Carl Gustav Jung and the psychobiology of schizophrenia.
Carl Gustav Jung and the psychobiology of schizophrenia.
复制标题
卡尔·古斯塔夫·荣格和精神分裂症的心理生物学。
DOI：
10.1093/brain/aww273
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Deutsch,CurtisK
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Greco,FrankA;Deutsch,CurtisK
Jung在苏黎世的Burgholzli诊所研究精神疾病的心理生物学，特别是精神分裂症--当时被称为‘痴呆症’，然后由Eugen Bleuler指导(Moller等人，2002年)。早些时候，他发表了对精神疾病中皮肤电反应的实验室研究，并在《大脑》杂志上发表了这些研究(Peterson和Jung，1907；见Compston，2011)，随后的研究发表在同年晚些时候的《异常心理学杂志》(Ricksher和Jung，1907)上。他的研究今天仍然在生物精神病学领域引起共鸣，特别是在21世纪对皮肤电活动(EDA)的研究中(Nilsson等人，2015年；Peterman等人，2015年)。彼得森和荣格引用生理学家伊万·塔查诺夫的话说，生理学家伊万·塔查诺夫是第一个在检流计上发现“强烈情绪”(恐惧、惊吓或喜悦)和“期待的关注或期待”的人。他们指出，1890年，塔查诺夫提出皮肤的电流反应是由于“与汗腺相关的一种分泌性电流”；历史证明了这一观点。彼得森和荣格认为，塔查诺夫“显然没有意识到他在这篇简短的论文中描述的调查的非凡价值”。事实上，当他的实验方法进入欧洲时就证明了这一点，包括1906年奥托·维拉格斯的苏黎世实验室和第二年卡尔·荣格的苏黎世实验室。关于彼得森和荣格1907年发表的出版物的历史重要性的大部分评论都集中在单词联想任务引发的皮肤电反应上。然而，也有对显著听觉刺激引起的反应的广泛研究。值得注意的是，彼得森和荣格在他们1907年关于精神分裂症病例和正常对照组的大脑报告中包含了关于这些反应的原始皮肤电反应数据，对群体差异进行了评论，尽管没有进行当今期刊通常要求的定量分析。Burgholzli诊所使用的诊断标准没有具体说明，但作者描述了当时流行的病因学亚型。他们的表格在文章中对这些数据进行了足够详细的组织，以便能够使用现代统计程序进行事后分析。我们在他们的论文中使用了最新的非参数统计方法来分析原始数据。Peterson和Jung使用一系列潜在的警报条件记录了皮肤的电流反应，包括“响亮的口哨”(系列I)和“重量在非常大的噪音下坠落”(系列II)。尽管按照今天的标准，这些条件听起来可能很奇怪，但实际上，用于激发皮肤电反应的刺激与现代研究中使用的刺激非常相似。研究人员预测，与对照组相比，患者的“潜伏期”(潜伏期)更长。我们的统计分析证实了这一预测。我们应用非参数Mann-Whitney U检验来对比“痴呆”患者(两个系列的n=8)和“正常病例”(系列I的n=5，系列II/III的n=8)的潜伏期(秒)。尽管样本量不大，但小组比较得出了具有统计学意义的结果。第一个系列的对比结果是z分数为1.74，U=10，in
Jung studied the psychobiology of psychiatric illness, notably schizophrenia—at the time termed ‘dementia praecox’—at the Burgholzli Clinic in Zurich, then directed by Eugen Bleuler (Mo ller et al., 2002). Early on, he published laboratory studies of galvanic skin response in psychiatric illness and reported them in Brain (Peterson and Jung, 1907; see review by Compston, 2011), with follow-on studies appearing later that year in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (Ricksher and Jung, 1907). His research still resonates today in the field of biological psychiatry, notably among 21st century studies of electrodermal activity (EDA)(Nilsson et al., 2015; Peterman et al., 2015). Peterson and Jung cited physiologist Ivan Tarchanoff (Ivane Tarkhnishvili in his native Georgian; Tsagareli, 2012) as the first to discover the effect of ‘strong emotion’(fear, fright, or joy) and ‘expectant attention or anticipation’on the galvanometer. They noted that in 1890 Tarchanoff posited that galvanic skin response was due to ‘a secretory current of electricity associated with the sweat-glands’; history has borne this position out. Peterson and Jung felt that Tarchanoff ‘was evidently unaware of the extraordinary value of the investigations he described in this brief paper’. Indeed, this proved to be the case when his experimental approach found its way to Europe, including the Zurich laboratories of Otto Veraguth in 1906 and of Carl Jung’s the following year.Most commentary on the historical importance of Peterson and Jung’s 1907 publication focuses on the galvanic skin response elicited by word association tasks. However, there were also extensive studies of responses elicited by salient auditory stimuli. Remarkably, Peterson and Jung included their original galvanic skin response data on these responses in their 1907 Brain report on schizophrenic cases and normal controls, making commentary on group differences, though without the quantitative analysis typically required by journals today. The diagnostic criteria used at the Burgholzli Clinic were not specified, but the authors delineated nosologic subtypes that had currency at the time. Their tables in their article organized these data in sufficient detail to permit post hoc analysis using modern statistical procedures. We have used up-to-date non-parametric statistical methods to analyse the raw data in their paper. Peterson and Jung recorded galvanic skin response using an array of potential alerting conditions, including ‘a loud whistle’(Series I) and ‘the fall of a weight with a very loud noise’(Series II). Though by today’s standards these conditions may sound quaint, in fact the stimuli used for eliciting electrodermal response closely resemble those used in modern studies. The investigators predicted longer ‘latent times’(latencies) among the patients compared to control subjects. Our statistical analyses have borne out this prediction. We applied the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test to contrast the ‘Dementia Praecox’patients (n= 8 for both series) against the ‘normal cases’(n= 5 for Series I, n= 8 for Series II/III) for latent times in seconds. Despite the fact that the sample sizes were modest, group comparisons yielded statistically significant findings. The contrast for the first series yielded a z-score of 1.74 and a U= 10, in