Zagorsk Experiment and the Fate of the Scientist. In Memory of A.V. Suvorov (1953 — 2024)

The article, based on a study of scientific materials, examines the activities of Alexander V. Suvorov (1953-2024), a Doctor of Psychology, Professor, and the world's only deafblind psychologist, researcher, teacher, philosopher, and poet. His biography is inextricably linked to the study of deafblind individuals in our country, particularly through an experiment involving the training of four pupils from the Zagorsk boarding school at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University from 1972 to 1977. Educating deafblind individuals in the USSR required long-term efforts from defectologists, teachers, and psychologists. The establishment of a boarding school for deafblind children in Zagorsk in 1963 significantly improved the circumstances for this group of individuals, providing them with pathways to full development, social and professional adaptation, and creative self-expression. Four graduates of the Zagorsk boarding school practically validated the scientific theories of Vygotsky, Sokolyansky, Meshcheryakov, and Ilyenkov. The biography of A.V. Suvorov, who made a unique contribution to the development of typhlosurdopsychology as a branch of special psychology, is particularly noteworthy. The scientist was especially interested in the social environment of deafblind individuals, the nature of self-realization, and the sometimes complex relationships they developed with sighted and hearing individuals.

Introduction

On January 26, 2024, in Moscow, our colleague, Alexander V. Suvorov, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of Mowcow State Pedagogical University, and the world’s first deafblind psychologist, teacher, philosopher, and poet, passed away at the age of seventy. He had a hard life, full of trials and creative achievements. He was born in 1953 in Frunze as a completely healthy child. By the age of four his eyesight had sharply deteriorated, and by the age of nine his hearing had declined. Later, he was diagnosed with Friedreich syndrome, a form of congenital spinal cord abnormality that confined him to a wheelchair in the last years of his life. His life was largely shaped by his blindness and deafness. In 1964, he was fortunate to be enrolled in a boarding school for deafblind children in Zagorsk (now Sergiev Posad), which had been opened a year earlier thanks to the efforts of Alexander Meshcheryakov, an outstanding psychologist and student of Alexander Luria. He also continued the ideas of Ivan Sokolyansky.

Alexander Suvorov as a scientist and teacher

The wealth of theoretical and experimental data accumulated by Professor Ivan Sokolyansky laid the groundwork for the special educational institution for deafblind children that was opened in Zagorsk in 1963. In the 1920s, Sokolyansky had operated a small school-clinic for deafblind children in Kharkov, and a similar group had been headed by Augusta Yarmolenko in Leningrad, but almost all the children died during the war. The opening of the Zagorsk Boarding School enabled the experimental initiatives with deafblind children to be continued and implemented more broadly in long-term educational practice. This formed the basis for understanding the learning and development problems of children with both visual and hearing disabilities and created conditions for their successful socialization. Today, this is especially important in light of the rapid development of inclusive education, which faces numerous tasks of a general pedagogical, defectological, and psychological nature.

At the onset of the 1970s, Alexander Meshcheryakov [Meshcheryakov, 1974] had devised a fundamental research initiative that would go down in the history of Russian science as the Zagorsk experiment. Its aim was to explore the potential for deafblind children to attain a comprehensive higher education. At the same time, an assessment was done of the system of education and upbringing of deafblind children at the Zagorsk Children’s Home, as developed by Ivan Sokolyansky, the founder of typhlosurdopedagogy, and his follower Meshcheryakov.

The experiment was prepared by the laboratory for research on deafblind children, under the direction of Meshcheryakov at the Research Institute of Defectology, and the psychology department at Moscow State University under the guidance of Aleksei Leontiev, where the deafblind students were to study.

At the time, there were only two widely known cases of people with visual and hearing impairments who had completed a program of higher education and achieved a high level of intellectual and cultural development. These were the American Helen Keller (1880—1968) and the Russian Olga I. Skorokhodova (1911—1982). Such achievements were considered exceptions and largely attributed to random combinations of favorable factors that had no practical significance.

By 1971, a group of four graduates from the Zagorsk boarding school had been selected. In 1972, they underwent preliminary training at the Institute of Defectology and were enrolled in the psychology department of Moscow State University. The teaching process, utilizing all available resources and methods for teaching the blind and deaf, was successfully completed in 1977.

Not only psychologists, defectologists, speech therapists, and teachers participated in the project, but also a prominent Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov [Il'enkov, 1977]. The experiment yielded positive results, generated significant social resonance, and ignited a vigorous scientific debate that continues to this day, nearly half a century later. Former participants have since engaged in the debate as professional psychologists. The experiment is intrinsically linked to the advancement of integrated and inclusive education, which fosters a new understanding of the personal experiences of “special” individuals among their peers.

We can hypothesize that the Zagorsk experiment was partly motivated by the qualities of the graduates themselves. They were all high academic achievers with pronounced cognitive interests to continue their education. Additionally, they were hard-working, determined, and willing to overcome challenges while supporting one another. These four graduates, along with Alexander Suvorov, whose career and personal development were influenced by the Zagorsk experiment, included Yuri Lerner, Natalia Korneeva, and Sergey Sirotkin. After graduating from Moscow State University, all four were assigned to work at the Research Institute of General and Educational Psychology of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences (now known as the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education). They subsequently pursued diverse paths in their lives.

Yuri M. Lerner (1946—2003) was 25 years old when he enrolled at Moscow State University. He lost his sight at the age of four and his hearing at the age of seven. From the age of nine, he was home-schooled, following the curriculum of an elementary school for the blind. At the age of 17, he attended a boarding school. After graduating from university, he worked as a researcher at the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education and developed a keen interest in sculpture.

Natalia N. Korneeva (married name: Krylatova) was born in 1949 and enrolled at Moscow State University at the age of twenty-one. The first signs of visual and movement disorders were observed after an illness when she was two and a half years old. From the age of nine, she attended a regular school before transferring to a school for the blind; however, by the age of eleven, she began to lose her hearing. From the age of twelve, she studied in the experimental group of the Research Institute of Defectology, and from the age of thirteen, she was enrolled in a boarding school. After graduating from Moscow State University, she worked as a researcher at the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education.

Sergey A. Sirotkin (1949—2021) enrolled at Moscow State University at the age of twenty-two, where he began his studies under the guidance of Professor Sokolyansky. Born with a hearing impairment, he became completely blind at the age of five. From the age of six, he attended a kindergarten for the deaf, where he received individual tutoring, and subsequently continued his education in a school for the blind, also with individualized instruction, before entering the boarding school at the age of fourteen. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy, with his thesis titled “Historical and Methodological Problems of Deafblindness: Myths and Reality” (1988). Following a period of work at the Research Institute of General and Educational Psychology of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, he advanced his career as the head of the newly established Sector for Social Rehabilitation of the Deaf-Blind at the Central Board of the All-Russian Society of the Blind. He dedicated significant time to public service on the Central Board`s Council for Work with the Deaf-Blind and the Standing Commission for the Activities of the Deafblind within the European Blind Union.

Alexander Suvorov forged a distinguished and impactful academic career. His research consistently aligned with the principles of the Zagorsk experiment, contributing to the search for solutions to previously identified challenges while also establishing new objectives for working with the deafblind. The untimely deaths of his mentors, Alexander Meshcheryakov (1923—1974) and Evald Ilyenkov (1924—1979), motivated him to carry on their legacy.

In 1977, Suvorov was appointed as a junior researcher in the Laboratory of Theoretical Problems of the Psychology of Activity at the Research Institute of General and Educational Psychology of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences. Beginning in 1993, he advanced to the roles of senior researcher and then lead researcher in the group focused on the psychology of communication, development, and socio-rehabilitation of personality. He later served as an associate researcher in the Laboratory of Scientific Foundations of Psychological Counseling and Psychotherapy. Suvorov defended his candidate’s thesis, titled “Self-Development of the Individual in the Extreme Situation of Deafblindness,” in 1994, and his doctoral dissertation, titled “Humanity as a Factor in the Self-Development of Personality,” in 1996.

He had been conducting research at the Zagorsk Boarding School since 1981. Influenced by this work, film director Algis Arlauskas made the film “Touch” in 1986.

In 1987, drawing from his own experiences, Suvorov explored the potential for a deafblind teacher to adapt to working with sighted and hearing children at the Salut Young Pioneer Camp in the Luga District of the Leningrad Region. In 1988, he began bringing deafblind children to the camp. He was the founder of the “Collaborative Pedagogy” movement, which included both disabled children and healthy teenagers and adults.

Since 1996, Suvorov taught a specialized course on collaborative pedagogy to hearing-impaired students in the defectology faculty at Moscow State Pedagogical University. From 1996 to 2006, he served as an associate professor and, beginning in 1999, as a professor in the Department of Pedagogical Anthropology at the University of the Russian Academy of Education. Additionally, he lectured at the Moscow Institute of Psychoanalysis and the Russian Orthodox University.

From 2003, Suvorov worked as a leading researcher in various departments at Moscow State Pedagogical University (MSPU), while also teaching as a part-time professor. His final position was in the Department of Special Psychology and Rehabilitation of the Faculty of Clinical and Special Psychology at MSPU.

Suvorov authored over 270 publications. His insights into the mental and spiritual development of individuals experiencing severe sensory deprivation, the distinctiveness of their education, upbringing, and social integration, the realization of their creative potential, and the nature of communication with sighted and hearing individuals areof articles, and two volumes of poetry, along with several psychological essays [Suvorov; Suvorov, 2013; Suvorov, 1997; Suvorov, 1996; Suvorov, 2001; Suvorov, 1995; Suvorov, 2009; Suvorov, 1998; Suvorov, 2021].

At the time of the Zagorsk experiment, the development of human consciousness under conditions of severe visual and auditory impairment was a widely debated issue. Gradually, the focus on consciousness transitioned from philosophical discourse to the scientific domains of psychology, pedagogy, cybernetics, and medicine.

No one denied that visual pathologies, as a primary component of an individual’s sensory organization, and auditory impairments, as a crucial condition for the development of speech, significantly impact mental development. The question was to what extent this impact was irreversible or, as Ilyenkov and Meshcheryakov argued [Il'enkov, 1977; Meshcheryakov, 1974], could be mitigated through corrective and educational work. Ilyenkov posited that the development of consciousness is facilitated by well-developed objective actions and speech. Meshcheryakov further asserted that the formation of uniquely human abiotic, cognitive needs is also essential. From their perspective, these factors were sufficient to discuss the nature of human consciousness. However, even at the outset of the experiment, Meshcheryakov’s ideas faced substantial criticism for underestimating the role of biological factors in personality development and for overemphasizing the significance of social factors in the development of consciousness [Dubrovskii, 1968; Malinovskii, 1970]. The remarkable results of the experiment shifted the focus of the discussion from methodological concerns to clinical and psychological issues, thereby increasing the scientific community’s interest in Meshcheryakov’s research.

It is important to note that for Sergei Rubinstein [Rubinshtein, 1973] and Aleksei Leontiev [Leont'ev, 1948], the consciousness of deafblind individuals was not a primary concern. Rubinstein argued that it was more pertinent to examine the adequacy of reflecting the world through touch, emphasizing that this mode of perception reproduces the properties of an object along nearly the same parameters as vision does.

For Leontiev, the most significant issue was the necessity of social and labor adaptation in the context of vision and hearing loss. This adaptation serves as a means of personality development and self-realization, as well as the capacity to utilize self-observation as a foundation for self-governance and self-disclosure to others.

In studying the psychology of children with sensory disabilities, particularly blindness, Lev Vygotsky [Vygotskii, 2024] emphasized that the psyche of a blind child is not simply the psyche of a sighted person minus all visual impressions. Instead, it is qualitatively distinct, and this distinctiveness is shaped by the absence of certain functions—specifically, vision—and the compensatory mechanisms that develop to mitigate this loss.

Most importantly, the psyche can effectively utilize compensatory mechanisms to maintain its integrity. This principle is particularly relevant in the field of deafblindness.

The difference is that vision and hearing cannot compensate for one another, as seen in cases of blindness and deafness. Compensatory processes involve the retained sensory systems, as well as the processes of attention, speech, and thought.

In this discussion, representatives from various clinical disciplines, such as Vladimir Matveyev, argued that blindness and deafness have a detrimental impact on mental development that is, to some extent, irreversible. A lack of sensory stimulation diminishes overall cerebral activity, affecting the brain’s integrative functions. This deprivation disrupts the functioning of consciousness, potentially leading to psychopathological phenomena [Matveev, 1987].

The former subjects of the Zagorsk experiment participated in the discussion. In interpreting the results of the experiment, they highlighted a factor that they believed the organizers had overlooked. None of the four subjects were deafblind from birth; each had experienced a stage of normal development and possessed a stock of visual impressions, as well as the ability to speak [Slepoglukhonemota: istoricheskie i, 1989].

It should be emphasized, however, that Alexander Meshcheryakov never concealed the anamnestic data of his subjects. He also highlighted that the loss of vision and hearing in these cases did not result in the disintegration of the psyche. The high level of intellectual development achieved as a result of the experiment provides grounds for optimism regarding the development of the psyche under more complex conditions involving innate visual and auditory impairments. Ultimately, this perspective does not contradict the well-established principle of chronogenesis in defectology, which posits that the earlier a particular pathology manifests, the more severe its consequences for the development of the psyche. The functioning of compensatory mechanisms does not fundamentally change with an increased reliance on external assistance in the situation of innate pathology.

It was Lev Vygotsky who introduced the concept of chronogenesis [Vygotskii, 2024], emphasizing that even a brief period of normal development can provide a child significant compensatory potential. The initial retention of vision, hearing, and speech indicates that the human psyche emerge in isolation but is built upon essential prerequisites, even if these are diminished by pathology. This perspective fundamentally alters the interpretation and evaluation of the experimental findings and the conclusions drawn. Cases of total deafblindness are extremely rare, and the prognosis for the mental development of such children is less favorable compared to those who lose their sight and hearing after the age of three. A substantial modern bibliography dedicated to the findings of the Zagorsk experiment reflects the ongoing interest in this issue. In our view, further research should focus on discovering new corrective and educational methods, potentially incorporating artificial intelligence technologies. Simultaneously, our understanding of the na

presented in five monographs, one collection ture and characteristics of impaired development should deepen. This endeavor will undoubtedly raise new questions and reframe existing ones.

It is important to note that the term consciousness was interpreted quite broadly in this discussion and was frequently used as a synonym for the concept of psyche in general [Ivanov, 2001]. The field of typhlosurdopsychology at that time was a relatively modest branch of specialized psychology, which meant that the category of consciousness, in its narrower sense, held little practical significance. However, this situation changed as the number of children with multiple disabilities increased.

This branch of modern special psychology and corrective pedagogy has gained particular relevance today. As Alexander Suvorov noted, psychological studies of individuals with developmental disabilities should place greater emphasis on the issue of self-awareness, defined as the ability to recognize one’s physical and psychological characteristics, including psychophysical disorders. This recognition facilitates adequate self-perception during interactions with the external world, including the social environment, which significantly enhances the socio-psychological adaptation of individuals with developmental disabilities. Consequently, since the early 1990s, the concept of an internal (subjective) picture of defect (hereinafter referred to as IPD) has been utilized in special psychology, and related studies on various categories of children with developmental disabilities have proliferated [Sorokin, 2005].

A significant portion of Alexander Suvorov’s psychological research focuses on the personality development of individuals with visual and hearing impairments, particularly in the realms of cognition, communication, and creativity. His concept of creative self-realization as a crucial factor in the formation of a deafblind individual’s personality builds upon the ideas of his mentors—Alexander Meshcheryakov and Evald Ilyenkov. By fostering creative potential in the context of sensory impairments, it is possible to cultivate not only a well-rounded personality but also effective modes of mutual understanding between sighted, hearing, and deafblind individuals.

Creativity serves as a distinct form of communication, facilitating self-understanding and interaction with others. It is an invaluable tool for addressing a wide range of challenges faced by children in developmental and corrective work [Darinskaia, 2017; Darinskaia, 2022].

Alexander Suvorov understood creative activity in the education of the deafblind not only practically, as the most important means of forming object and spatial representations in such children, but also as a way for them to understand themselves and establish channels of communication with others. He was especially interested in the problem of the psychological barriers between the world of the healthy and the deafblind, manifested in their persistence and impenetrability. It should be noted that this is a universal problem of defectology in general: the society’s attitude towards people with developmental disabilities. Positive dynamics in these relations have been observed due to the active socio-psychological integration of the disabled in the broad sense of the word. Suvorov insisted that joint creative activity is the most important factor in the social integration of deafblind individuals and can contribute to the establishment of positive relationships between them and the sighted and hearing.

Alexander Suvorov worked extensively with the concept of humanity, using it more frequently than the word humaneness, and understood it as an absolute imperative to help a person in need. Humanity is associated with the personality trait of conscientiousness. According to Suvorov, this applies not only to healthy people, who have greater capabilities, but also to the deafblind. No wonder his colleagues called him a teacher with a big heart [Slovo ob Aleksandre, 2024].

As a practicing psychologist, Suvorov did not idealize the deafblind. He understood their diversity, their limited views about the world around them, mobility problems, lack of confidence in their capabilities and usefulness, self-centeredness, etc. At the same time, he believed that humanity, as the universal quality of an individual, must be cultivated in the disabled, because it gives them confidence to overcome negative social stereotypes and barriers. Specialists working with them must clearly possess this trait as well [Ivanov, 2001], because “even the sighted and hearing have their limitations” [Suvorov, p. 5].

Suvorov dedicated his entire life to the conviction that the Zagorsk experiment, in its humanitarian essence, helped bring two different worlds closer together: the world of the sighted and the world of the deafblind. It should be noted that Suvorov was among the first to voice the simple but key idea that the path to breaking the barriers between the worlds of the healthy and the disabled runs through childhood.

Children generally do not have as many prejudices about the disabled as adults. Joint creative activity, including play, is a powerful emotional stimulus and, importantly, introduces a child with developmental disabilities to the phenomenon of improvisation—unplanned, unforeseen, and thus unexpected action—as an important element of creativity and self-disclosure.

Alexander Suvorov’s collaborative pedagogy highlights the fact, well-known in defectology, that in all forms of dysontogenesis, the ability for spontaneous development, i.e., self-learning through observation and imitation, is what suffers most. This is why the directed, organized learning of children with disabilities is more critical than in cases of normal development. In Suvorov’s view, spontaneous development should not only complement directed learning but also emerge within the process of organized learning. In other words, a child should be taught to learn independently. According to Suvorov, “in activity, all restrictions are removed” [Suvorov, p. 15]. It is in joint creative activity that a deafblind person encounters the spontaneous self-learning of sighted people and tries to imitate them.

He thus believed that the problem of the correlation between corrective education and the development of the deafblind can be viewed only in the light of their social and labor adaptation. He did much to ensure that school graduation was not the last important event in the life of the deafblind, followed by psychological degradation and confinement to a psychoneurological institution. He noted that even in the hardest times of the Second World War, the state considered it expedient to use the labor of the disabled as a form of moral mobilization, giving them a sense of being needed and involved in the great cause of victory. In besieged Leningrad, for example, the blind served in air defense units as listeners warning of the approach of enemy aircraft [V Peterburge poyavitsya].

About the works of Alexander Suvorov

We can hardly analyze Alexander Suvorov’s poetic legacy from the point of view of its artistic value. However, it is important to keep in mind that art is a special means of cognition and a rich source of information about the spiritual life of an individual, including one with special needs. Modern special psychology has only begun to make use of this source. As an example, we would like to cite a short poem by Suvorov, which poignantly expresses the drama of a deafblind person locked in their loneliness—something he wrote much about in his psychological texts [Suvorov, 1997]:

Ни капли не веря в чудо,

Not believing in a miracle at all,

Кому-то молюсь порой:

Sometimes I pray to someone:

Возьмите меня отсюда,

Take me from here,

Возьмите меня домой.

Take me home.

О Господи, — всё вздыхаю,

Oh, Lord, I keep sighing,

Расстроенный и больной.

Upset and sick.

Прошусь, а куда — не знаю:

I ask to go, but where — I don’t know:

Возьмите меня домой.

Take me home.

Где мне разрешат в счастливой

Where I will be allowed in a happy

Компании — быть собой,

Company, — to be myself,

Где не было бы надрыва…

Where there will be no strain …

Возьмите меня домой.

Take me home.

И где бы не приставали

And where they will not pester me

С моралью ко мне любой,

With any morality,

На свой бы лад не меняли…

Will not change me in their own way…

Возьмите меня домой.

Take me home.

Где добрые греют взгляды,

Where kind glances warm me,

Где каждому каждый — свой,

Where everyone is kin,

Где сразу — на помощь рады…

Where all are immediately glad to help…

Возьмите меня домой!

Take me home.

(Suvorov, 1997)

As a strong-willed and purposeful individual, Suvorov was well aware from his youth that it was senseless to expect anything from life, that, in fact, it is life that constantly expects action from a person. He steadfastly adhered to this principle, becoming essentially an Adlerian figure, who compensated for his weakness and overcame it. The life of the deafblind, according to Suvorov, posed a stark choice between creative fulfillment and the torment of feeling useless in an indifferent and heartless world [Suvorov, 2021].

Conclusion

In 1924, when Lev Vygotsky came to Moscow to work for the People’s Commissariat of Education, a personnel officer asked him what area he thought he would be most useful in, and he replied, “In the area of educating deafblind children” [Basilova, 2006; Vygodskaya, 1996]. This detail is as well-known as it is difficult to interpret. Vygotsky’s biographers and historians of defectology make various suppositions at odds with the fact that his defectological legacy includes no comprehensive work on the psychology and pedagogy of deafblind children. There are only references to such research in his publications. Vygotsky, it would seem, was ambitious, and when he began forming his concept of the development of an abnormal child, he immediately wanted to tackle the most difficult practical problem. He understood well that the situation of deafblind children was desperate, as difficult, in fact, as that of children with severe mental retardation. Effective means of socio-cultural integration, or, in Vygotsky’s words, “growing into culture,” had not yet been found. The case of Helen Keller was exceptional and often described as a miracle. Ivan Sokolyansky’s experimental work with deafblind children was just getting under way. Vygotsky had only ten years before his death in 1934, so not all of his projects were destined to be realized. Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of work was done.

A hundred years ago, Vygotsky could hardly have imagined the current state of education and upbringing of deafblind children, thanks to the efforts of Ivan Sokolyansky [Sokolyanskii, 1999], Alexander Meshcheryakov [Meshcheryakov, 1974], Augusta Yarmolenko [Yarmolenko, 1961], and many others. Nor could he have imagined that visually and hearing-impaired people would be involved in the education of such children: journalists, scientists, artists, and, prominently among them, Alexander Suvorov.

Over the past century, thanks to the efforts of several generations of researchers, we have acquired extensive knowledge about the mental development of individuals with concurrent visual and hearing impairments and, most importantly, about their potential capabilities. An effective system of training and education of individuals with complex sensory impairments has been created (Andrian Vladimirsky, Ivan Sokolyansky, Augusta Yarmolenko, Alexander Meshcheryakov, Olga Skorokhodova, Tatyana Basilova, Alvin Apraushev, etc.). Alexander Suvorov made a key contribution to this process, actively developing the idea that the full mental development of deafblind people is possible only through broad social integration.

Deafblind children can develop an understanding of their limitations and capabilities if they are involved in activities with normally developing children. This process, repeatedly described by Suvorov, based on his own introspection and practical work with children, is quite dramatic and painful, but it turns a deafblind child from an object of rehabilitation into a subject. From our point of view, this is the principle of humanity in Suvorov’s collaborative pedagogy.

The potential for the social integration of disabled people is largely determined by society’s attitude towards them. Changing this attitude is a long and complex process. Significant results cannot be achieved through the efforts of one person, but this never prevented Alexander Suvorov from attempting to influence society’s attitude towards the disabled. It was the topic of many of his publications, which discussed not only the uniqueness of the psychological configuration of visually and hearing-impaired people—something, important for sighted and hearing people—but also what the deafblind should know about sighted and hearing people. According to Suvorov, it is precisely in the process of reciprocal action that it is possible to overcome the feeling of loneliness, which is the first social consequence of the loss of vision and hearing and the most terrible in its catastrophic effect on the development of the psyche [Meshcheryakov, 1974].

It is worth mentioning that the efforts of Suvorov and other Russian scientists have given typhlosurdopsychology, which was a very modest branch of special psychology, a new impetus for development. We hope that future researchers will explore the rich legacy of Alexander Suvorov.

1. Basilova T.A. O Sokolyanskom i ego metodakh obucheniya glukhikh i slepoglukhikh detei, tak interesovavshikh Vygotskogo [About Sokolyansky and his methods of teaching deaf and deaf-blind children, which interested Vygotsky so much] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2006. Vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 8—16. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/journals/chp/archive/2006_n3/Basilova (Accessed 02.06.2024). (In Russ.).
2. V Peterburge poyavitsya pamyatnik slepym geroyam voiny. Kul'tura Peterburga [A monument to blind war heroes will appear in St. Petersburg. Culture of St. Petersburg] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Available at: https://spbcult.ru/articles/kulturnaya-inklyuziya/slepye-slukhachi-v-leningrade/ (Accessed 16.06.2024). (In Russ.).
3. Vygodskaya G.L., Lifanova T.M. L.S. Vygotskii. Zhizn'. Deyatel'nost'. Shtrikhi k portretu [L.S. Vygotsky. Life. Activity. Touches to the portrait]. Moscow: Akademiya, 1996. 418 p. (In Russ.).
4. Vygotskii L.S. Sobranie sochinenii: v 6 t. T.5. Osnovy defektologii [Collected works: in 6 vol. Vol.5. Fundamentals of defectology]. Moscow: EE Media, 2024. 368 p. (In Russ.).
5. Dubrovskii D.I. Mozg i psikhika [Brain and Psyche]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of Philosophy], 1968, no. 8, pp. 125—135. (In Russ.).
6. Ivanov E.S., Dem'yanchuk L.N., Dem'yanchuk R.V. Bar'ery razrushayutsya v atmosfere tepla [Barriers are destroyed in the heat atmosphere]. Klassnyi zhurnal 5+ [Class journal 5+], 2001, no. 5, pp. 19—20. (In Russ.).
7. Il'enkov E.V. Stanovlenie lichnosti: k itogam nauchnogo eksperimenta [Formation of personality: to the results of a scientific experiment] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Kommunist [Communist], 1977, no. 2, pp. 68—79. Available at: https://dbs-lin.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/personalitaet/ru/index.php?cp=document&id=171 (Accessed 27.05.2024). (In Russ.).
8. Leont'ev A.N. O.I. Skorokhodova. Kak ya vosprinimayu i predstavlyayu okruzhayushchii mir [O.I. Skorokhodova. How I perceive and imagine the world around me] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovetskaya pedagogika [Soviet Pedagogy], 1948, no. 3, p. 107. Available at: https://litmir.club/br/?b=189096 (Accessed 29.05.2024). (In Russ.).
9. Malinovskii A.A. Nekotorye vozrazheniya E.V. Il'enkovu i A.I. Meshcheryakovu [Some Objections to E.V. Ilyenkov and A.I. Meshcheryakov]. Priroda [Nature], 1970, no.1, pp. 92—95.
10. Matveev V.F. Psikhicheskie narusheniya pri defektakh zreniya i slukha [Mental disorders due to visual and hearing defects]. Moscow: Meditsina, 1987. 183 p. (In Russ.).
11. Meshcheryakov A.I. Slepoglukhonemye deti [Deaf-blind children]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1974. 327 p. (In Russ.).
12. Darinskaia L.A. [i dr.]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskoe soprovozhdenie odarennykh uchashchikhsya: uchebno-metod. posobie [Psychological and pedagogical support of gifted students]. In Darinskaia L.A. (ed.) Saint Petersburg: Publ. SPbGU, 2017. 124 p. (In Russ.).
13. Rubinshtein S.L. Neskol'ko zamechanii k psikhologii slepoglukhonemykh [A few comments on the psychology of the deaf-blind]. In Shorokhova E.V. (ed.), Problemy obshchei psikhologii [Problems of General Psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1973, pp. 132—136. (In Russ.).
14. Slepoglukhonemota: istoricheskie i metodologicheskie aspekty. Mify i real'nost' [Deaf-blindness: historical and methodological aspects. Myths and reality] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Moscow: B. i., 1989. 119 p. Available at: http://tlib.gbs.spb.ru/dl/5/Слепоглухонемота.pdf (Accessed 27.09.2024). (In Russ.).
15. Slovo ob Aleksandre Vasil'eviche Suvorove [A Word about Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2024. Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 137—139. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/journals/chp/archive/2024_n1/Suvorov_obituary (Accessed 29.09.2024). (In Russ.).
16. Sokolyanskii I.A. Obuchenie slepoglukhonemykh detei [Education of deaf-blind children]. Defektologiya [Defectology], 1999, no .2, pp.75—84.(In Russ.).
17. Sorokin V.M. Teoreticheskie osnovy spetsial'noi psikhologii [Theoretical Foundations of Special Psychology]. Saint Petersburg: Publ. SPGU, 2005. 200 p. (In Russ.).
18. Suvorov A.V. Vstrecha vselennykh, ili Slepoglukhie prishel'tsy v mire zryacheslyshashchikh

 [Meeting of universes, or Deaf-blind aliens in the world of sighted-hearing people.]. Мoscow: EKSMO, 2018. 512 p. (In Russ.).

1. Suvorov A.V. Iz knigi «Dostoinstvo v sklepe». Stikhi raznykh let [From the book "Dignity in the Crypt". Poems from different years] [Elektronnyi resurs]. «Vash sobesednik», obshcherossiiskii zhurnal dlya slepoglukhikh [“Your Interlocutor”, all-Russian magazine for the deaf-blind], 2013, no. 2, pp. 35—36. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/journals/vashsobesednik/archive/2013_n2/vashsobesednik_2013_n2_67764.pdf (Accessed 06.06. 2024). (In Russ.).
2. Suvorov A.V. Dostoinstvo: Liriko-psikhologicheskoe samoissledovanie [Dignity: Lyrical-Psychological Self-Exploration]. Moscow: Publ. URAO, 1997. 100 p. (In Russ.).
3. Suvorov A.V. Slepoglukhoi v mire zryacheslyshashchikh [A deaf-blind person in a world of sighted-hearing people] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Moscow: Logos, 1996. 118 p. Available at: http://psychlib.ru/inc/absid.php?absid=14534 (Accessed 04.09.2024). (In Russ.).
4. Suvorov A.V. Sovmestnaya pedagogika. Kurs lektsii [Collaborative pedagogy. Lecture course]. Moscow: Publ. URAO, 2001. 222 p. (In Russ.).
5. Suvorov A.V. Shkola Vzaimnoi Chelovechnosti [School of Mutual Humanity]. Moscow: Publ. URAO, 1995. 98 p. (In Russ.).
6. Suvorov A.V. Chelovechnost', dostoinstvo, pedagogika optimizma [Humanity, dignity, pedagogy of optimism]. Moscow: Publ. «Pervoe sentyabrya», 2009. 32 p. (In Russ.).
7. Suvorov A.V. Eksperimental'naya filosofiya (sbornik statei) [Experimental philosophy (collection of articles)]. Moscow: Publ. URAO, 1998. 224 p.(In Russ.).
8. Suvorov A.V. Eksperiment dlinoyu v zhizn' [An experiment that will last a lifetime.]. Moscow: LitGOST, 2021. 240 p. (In Russ.).
9. Yarmolenko A.V. Ocherki psikhologii slepoglukhonemykh [Essays on the psychology of deaf-blind persons]. Leningrad: Publ. LGU, 1961.161 p.(In Russ.).
10. Darinskaia L., Molodtsova G., Sorokin V., Demyanchuk R. Psychological characteristics of creative thinking of children suffering from comorbid ophthalmic pathology [Elektronnyi resurs]. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies “EDULEARN22” (Palma, Spain, 4—6 July, 2022). Palma: Publ. IATED, 2022, pp. 1025—1029. DOI:10.21125/edulearn.2022.0283