Important in their bearings upon the phenomena of reënforcement and inhibition which we are now considering, are the various studies of refractory period and rhythm of nerve cell and fibre. The existence of a refractory period in neural substance, similar to that demonstrated for certain kinds of muscle by Marey,[159] Englemann,[160] Kaiser,[161] Cushny and Matthews,[162] Woodworth,[163] and many others, has been proved by Broca and Richet.[164]
Broca and Richet found that in the normal dog the refractory period of the nerve substance is too short to be easily detectable, they therefore experimented with animals which were lightly chloralized and kept at a temperature of 30 to 34° (the mean normal temperature of the dog is about 39.5°). Under these conditions a dog, when two identical stimuli (quality and intensity the same) were applied to the cerebral cortex successively, exhibited the following reactions: (1) When the stimuli were separated by .01˝ they reënforced one another (addition); (2) when the interval was .1˝ they inhibited the reaction partially (subtraction).
Concerning this phenomenon Richet writes in his dictionary of physiology (p.5): "Marey showed, in 1890, that the heart of the frog, at certain moments of systole, was inexcitable. Now our experiments prove that the cerebral apparatus, a certain time after the excitation, also ceases to be excitable: it then has a refractory phase, and this refractory phase is much more prolonged than that of the cardiac muscle." In a later publication Richet[165] makes the somewhat startling statement that a refractory period is not exhibited by the nerves of cold-blooded animals. In the tortoise, according to his results, reënforcement occurs so long as the interval between the two stimuli is not greater than 2˝, while for longer intervals each stimulus to all appearances works independently. Richet seems to have generalized from a study of the tortoise. That his generalization is unwarranted seems to me highly probable in the light of the results of this paper, for there are many reasons for supposing that the reënforcement-inhibition phenomena with which we have been dealing in case of the frog are manifestations of the existence of the same process in the nervous system which under somewhat different conditions of experimentation exhibits itself in the so-called refractory period.
The researches of Richet and his students indicate that the time of the process which conditions the phenomena of reënforcement-inhibition is about .1˝. Stimuli given at .1˝ intervals do not interfere with one another. That the process underlying the refractory period and the reënforcement-inhibition phenomena of our experiments is a rhythmic double-phase process is made still more probable by the following results. Horsley and Schäfer[166] found that the rate of response of the monkey to cortical stimulation was 12 per second, and Schäfer[167] discovered that the maximum rate of volitional impulses in man is 10 to 12 per second.
It was shown by Exner that certain movements of the foot of a rabbit could be produced by stimulating either the cortex or the skin of the foot. Simultaneous stimulation of both regions gives reënforcement. Stimulation of the cortex, if given not more than 3˝ before subliminal stimulation of the skin, renders the latter effective. When both stimuli are subliminal each makes the subsequent one effective if the interval between them is not over 1/8˝ (Schäfer[168]). Similarly for the dog Exner[169] proved that cortical and cutaneous stimuli reënforced one another, when both were subliminal, if the interval between them was not greater than .6˝. Cortical and auditory stimuli, and auditory and cutaneous (of the skin of foot) gave similar results.
Physiologists have long been familiar with several aspects of the phenomena of reënforcement and inhibition in the frog, but I know of no detailed study of the significance of the temporal relations of stimuli in this connection. Goltz[170] called attention to the inhibition of the croaking reflex by peripheral stimulation, as well as to several similar phenomena. Nothnagel,[171] Lewisson,[172] and Wydensky[173] further contributed to our knowledge of the interference effects of stimuli in the frog. Wydensky proved that the application of an induced current to a nerve-muscle preparation may result in either contraction or relaxation of the muscle, according to the frequency of stimulation.
More recently Merzbacher[174] has dealt with the influences of complication of stimuli in the frog with the purpose of ascertaining the relations of the sense-organs to the reflex movements of the animal. His first paper is concerned especially with the functional importance of the eye in connection with reflexes. Unfortunately for the demands of this research, he did not attend particularly to the temporal relations of his stimuli. That a visual and a cutaneous stimulus were given either "at the same time or within a short interval of one another" (p. 250) is not the sort of information our problems demand.
According to Merzbacher's very interesting results a visual stimulus reënforces the reaction to a cutaneous stimulus. As the results of this paper show, this is only half a truth, for the two stimuli may either reënforce or inhibit one another's reactions. As Merzbacher observed no evidences of reaction to auditory stimulation he presumably did not attempt to study the influences of the ear in connection with reflexes.