THINKING, IMAGERY AND MEMORY 



1677 



prompt in assigning functions previously ascribed to 

 the cortex to this system. That it supplies a facilitating 

 or nonspecific tonic influence upon the neural pool 

 along the line suggested in 1947 by Halstead's Power 

 Factor (15), and in commentary by Lashley in 1954 

 (38), seems reasonably well established. There is, 

 however, serious question, from experimental evidence 

 thus far presented, that this system controls more than 

 relatively gross changes in state of the brain as opposed 

 to the vernier settings of the system demanded by the 

 precise contingencies of behavior within and across 

 modalities of input and output. Halstead's measures of 

 biological intelligence appear to tap the vernier sets 

 of the brain in man and are selectively disturbed by 

 primary lesions of the cortical mantle. 



Recent studies of spontaneous and stimulus-evoked 

 responses of the autonomic nervous system by Lacey & 

 Lacey (35) raise the possibility that the Power Factor 

 or 'energizer' of cortical mechanisms may in part be 

 supplied by the autonomic system. The suggestion l>\ 

 these authors that an autonomic response becomes a 

 stimulus with feedback via visceral afferents and 

 reticular formation, or via the baroreceptors, is 

 worthy of serious exploration. 



SUMMARY 



It is clear that only the merest beginning has been 

 made in man's attempt to unravel the details of rela- 



tionship between higher brain functions and specific 

 neural mechanisms. Analysis of the thinking process 

 reveals that it is basically a form of problem-solving 

 behavior which involves the correlation and integra- 

 tion of critical events in time and space. There are 

 five steps or stages in the programing of thinking 

 behavior which enable us to see more clearly than the 

 gestaltists, for example, the essential distinctions be- 

 tween perception and thinking. The programing of 

 these five stages is crucial for the emergence of 

 scientific explanation or rational solution of problems. 



The coefficient of correlation and factor analysis 

 represent mathematical tools, evolved in other con- 

 texts, for nonverbal analysis and communication of 

 thinking behavior. Likewise, the recently developed 

 technique in neurophysiology of autocorrelation and 

 (Kiss-correlation of information obtained directly 

 from the neural pool promises to carry our under- 

 standing beyond the barrier of words. 



As better scientific questions are raised and defined, 

 brain chemistry may be expected to supply the missing 

 sources of \ ariance. 



Images or memory traces are the proof of experi- 

 ence. As the building blocks of mind, they exert a 

 coordinating, stabilizing and filing function for the 

 'old' against which the "new" is tried. Their specific 

 neurology is little understood, but recent experiments 

 which appear to have trapped them in tin' laboratory 

 give promise of elucidating their specific dependencies 

 upon neural structures. 



K E F E R E N C E S 



1. Adrian, E. D. The Physical Background o/ /'cm //turn. Oxford: 

 Clarendon Press, 1947. 



2. Barlow, J. S. and M. A. B. Brazier. Electroencephalog S 

 Clin. Neurophysiol. 6: 321, ! 954. 



3. Bills, A. G. Am. J. Psychol. 38: 227, 1927. 



4. BoRINC, E. G. A History oj Experimental Pwclmlngy. New 

 York : Century, 1929. 



5. Brazier, M. A. B. and J. U. Casbv. Etcctiocncephalog. & 

 Clin. Neurophysiol. 3 : 375, 1951. 



6. Brazier, M. A. B. and J. U. Casby. Electroencephalog. & 

 Clin. Neurophysiol. 4: 201, 1952. 



7. Bremer, F. In: Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness, edited 

 by E. D. Adrian, F. Bremer and H. H.Jasper. Springfield: 

 Thomas, 1954. 



8. Chapman, L. F., D. Svmmes and \V. C. Halstead J. 

 Comp. & Physiol. Psychol. 48 : 42 1 , 1 955. 



9. Eccles, J. C. The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind. Oxford: 

 Clarendon Press, 1952. 



10. Fearing, F. Reflex Action. A Study in the History of Physio- 

 logical Psychology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1930. 



11. Freeman, G. L. J. Gen. Psychol. 4: 309, 1930. 



12. Freeman, G. L. Psychol. Rev. 38: 428, 1931 . 



13. Goldstein, K. The Organism. New York : Am. Bk. Co., 1939. 



14. Halstead. \V. (: Am. J. Psychiat. 96: 1263, 1940. 



15. Halstead, W. C. Brain and Intelligence, Chicago: Univ. 

 Chicago Press, 1947. 



16. Halstead, W. C. In: .Symposium on Physiological Psychology, 

 edited by R. Trumbull. Pensacola, Fla. : Off. Naval Res., 



■955. P *59- 



17. Hanfmann, E. and J. Kasanin. J. Psychol. 3: 521, 1937. 



18. Hebb, D. O. The Organization of Behavior. New York: 

 Wiley, 1949. 



19. Heidbreder, E. J. Gen. Psychol. 24: 93, 1947. 



20. Herrick, C. J. The Evolution of Human Nature. Austin: 

 Univ. Texas Press, 1956. 



21. Hess, VV. R. In: Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness, edited 

 by E. D. Adrian, F. Bremer and H. H.Jasper. Sprinytield 

 Thomas, 1954. 



22. Hilgard, E. R. Theories of Learning. New York: Appleton, 

 1948. 



23. Hilgard, E. R. and D. G. Marquis. Conditioning and 

 Learning. New York : Appleton, 1 940. 



24. Hull, C. L. Psychol. Monogr. 28: 1, 1920. 



25. Jacobson, E. Am. J. Psychol. 44: 677, 1932. 



