Goldstein D S
Pavlov J Biol Sci. 1979 Apr-Jun;14(2):108-27. doi: 10.1007/BF03001827.
This paper reviews experiments, hypotheses, and current controversies about instrumental cardiovascular conditioning. Demonstrations of such conditioning in curarized animals challenged a differentiation between instrumental and classical learning on the basis of their respective effector systems but did not prove direct operant learning by the autonomic nervous system. In humans, ethical prohibition of curarization and lack of adequate controls for respiration and muscle tension have resulted in incomplete understanding of the roles of voluntary, somatic mediators. Despite a variety of potential clinical applications of biofeedback, the available literature lacks studies of its efficacy compared to more standard modes of therapy. The physiological mechanisms and central neural pathways involved in instrumental cardiovascular conditioning remain almost totally unknown.
本文回顾了关于工具性心血管调节的实验、假说及当前的争议。在箭毒化动物身上进行的此类调节的演示，对基于各自效应系统的工具性学习和经典学习之间的区分提出了挑战，但并未证明自主神经系统存在直接的操作性学习。在人类中，箭毒化的伦理禁令以及对呼吸和肌肉张力缺乏充分控制，导致对自愿性、躯体性调节因子的作用理解不完整。尽管生物反馈有多种潜在的临床应用，但与更标准的治疗模式相比，现有文献缺乏对其疗效的研究。工具性心血管调节所涉及的生理机制和中枢神经通路几乎完全未知。
