Edgar Adrian (1889-1977) and Shell Shock Electrotherapy: A Forgotten History?

The English electrophysiologist Edgar Adrian (1889-1977) was the recipient of the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1932 for his research on the functions of neurons. During World War I, at Queen Square in London, he devised an intensive electrotherapeutic treatment for shell-shocked soldiers. The procedure, developed with Lewis Yealland (1884-1954), was similar to "torpillage," the faradic psychotherapy used in France. Adrian and Yealland considered that the pain accompanying the use of faradic current was necessary for both therapeutic and disciplinary reasons, especially because of the suspicion of malingering. According to Adrian, this controversial electric treatment was only able to remove motor or sensitive symptoms. After the war, he finally admitted that war hysteria was a complex and difficult phenomenon.

World War I psychoneuroses: hysteria goes to war.

During the First World War, military physicians from the belligerent countries were faced with soldiers suffering from psychotrauma with often unheard of clinical signs, such as camptocormia. These varied clinical presentations took the form of abnormal movements, deaf-mutism, mental confusion, and delusional disorders. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the term 'shell shock' was used to define these disorders. The debate on whether the war was responsible for these disorders divided mobilized neuropsychiatrists. In psychological theories, war is seen as the principal causal factor. In hystero-pithiatism, developed by Joseph Babinski (1857-1932), trauma was not directly caused by the war. It was rather due to the unwillingness of the soldier to take part in the war. Permanent suspicion of malingering resulted in the establishment of a wide range of medical experiments. Many doctors used aggressive treatment methods to force the soldiers exhibiting war neuroses to return to the front as quickly as possible. Medicomilitary collusion ensued. Electrotherapy became the basis of repressive psychotherapy, such as 'torpillage', which was developed by Clovis Vincent (1879-1947), or psychofaradism, which was established by Gustave Roussy (1874-1948). Some soldiers refused such treatments, considering them a form of torture, and were brought before courts-martial. Famous cases, such as that of Baptiste Deschamps (1881-1953), raised the question of the rights of the wounded. Soldiers suffering from psychotrauma, ignored and regarded as malingerers or deserters, were sentenced to death by the courts-martial. Trials of soldiers or doctors were also held in Germany and Austria. After the war, psychoneurotics long haunted asylums and rehabilitation centers. Abuses related to the treatment of the Great War psychoneuroses nevertheless significantly changed medical concepts, leading to the modern definition of 'posttraumatic stress disorder'.

Mass hysteria revisited.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Instances of mass psychogenic response have occurred throughout history, and across population groups; however, the present-day threat of terrorism and biological warfare is expected to enhance societal vulnerability to epidemics of such events. This paper provides a brief review of the current state of knowledge regarding the conceptualization, diagnosis, and management of mass psychogenic response. RECENT FINDINGS: Various terms are nowadays used to denote mass hysteria, such as 'mass psychogenic illness' and 'mass sociogenic illness'. Recent studies investigating personality types predisposed to mass hysteric reactions are inconclusive with a range of results found. Cognitive models of this condition have been effective in promoting empowerment and adaptation among vulnerable individuals. The actions of governments, medical communities, and the media are pivotal in the management of mass hysteria. SUMMARY: The diagnosis of mass hysteria remains contentious, and the mechanisms underlying its perpetuation are similarly ambiguous. The prevalence of 'threat' within the modern sociocultural climate is likely to increase the incidence of the condition, and this could result in serious implications for health services. A holistic approach entailing the collaboration of various public sectors performing a range of preventive activities will be required to contain future mass psychogenic reactions.

[Hysteria 100 years later]. / L'hystérie, cent ans après.

Is it true that hysteria we see today is no longer that described at the end of the last century? Is it true that Charcot's work on hysteria ended in failure? Contrary to currently accepted opinion, it can be demonstrated not only that Charcot truly laid the foundation for the psychological theory of hysteria but that his explanation of the mechanism of conversion forms the basis for one of the most effective therapies. Furthermore the major streams of thought in psychopathology have come to complete Charcot's point of view and in no way contradict it. A general view of neurosis can thus be distinguished, while not forgetting that these complementary points of view are based on logics of action irreducibles to each other. The interest shown by Charcot in cultural phenomena, such as ecstasy or demoniacal possession, even introduces to an anthropological point of view which situates the hysterical symptom within the more general framework of a universal modality of action.