William Scott wrote:
I have often covered the "origins" story of biofeedback in class with the narrative of Miller
and DiCara's work with curarized rats that turned out to be not replicable. DiCara did not help with
the attempts at replication when he went to the University of Michigan to set up his lab there. He,
instead, committed suicide. Miller, and none of his other graduate minions, ever replicated the
M&D'C outstanding results. Does anyone know anything about Leo DiCara's suicide or the Miller
replication results that are beyond the Miller "failure to replicate" article that to my
knowledge never had a published reply?
Thanks to anybody. This is a good story for classes, but I need resolution.
Bill Scott
I am not sure which article to which you refer. But the article
below lays out the story connected to the scientific issues. It
reads like a detective story. Barry Dworkin, at that time, is
the new, earnest, graduate student who has just been handed the
job to continue DiCara's work in Neal Miller's lab but something
seems wrong. How will Dworkin deal with the issue?
Failure to replicate visceral learning in the acute curarized rat
preparation.
By Dworkin, Barry R.; Miller, Neal E.
Behavioral Neuroscience. Vol 100(3), Jun 1986, 299-314.
Abstract
Attempted to replicate a series of experiments reported to
demonstrate robust visceral learning (autonomic instrumental
learning) in rats during acute (2-4 hr) pharmacological
paralysis. The results of exploratory procedures involving more
than 2,000 animals are described, and 6 complete experiments are
presented. In the 1st 3 experiments (with 72 male albino
Sprague-Dawley rats), which closely followed the original
procedures, the characteristics of the preparation were
reproduced with the exception of initial heart rhythm and
visceral learning. In the 2nd 3 experiments (with 74 male
Sprague-Dawley rats), the respiration procedure was modified to
satisfactorily reproduce the heart rhythm, and the Pa-sub(O2),
Pa-sub(CO2), and pH, were verified to be within the range of
freely moving, normally behaving Ss; nevertheless, visceral
learning was not observed in these experiments either. It is
concluded that the original visceral learning experiments are not
replicable and that the existence of visceral learning remains
unproven. However, neither the original experiments nor the
replication attempt included the necessary controls to support a
general negative conclusion about visceral learning. Possible
explanations for a failure to replicate the original findings are
discussed in terms of inadequate statistical power,
unsatisfactorily reproduced experimental conditions, and spurious
or artifactual results of the original experiments. (78 ref)
(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [email protected]
Professor
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([email protected])
