Pathways in the emergence of developmental neuroethology: Antecedents to current views of neurobehavioral ontogeny

Abstract

The historical forces that have contributed to our current views of neurobehavioral development (and thus to the fields of developmental psychobiology and neuroethology) are many and varied. Although similar statements might be made about almost any field of science, it is in particular true of this field, which represents a kind of mongrel discipline derived from at least three major sources (psychology, embryology, and neuroscience) and several more minor ones (including developmental psychology and psychiatry, psychoanalysis, education, zoology, ethology, and sociology). Although I attempt to demonstrate here how each of these sources may have influenced the emergence of a unified field of developmental psychobiology or developmental neuroethology, because the present article represents the first attempt of which I am aware to trace the history of these fields I am certain that there is considerable room for improvement, correction, and revision of the views expressed here. Accordingly, I consider this inaugural effort a kind of reconnaissance intended to trace a necessarily imperfect historic path for others to follow and improve upon. In the final analysis, I will be satisfied if this article only serves to underscore two related points: first is the value derived from historical studies of contemporary issues in development, and the second concerns the extent to which our current ideas and concepts about neurobehavioral development, ideas often considered new and contemporary, were already well known to those who came before us. The first point underscores the arguments expressed in the Introduction that the present must always be reconciled with the past, for the past is never entirely past. The second point returns full circle to an important thought expressed in the opening quotation to this article, namely, that even though our historic predecessors lacked much of the empirical facts available to us they were nonetheless able to attain a surprisingly deep understanding of neurobehavioral ontogeny.

Taking advantage of behavioral changes during development and training to assess sensory coding mechanisms

“…If this review has an embedded theme, it is the influence of Wally Welker on an undersubscribed field of research: the neural bases of behavioral development. The study of normal development has attracted intermittent interest for almost a century, 1 and Wally Welker became one of its most influential and imaginative scholars in the 1950s. As Welker described it, his scientific approach was decidedly descriptive, and “never based on rigorous testing of hypotheses.” 2 However, his key insight was that proper assessment of behavioral development should take advantage of each species’ naturally occurring motivations and capacities 3,4 .…”

Viktor Hamburger at 100: eight decades of neuroembryological research, 1920–2000

“…Building upon the pioneering work of Wilhelm Preyer in the late 1800s (Gottlieb, 1973;Oppenheim, 1992), this line of investigation refuted the behaviorist dogma that the development of the nervous system (connectivity) and the origins of behavior in the embryo were based on a kind of trial-and-error learning, in which sensory stimulation was the major organizing principal. According to this tabula rasa view of neurobehavioral development, the behavior of the embryo, fetus and neonate was considered to be based on 'habits' formed prenatally.…”

Über die Bedeutung der Ethologie für die Psychiatrie

“…Die Neuroethologie, die aus der Verhaltensphysiologie (von Holst) hervorging, untersucht die zentral-und periphernervösen Mechanismen relativ invariabler arttypischer Verhaltensweisen (Fentress, 1992;Oppenheim, 1992;Ploog, 1988).…”

“…Weitere evolutionsbiologisch beeinflußte Konzepte sind die Konstitutionslehre Ernst Kretschmers (1888Kretschmers ( -1964 und sogar die frühe Psychoanalyse (Freud, 1938;Oppenheim, 1992).…”