioral+Neuroscience%2C+Learning%2C+Quantitative+Psychology"}


This year’s Winter Conference on Animal Learning and Behavior (WCALB) will be on one of my oldest and most central research projects, the commonalities and differences between operant and classical conditioning.

Rogue Scholar Posts

Hiding the shoulders of giants?

[updated]Churchland: “Ignore science and live a make-believe life!”

Almost 80 years on, progress on operant and classical conditioning