replication and pedagogy in the history of psychology iv: patrick and gilbert (1896) on sleep...

Replication and Pedagogy in the History of PsychologyIV: Patrick and Gilbert (1896) on Sleep Deprivation

Thomas Fuchs Æ Jeffrey Burgdorf

Published online: 28 September 2007� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract We report an attempted replication of G. T. W. Patrick and J. A. Gilbert’s

pioneering sleep deprivation experiment ‘Studies from the psychological laboratory of

the University of Iowa. On the effects of loss of sleep’, conducted in 1895/96. Patrick

and Gilbert’s study was the first sleep deprivation experiment of its kind, performed by

some of the first formally trained psychologists. We attempted to recreate the original

experience in two subjects, using similar apparatus and methodology, and drawing direct

comparisons to the original study whenever possible. We argue for a strong influence of

an ‘Americanized’ Wundtian psychology on Patrick and Gilbert, a claim supported

biographically by their education and by their experimental methods. The replication

thus opens interesting new perspectives, which are unlikely to be generated by any other

historical approach.

Keywords History of psychology � Replication � Science teaching �Sleep deprivation

G. T. W. Patrick and J. A. Gilbert’s sleep deprivation study, published in the PsychologicalReview in 1896, was the first such study conducted on human subjects. It was performed by

some of the first formally trained psychologists, and not as might be expected, by physi-

cians or physiologists. The study relied on a Wundtian approach, which had many things in

common with the measuring techniques of physiology but in addition drew on intro-

spective techniques, thereby adding an emphasis on mind and consciousness. However, the

study was isolated within the newly emerging discipline of psychology, and was also quite

different from the rest of Patrick and Gilbert’s work. Finally, unlike another famous sleep

The present paper was initiated as part of the ’Pedagogical Replications’ project at Bowling Green StateUniversity. The origins and nature of the project are described in Tweney (this issue).

T. Fuchs (&) � J. BurgdorfDepartment of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Sci & Educ (2008) 17:511–524DOI 10.1007/s11191-007-9106-6

deprivation study of the time (de Manaceıne 1894), Patrick and Gilbert did not inspire any

further work for many years to come.

Although sleep research in the late 19th century already had a scientific basis grounded

in medicine and physiology, the study of the effects of enforced wakefulness did not make

an appearance before the early 1890s. Earlier theories on the ability to function with little

or no sleep were largely based on medical case reports of insomniacs and the mentally ill,

on the reports of military commanders and soldiers under the strain of battle, and on

historical reports of sleep deprivation as a means of torture.

This changed when, in 1894, the Russian physician and physiologist Maria Michailovna

Manasseina1 reported the results of her seminal sleep deprivation study on young puppies

at the International Medical Congress at Rome. Manasseina subjected ten young dogs to

sleep deprivation, keeping them awake by constant walking and handling. The animals

invariably died within 96–120 h, presenting a variety of symptoms. The rapid decline of

her experimental animals led Manasseina to comment that:

As a rule, the puppy deprived of sleep for three or four days presents a more pitiful

appearance than one which has passed ten or fifteen days without food. (De Ma-

naceıne 1897, p. 66)

It is interesting to note that, in contrast to food deprivation experiments, it was not

possible to counteract the effects of sleep deprivation and that after several days of

enforced wakefulness the animals were irreversibly lost. Dissections of the dead animals

revealed small hemorrhages all over the cerebral cortex, which led Manasseina to

conclude, ‘In deprivation of sleep it seems to be the brain which suffers most ...‘(De

Manaceıne 1897, p. 66). Manasseina’s research received considerable attention, inspired

a series of replications (Bentivoglio and Grassi-Zucconi 1997) and ultimately gave rise to

a continuous stream of animal research on sleep deprivation within the field of

physiology and medicine.

Patrick and Gilbert’s ‘On the effects of loss of sleep’, published in the PsychologicalReview in 1896, was the first experimental contribution to the study of sleep deprivation

involving human subjects. Although clearly inspired by Manasseina’s seminal work, the

study expanded on it in several important aspects, which, in our opinion, justify interest in

a replication. Manasseina’s findings, in an animal model, were in line with earlier reports

that associated lack of sleep in humans with mental disease (MacNish 1836; Hammond

1873; de Manaceıne 1897) and with the misguided believe that, in China, sleep deprivation

was a form of capital punishment (Kleitman 1939, p. 300). However, not before Patrick

and Gilbert had anybody observed the effects of sleep deprivation in an experimental

setting in healthy human subjects.

1 The Original Study (Patrick and Gilbert 1896)

Patrick and Gilbert sought to assess not only the physiological but also the psychological

effects of ‘enforced abstinence from sleep’ (Patrick and Gilbert 1896, p. 469). Their

method was to keep three subjects awake for 90 h and to conduct a series of physiological,

psychological and biochemical tests at regular intervals. Some of the measurements were

purely physiological: temperature, pulse, body weight, grip and pull strength, and visual

1 ‘Marie De Manaceıne in the authorship of her publication, following the practice of the time of translatingnames into French for an international audience’ (Bentivoglio and Grassi-Zucconi 1997, p. 570).

512 T. Fuchs, J. Burgdorf

123

acuity. Others were designed to assess reaction- and discrimination times, sensibility to

pain, voluntary motor ability and fatigue. A subset of tests was generated to determine the

effects of loss of sleep on cognition and memory. In addition, urine samples were collected

to detect metabolic changes. Gilbert himself participated as a subject and went through the

procedure first in November 1895. Two observers, whose most important function was to

keep him awake, and to administer a series of tests every 6 h, permanently watched him.

Each test session was approximately 2 h long, therefore testing alone took up one third of

the total sleep deprivation time. All of the tests were practiced for several days before the

study to avoid learning effects.

Gilbert managed to stay awake for the full 90 h, passing time with his ‘usual daily

occupations’ (p. 470), and some exercise in fresh air when fatigue became overwhelming,

especially during the early morning hours. About 50 h of voluntary wakefulness had to be

supplemented with 40 h of mildly enforced wakefulness. According to the experimenters,

Gilbert ‘had to be watched closely and could not be allowed to sit down unoccupied, as he

showed a tendency to fall asleep immediately, his own will to keep awake being of no

avail’ (p. 470). After two nights of sleep deprivation Gilbert started to experience visual

hallucinations.

The subject complained that the floor was covered with a greasy-looking,

molecular layer of rapidly moving or oscillating particles... Later the air was full

of these dancing particles which developed into swarms of bodies like gnats...The

subject would climb upon a chair to brush them from about the gas jet or

stealthily try to touch an imaginary fly on the table with his finger. (Patrick and

Gilbert 1896, p. 470f)

These visual distortions apparently persisted for the remainder of the experiment until on

Saturday, November 31, at midnight, Gilbert was finally allowed to go to sleep. To assess

the depth of recovery sleep Gilbert was equipped with an electric bracelet on his ankle.

Every hour an adjustable current was applied to wake the sleeper, who had to signal his

awakening by the push of an electric button next to his bed. Compared to Kohlschuetter’s

(1862) and Michelson’s (1891, as cited in Patrick and Gilbert 1896) depth of sleep curves

in non-deprived subjects, sleep was found to be extraordinarily deep during the first three

hours of recovery sleep. Unfortunately, Gilbert’s sleep was so deep that an adjustable

‘resistance tube’ (Patrick and Gilbert 1896, p. 481) failed to produce the necessary current

to awake him, precluding a more detailed comparison. When the tube was removed and the

current was applied directly for an estimated time,’...the subject could not be aroused

sufficiently to ring the bell, but responded by a cry of pain’ (Patrick and Gilbert 1896,

p. 481).

A few months later, in March 1896 two more subjects underwent the same procedure.

Both were employed as instructors at the University of Iowa and were young men, 27 and

24 years old, to us only known as A. G. S. and G. N. B. This time the depth of recovery

sleep was not determined and some of the other tests were altered because of the previous

experiences with Gilbert. Gilbert himself did not show marked deficits on cognitive

measures. Consequently, the Ebbinghouse-nonsense-syllable-task, which was used to

assess memory, was replaced by a digit memorization task in later trials. In addition, a

‘reading letter’ task was added (the tests employed in our replication were derived from

this adjusted version of the experiment).

Both subjects completed the experiment successfully and stayed awake for the entire

period of 88 h. In the case of A. G. S., a sudden drop in body temperature on the last

Replication and Pedagogy in the History of Psychology IV 513

123

evening of the experiment gave rise to concern,2 but A. G. S. was nevertheless able to

complete the experiment. While A. G. S.,’... became very sleepy during the last 24 h and

had to be watched constantly’ (Patrick and Gilbert, p. 474), G. N. B., outwardly showed

few signs of sleepiness throughout the experiment. However, G. N. B. showed considerable

deficits during some of the later test sessions.

The outcome of Patrick and Gilbert’s study was characterized by considerable inter-

individual variability. The most consistent impairments of sleep deprivation were found in

the cognitive tasks, especially in the digit-memorization task, which G. N. B. could not

complete during two of the last three test sessions. The clearest findings in the physio-

logical category were a steady decline of reaction times in J. A. G. and A. G. S., and

consistent weight gain during sleep deprivation in all three subjects, followed by weight

loss during recovery sleep. Sensibility to pain decreased in all subjects throughout the

experiment, and, again in all subjects, acuity of vision showed a seemingly counterintuitive

increase.

The diurnal nature of sleepiness was experienced by all subjects, as were episodes of

‘semi-waking dreaming’ (Patrick and Gilbert 1896, p. 482), which most likely correspond

to today’s ‘micro-sleeps’ (Horne 1988). Neither G. N. B, nor A. G. S. experienced visual

hallucinations. The amount of extra recovery sleep taken was surprisingly small and varied

between 15% (A. G. S.) and 35% (G. N. B.) of the total sleep lost.

2 The Replication Project

Research reports are always aimed at specialized groups of readers that are familiar with

certain types of procedures, apparatus and theories. In the case of historical research

reports, this connection to the reader can be lost. Apparatus may be obsolete, procedures

are likely to have changed, and established theories may have been discarded and for-

gotten. One promising approach to overcome historical hurdles of that kind is the

replication of historical experiments (Tweney 2004). Moreover, research reports can only

serve as second hand accounts, and in no case, past or present, can they completely

substitute for first hand personal experience. This is especially true for sleep deprivation

and the subjective experience of its effects, but even more so for a study of sleep depri-

vation conducted at the end of the 19th century. Subjective experience served an integral

function in late 19th century psychology, and for many researchers it was a form of

scientific measurement. Therefore, in order to gain an understanding of the study in its

historical context, we found it necessary to attempt to recreate the actual experience of

being sleep deprived in two subjects, using similar apparatus and methodology.

We started our replication project on Sunday, March 7, at 12 pm. The two participating

subjects were the authors, J. B. and T. F. Unlike the subjects in Patrick and Gilbert’s study

we did not attempt to stay awake for 90 h. Our more moderate goal was to stay awake for

72 h, or three full days. Like Patrick and Gilbert we took a series of tests every 6 h. The

testing schedule followed the original (3 am, 9 am, 3 pm and 9 pm), but only 11 of the 15

original tests were replicated. Consequently, one testing session took approximately one

2 After a walk in the cold evening air A. G. S.’ temperature fell to 35.33�C but quickly regained its normalvalue. The researchers were probably especially sensitive to drops in body temperature because these wereamong the major pathological symptoms described in Manasseina’s sleep deprived dogs. However A. G. S.’drop in body temperature was not nearly as drastic as that described in Manasseina’s monograph (DeManaceıne 1897, p. 68).


123

hour. The biochemical category of tests was entirely omitted. Biochemical testing would

have required a considerable amount of organization and collaboration while not signifi-

cantly contributing to the experience.3 The same cannot be said for the electroshock/depth-

of-sleep measure (in the original study this test was only conducted on Gilbert), or the

pain-threshold tests, which were also omitted. Of the 11 measurements, pulse, temperature,

weight, grip and pull are self-explanatory. Weight, grip and pull were all determined with a

mechanical scale, while in the original study grip and pull were determined using a hand

dynamometer. ‘Digit memorization’ consisted of the latency to memorize a series of single

digit numbers (1–9) which were arranged in a sequence of 18 key cards.

Between each trial, the experimenter rearranged the sequence and three trials consti-

tuted one test session. As in the original study, obvious number combinations were

avoided. ‘Reaction time’ consisted of the latency to press a response key after hearing a

tone (15 trials/session). ‘Naming letter’ consisted of the number of letters that could be

read backwards in a typed passage in 60 s. ‘Voluntary motor ability’ and ‘fatigue’ were

tested by tapping on a reaction time response key as quickly as possible for 1 min. The

number of taps during the first 5 s was used as a measure of voluntary motor ability, while

the difference between the number of taps during the first and the last 5 s was used as a

measure of fatigue. We conducted this task with a reaction time response key/impulse

counter setup, which promptly broke in the middle of the experiment. Therefore, no direct

comparisons could be drawn between the original study and the replication on these two

measures. Patrick and Gilbert most likely relied on a setup similar to the one depicted in

Fig. 1, which was published in one of Gilbert’s earlier studies (Gilbert 1894). Finally,

‘acuteness of vision’ consisted of the maximum distance at which a participant could read a

Fig. 1 ‘Reaction Board’ used in Gilbert’s 1894 study ‘Researches on the Mental and Physical Developmentof School Children.’ The apparatus was designed to measure ‘voluntary motor ability’ and ‘fatigue’, reactiontimes, ‘reaction with discrimination and choice’ and ‘time-memory’ (Gilbert 1894, p. 46–52). The boardconsists of a tuning fork setup A, stimulating apparatus C, reaction time key E, tapping-apparatus F and anEwald Chronoscope H (Gilbert 1894). The device was obviously designed to be portable, which was not arequirement in the sleep deprivation study. However, the overall mechanics and setup are probablycomparable. For detailed information on the setup please refer to Gilbert (1894)

3 Patrick and Gilbert did not analyze the samples but had them analyzed by the Chemistry department.


123

passage of printed text by the light of a candle. Although we did not assess depth of

recovery sleep, we did estimate the amount of extra sleep taken by T. F. during several

days following the replication experiment. The tasks were trained in one long training

session one day before the study.

The first 24 h went by without difficulty and were passed with our usual daily activities.

After 30 h, during the morning hours of the second day, J. B. started to experience

considerable difficulties staying awake. These problems were reflected in large deficits

across the board in the 9 am test session, and appeared to be explained by a total inability

to concentrate. During the tests, drowsiness became so intense that it became necessary for

J. B. to retire from the experiment. After hour 33, therefore, all tests were solely conducted

on T. F., who also experienced substantial difficulty staying awake during morning hours,

but showed only little effect on the test parameters. As in the original study T. F. expe-

rienced the marked diurnal rhythm of sleepiness, which was least pronounced in the

afternoons and evenings, when, according to observers, it was hard to tell a difference

between T. F. and a non-deprived person. Unlike the original study T. F., was able to sit

down without falling asleep during most of the experiment except for the early morning

hours (5–8 am) when he resorted to taking walks. On one of these walks, the subject

experienced a visual hallucination (daydreaming), which left him disoriented for several

minutes. After 72 h, T. F. was allowed to retire. During the first recovery night he slept for

14 h, and for 11 h during the second night. On the third night following the experiment, T.

F returned to his normal amount of 8 h of sleep. T.F. thus required 9 h of extra sleep during

the first two recovery nights, corresponding to roughly 38% of the sleep lost during the

experiment.

Throughout the experiment neither subject experienced an unusual drop in body tem-

perature. In addition, no marked changes in bodyweight were detected. The cognitive

deficits in the digit memorization task were minor. In the case of ‘naming letters’ both

subjects, despite sleep deprivation, showed an increase in performance. One notable

exception was J. B.’s final test session, where large deficits on most non-physiological

measures were encountered.

3 Comparison of Results

Some of the most consistent findings of Patrick and Gilbert had the character of general

observations that were not reflected in the results of their systematic testing (e.g., diurnal

nature of sleepiness, micro sleeps). These effects of sleep deprivation were readily

encountered in our replication.

Two of the three subjects in the original study showed a marked linear decline in

reaction times, a finding that received some attention in later reports (Manasesina 1897;

Horne 1988) and is also important in placing the study into its historical context (see

below). T. F. and J. B. also showed this trend, albeit in a more moderate form. During the

last test session of our replication we noticed that even in the late phase of the experiment

T. F. was capable of reaction times similar to baseline. Further analysis revealed that a

small number of extreme outliers was responsible for the observed increase in average

reaction times over the course of the experiment (Fig. 2). This happened in our opinion

because of momentary lapses of attention, which became more pronounced during sleep

deprivation and could go as far as to miss entire trials. Patrick and Gilbert provided

averages of their reaction times, therefore it was impossible to re-analyze their single trial

data. However, they also provided a measure of variability with their data, the mean


123

variation, and, for the two subjects that showed a decrease in reaction times, this measure

was remarkably similar to the variability in T. F.’s reaction time data (Fig. 3). Comparing

their data with ours, we find that there is enough variability in Patrick and Gilbert’s data to

allow for similar outliers,4 suggesting that the decline in reaction times could be an

averaging ‘artifact’ due to an increased number of outliers as opposed to an overall decline

in reaction times.

Two of Patrick and Gilbert’s measures apparently relied more on the participants’

subjective impression of when they completed a task, rather than on a more objective

measure of the outcome. In the digit memory task, ‘the watch [was] stopped when the

subject announced his readiness to recite the list’ (Patrick and Gilbert p 476), however, no

mention was made in the report whether the subject was actually required to recite the list

without error, whether the subject had to repeat the task until no error was made, how many

errors were made on each trial, nor if the stop watch was started again. Similarly, in the

reading distance task, the participants chose the farthest distance at which they believed

they could accurately read a passage from Wundt’s ‘Studien’. Again, Patrick and Gilbert’s

study did not include statements on the accuracy of the participants’ subjective impres-

sions. The reliance on the subjective judgment of a trained ‘subject’ seems to resemble a

common practice at the turn of the 19th century, using introspection as it was employed by

Wilhelm Wundt and his followers (Danziger 1990).

To see if our ‘subjective’ judgments were indeed accurate in the digit memory task, we

wrote down our answers immediately after each trial. In the case of J. B. and T. F., latency

to memorize the digits was not correlated with accuracy. Both subjects showed a minor

increase in latency to memorize digits as a function of sleep deprivation, but not in the

percentage of correct recalls, which were close to 100% for both participants, comparing

the last sleep deprivation trial to the trial after recovery sleep. There appeared to be no

relationship between latency to memorize digits and percentage of digits recalled correctly,

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.1

0.11

0.12

0.13

0.14

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.190.

20.

210.

220.

230.

240.

250.

260.

270.

280.

290.

30.

310.

320.

330.

34

Reaction Time (seconds)

Num

ber

of T

rials

early trials

late trials

Fig. 2 Reaction time data plotfor T. F. Comparison of the first36 h of sleep deprivation (black)with the second 36 h (white).Note that although the mode ofreaction times hardly changesduring the second half of theexperiment, the range increasesconsiderably due to a number ofoutliers

4 In addition, G. N. B. who did not show an increase in reaction times showed considerably larger vari-ability during the first half of the experiment, which may have masked the effect observed in the other twosubjects.


123

indicating that in the memory task self-report may be an adequate measure to determine the

effects of sleep loss.

We did not replicate several of the effects encountered in the systematic measures of the

original study like weight gain/loss or marked deficits in the cognitive tasks. To Patrick and

Gilbert’s credit, it must be mentioned that cognitive deficits and, to some extent, weight

changes, have been replicated numerous times over the last 50 years (for review, see Horne

1988) and our failure to replicate them is most likely due to shortcomings on our part. In

our experiment, we only attempted to stay awake for 72 h. This may have contributed to

the difficulties replicating some of the original results, because in all likelihood some of the

effects of sleep deprivation are less pronounced at shorter durations.5

There are considerable individual differences regarding the effects of sleep loss, which

may be best illustrated by J. B. who showed severe deficits after only 33 h without sleep.

The number of subjects was small in the original study and even smaller in our replication.

Several of the effects in the original study were not observed across all subjects. In

addition, some of the cognitive tests were altered after Gilbert’s pilot trial further reducing

the number of subjects tested on identical tasks.

4 Historical Questions

In addition to the direct comparisons, a number of historical questions began to form as

we became involved in our project. Interestingly, both, G. T. W. Patrick and J. Allen

Gilbert were psychologists while sleep research in the second half of the 19th century

was mainly the domain of medicine and physiology. From today’s point of view, it is

therefore somewhat surprising that two young American psychologists would carry out

one of the first studies on sleep deprivation, a study that leaned heavily towards phys-

iological measurement. The physiological methods required for the study of sleep,

however, do lend themselves to a psychological approach characterized as ‘physiological

psychology’, a concept that differs considerably from today’s conception of psychology.

Founded and propagated by the German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt, this form of

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Mean Reaction Time Mean Variation

Tim

e (m

s)

J.A.G

A.G.S.

T.F.

Fig. 3 A comparison of meanreaction times and variancebetween J.A.G., A.G.S. (1896)and T. F. (2004). The meanvariance is remarkably similarbetween the three individuals,suggesting that similar outliersmay be contained in their rawdata (error bars: standard error ofthe mean)

5 However, according to Kleitman, a period of 62–65 h of prolonged abstinence from sleep is sufficient toproduce maximal effects of sleep deprivation (Kleitman, p 303). In our replication, only T. F. was awake forthis period of time, but he did not show any marked effect on the cognitive or physiological measuresderived from the original study.


123

psychology gained some influence in the United States (Seashore 1942; Patrick 1947;

Rieber 2001) during the last quarter of the 19th century, at a time when Patrick and

Gilbert received their education. We thus argue for a strong influence of Wundtian

psychology on Patrick and Gilbert, a claim supported biographically by their education,

but also by their experimental methods. Patrick and Gilbert were both educated in the

United States, Patrick in a more philosophical tradition at Yale and Johns Hopkins, while

Gilbert, also at Yale, was a member of the first generation to graduate from American

psychology laboratories.

Patrick (1857–1949, Fig. 2) began his academic career at the University of Iowa in

1874. After receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1878 he spent several years in

Colorado before he went on to Yale (1882–1885). At Yale, Patrick had the opportunity to

hear George Trumbull Ladd, one of the founding fathers of American psychology and a

great sponsor of experimental psychology. It was also during these years that Patrick got a

first taste of the writings of G. Stanley Hall, arguably Wundt’s strongest advocate in the

United States at the time:

...Hall’s Aspects of German Culture, describing all the new movements in psy-

chology and philosophy in Germany at that time, greatly influenced me. (Patrick

1947, p. 69)

In the fall of 1885 Patrick enrolled at Johns Hopkins where Hall was head of the

Department of Philosophy and Psychology:

Throughout the department at Johns Hopkins there was at this time especial interest

in psychology and the psychological laboratory. A new method of approach to the

science of the mind was coming to America. The old armchair psychology6 was

giving place to the new experimental and physiological approach. G. Stanley Hall

was taking the lead in this new movement. (Patrick 1947, p. 75)

However, Patrick, who majored in philosophy, did not earn his Ph.D. with experimental

work, but with a translation of the fragments of Heraclitus of Ephesos (Patrick 1889). In

1887, some time before he actually graduated from Johns Hopkins, Patrick received the

call from his old Alma Mater, the University of Iowa, and assumed the position of ‘Pro-

fessor of Mental and Moral Science’ (Patrick 1947). He founded the psychology laboratory

at the University of Iowa around 1890 and it reflected the strong influence of Hall and

German psychology (Seashore 1942; Patrick 1947):

Some of this influence I brought to Iowa. Almost from the beginning, I gave courses

in German psychology and philosophy... The first instruments I used in my labora-

tory for class demonstrations were those I had seen Wundt use before his classes in

Leipzig. (Patrick 1947, p. 89)

Furthermore, like almost every self respecting American psychologist at the turn of the

19th century (Sokal 1981), Patrick made several trips to Germany, notably one

extended trip in 1894 (Patrick 1947), the year before the sleep deprivation study. He

was registered at the University of Leipzig and attended several of Wundt’s and

Lotze’s lectures (Patrick 1947). Interestingly, some 30 years earlier at the same

University, one of Fechner’s students, Ernst Kohlschutter, performed what is now

6 A term coined by E. W. Scripture (Sokal 1980).


123

considered by some to be the first scientific experiment on sleep.7 More than one

generation later the results of this experiment served as a baseline comparison in

Patrick and Gilbert’s study.

Although fascinated by psychology as an experimental science, Patrick had no formal

training in the use of experimental techniques. Probably as a consequence, in 1895, J. Allen

Gilbert (Fig. 3) was hired as a laboratory assistant. Gilbert was trained as an experimental

psychologist in E. W. Scripture’s laboratory at Yale. Scripture had received his Ph.D. from

Wundt himself and relied heavily on physiological measurement in his research. Scrip-

ture’s approach to physiological psychology although clearly inspired by German

psychology, differed from Wundt’s in a way that appears to be very important in an

attempt to place Patrick and Gilbert’s study in its historical context. Reaction time mea-

surements were an integral part of both Wundt’s and Scripture’s psychology. But, in

contrast to Wundt who attempted to measure the duration of mental processes under

controlled conditions (Sokal 1980), Scripture and many of his American colleagues, ‘...

measured the reaction times of different people under different conditions of fatigue and

stress’ (Sokal 1980, p. 264). Patrick and Gilbert’s study appears to be perfectly in line with

this Americanized version of physiological psychology as it measured the effects of sleep

deprivation on various physiological and mental processes.

Instead of measuring ‘the time it takes to think’ the Americans wished to test the

abilities of different people to perform different mental operations under different

conditions. (Sokal 1980, p. 264)

Scripture’s influence is also widely reflected in Gilbert’s other work. His ‘Researches on

the Mental and Physical Development of School Children’ (Gilbert 1894) conducted under

Scripture’s supervision (Scripture 1894 a), relied to a large extent on physiological mea-

surement. In a follow up study that was started prior to the sleep deprivation experiment,

Gilbert introduced this approach to the University of Iowa (Gilbert 1897), and, not sur-

prisingly, most of the measures employed in ‘On the effects of loss of sleep’ (Patrick and

Gilbert 1896) were directly derived from these two older studies (notably reaction times,

pain threshold, voluntary motor ability and fatigue). It is also worth noting that the analysis

of Patrick and Gilbert’s data, which relies mainly on the presentation of means and mean

variances, closely resembles Scripture’s approach to statistics although it does not nearly

reach the same level of sophistication (e.g. see Scripture 1894b). In summary, it seems

quite obvious that Wundtian psychology and its American derivatives had a major influ-

ence on both researchers, as they had on so many of the first psychologists at the turn of the

19th century (Seashore 1942).

7 Kohlschutter, a student of medicine measured the depth of sleep in human subjects using Fechner’s’Schallpendel’, a pendulum that would strike against a slate slab to produce varying sound intensitiesdepending on the length of the pendulum’s arc. With this instrument, Kohlschutter produced a depth of sleepcurve while observing sleepers over several nights and recording the sound intensities necessary to awakenthem. 33 years later the same curve served as a baseline comparison in Patrick and Gilbert’s recovery sleepexperiment.Although Kohlschutter’s curve was essentially flawed this should not make a difference inrespect to Patrick and Gilbert’s observations. The curve, which made its way into almost every textbook onsleep (Kleitman 1939), was flawed by Kohlschutters preconceptions. Kohlschutter, a firm adherer to’Weber’s law’ (Fechner’s biophysical law), regarded every value after the first two hours that was largerthan the preceding value as error, which led him to reject 45% of his original data (Swan 1929). This datawould have radically changed the appearance of the curve during the later part of the night, an error that wasonly discovered 67 years later (Swan 1929). For a detailed discussion, see Swan (1929) and Kleitman(1939).


123

Interestingly, Patrick and Gilbert conducted only one study on the subject of sleep. The

main reason for this was most likely the problematic relationship between the two

researchers. According to Carl Seashore (1942), Gilbert,’... fully aware of his superior

equipment as an experimental psychologist. [...] immediately began to chafe under the idea

of being an assistant, regardless of his actual academic title’ (Seashore 1942, p. 7). Carl

Seashore, a fellow student of Gilbert at Yale, was also the one to succeed Gilbert at the

University of Iowa although not as a lab assistant, but under the more prestigious title of an

assistant professor of philosophy (Seashore 1942). Unable to cope with either his low

status, nor with Patrick as his superior, Gilbert left the University of Iowa in 1897 after

only two years. According to Seashore (1942), he went on to study medicine and became a

successful psychiatrist.

Patrick remained at the University of Iowa for the rest of his career but soon withdrew

from experimental work.8 In 1900 he was ‘named head of the department of philosophy

and psychology’ (Seashore 1942, p. 9). Only 5 years later however, he withdrew from this

position ‘on account of frail health’ (Seashore 1942, p. 13) to be replaced by Seashore.

During the 31 years between the sleep deprivation study and his retirement in 1927, Patrick

published, to our knowledge, only one experimental study (Patrick 1899) but remained a

prolific writer on various topics of philosophy and psychology (e.g., Patrick 1947).

We do not know for sure if Patrick or his newly hired assistant Gilbert was the driving

force behind the sleep deprivation experiment. However, it seems relevant that Patrick’s

interest in sleep research started with Gilbert’s arrival, and ended with his departure. Also,

although the choice of physiological and cognitive measures may have been limited by the

methods used in physiological psychology as well as by the symptoms encountered in

Manasseina’s animal study, Patrick and Gilbert used some of the same experimental

procedures that were already employed in one of Gilbert’s previous studies (Gilbert 1894).

This, taken together with the fact that Gilbert actually went through the experimental

procedures as a subject, suggests that Gilbert’s role in this project was a rather active one,

exceeding the responsibilities of a lab assistant.

While the experimenter’s personal histories may explain why this study was their only

contribution to sleep research, we do not know why it was not until 1922 that similar

experiments were performed on humans (Robinson and Herman 1922; Robinson and

Richardson-Robinson 1922; Kleitman 1923). Thus, Patrick and Gilbert’s study stands

alone in the field of psychology at the turn of the 19th century. Why this is the case is not

entirely clear. But, within the field of psychology, the strict Wundtian approach lost ground

almost as rapidly as it had gained it several years earlier (Rieber 2001). Therefore the

interest in experiments that relied heavily on physiological measures may have been

limited only a few years after Patrick and Gilbert’s study was conducted. The fact that the

study was published in the Psychological Review may also have diminished its impact in

other disciplines like physiology or medicine (Figs. 4, 5).

However, Patrick and Gilbert’s study was not forgotten nor was it ignored at the time it

was published. Maria Manasseina gives a detailed account of the study in her monograph

on sleep (de Manaceıne 1897), and so does H. Addington Bruce (1915). Kleitman (1939)

refered to Patrick and Gilbert’s study as ‘the first study on man’ (p. 300) and Horne gave a

detailed review of the study in 1988, to name but a few. However, the study did not inspire

any replications or similar experiments on humans for the next 26 years to come.

8 Seashore’s talent as an experimental psychologist, his energy and his research interests may have played arole.


123

Perhaps the question is not why there was a lack of interest in human sleep deprivation

studies, but rather why this interest suddenly returned after more than one generation. The

achievements of single historical figures like Nathaniel Kleitman can probably not be

underestimated in this respect. Also, without doubt, the whole field of sleep research

greatly benefited from the availability of electroencephalographic recording techniques

after 1927 (Kleitman 1939). However, the first sleep deprivation studies after Patrick and

Fig. 5 J. Allen Gilbert (1867–XXX).‘1897 Hawkeye annual’University of Iowa Archives

Fig. 4 George Thomas WhitePatrick (1857–1949). ‘1897Hawkeye annual’ University ofIowa Archives


123

Gilbert were conducted in 1922 (Robinson and Herman; Robinson and Richardson-Rob-

inson) and 1923 (Kleitman), several years before the arrival of electroencephalographic

methods. Therefore, the question remains whether the availability of new technologies

after the turn of the century rekindled an interest in sleep deprivation. It seems just as likely

that a renewed interest in fatigue and the borders of human resilience, perhaps facilitated

by World War I, paved the way for the use of new technologies and experimental sleep

deprivation alike.

References

Bentivoglio M, Grassi-Zucconi G (1997) The pioneering experimental studies on sleep deprivation. Sleep20:570–576

Bruce HA (1915) Sleep and sleeplessness. Little, Brown, and Company, BostonDanziger K (1990) Constructing the subject: historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, CambridgeGilbert JA (1894) Researches on the mental and physical development of school children. Stud Yale Psychol

Lab 2:40–100Gilbert JA (1897) Researches upon school children and college students. Psychol Stud Univ Iowa 1:1–39Hammond WA (1873) Sleep and its derangements. J.B. Lippincott & Co, PhiladelphiaHorne J (1988) Why we sleep. Oxford University Press, New YorkKleitman N (1923) Studies on the physiology of sleep. I. The effects of prolonged sleeplessness on man. Am

J Physiol 66:67–92Kleitman N (1939) Sleep and wakefulness as alternating phases in the cycle of existence. The University of

Chicago Press, ChicagoMacnish R (1836) The philosophy of sleep, Edward Khul, printer to the University, 3rd edn. Glasgowde Manaceıne M (1894) Quelques observations experimentales sur l’influence de l’insomnie absolue.

Archives Italiennes de Biologie 21:322–325de Manaceıne M (1897) Sleep: its physiology, pathology, hygiene and psychology. Walter Scott, LTD,

LondonKohlschutter E (1862) Messungen der Festigkeit des Schlafes. Zeitschrift Rational Medizin 17:209–253Patrick GTW (1889) The fragments of the work of Heraclitus of Ephesus on nature; translated from the

Greek text of Bywater, with an introduction historical and critical, by G. T. W. Patrick, N. Murray,Baltimore

Patrick GTW, Gilbert JA (1896) Studies from the psychological laboratory of the University of Iowa. On theeffects of loss of sleep. Psychol Rev 3:469–483

Patrick GTW (1899) On the analysis of perceptions of taste. Univ Iowa Stud Psychol 2:85–127Patrick GTW (1947) George Thomas White Patrick, an autobiography. Teacher and philosopher, by Herbert

Martin, University of Iowa. Centennial memoirs. University of Iowa Press, Iowa CityRieber RW (2001) Wundt and the Americans: from flirtation of abandonment. In: Rieber RW, Robinson DK

(eds) Wilhelm Wundt in history: the making of a scientific psychology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, NewYork, pp 145–160

Robinson ES, Hermann SO (1922) Effects of loss of sleep. J Exp Psychol 5:19–32Robinson ES, Richardson-Robinson F (1922) Effects of loss of sleep. II. J Exp Psychol 5:93–100Scripture EW (1894) Remarks on Dr. Gilberts article. Stud Yale Psychol Lab 2:101–104Scripture EW (1894) On mean values for direct measurements. Stud Yale Psychol Lab 2:1–39Seashore CE (1942) Pioneering in psychology. University of Iowa Press, Iowa CitySokal MM (1980) Biographical approach: the psychological career of edward wheeler scripture. In: Broszek

J, Pongratz LJ (eds) Historiography of modern psychology. Aims, resources, approaches. C. J. Hogrefe,Inc., Toronto, pp 255–278

Sokal MM (1981) An education in psychology: James McKeen Cattell’s journal and letters from Germanyand England, 1880–1888. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

Swan TH (1929) A note on Kohlschutter’s curve on the ‘depth of sleep’. Psychol Bull 26:607–610Tweney RD (2004) Replication and the experimental ethnography of science. J Cogni Cult 4:731–758


123

Author Biographies

Thomas Fuchs earned his PhD in experimental psychology at Bowling Green State University. In hisdissertation he conducted research on nocturnally migranting birds, investigating their potential as an animalmodel of sleep deprivation. Thomas is currently a postdoctoral fellow at Washington State Universitystudying positive affect and social attachment in infant rodents.

Jeffrey Burgdorf received his Ph.D. in psychology at Bowling Green State University, and he is nowResearch Assistant Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Northwestern University. Hisresearch involves using animal models of human emotionality to uncover the biochemicals that controlemotion in humans and animals.


123

replication and pedagogy in the history of psychology iv: patrick and gilbert (1896) on sleep...

Documents