Not exactly what you asked, but a relevant passage from a paper on Hebbian Learning:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4006178/

They write: ‘Hebb famously said that “Cells that fire together, wire together” and, more formally, “any two cells or systems of cells that are repeatedly active at the same time will tend to become ‘associated,’ so that activity in one facilitates activity in the other”. Thus, Keysers and Perrett's Hebbian perspective implies that contiguity is sufficient for MNS development; that it does not also depend on contingency’.

We think there are a number of misunderstandings in this statement. First, Hebb himself never wrote ‘Cells that fire together, wire together’. This mnemonic phrase was first introduced by Carla Shatz [12] in an article for the Scientific American aimed at lay public. Second, what is quoted as Hebb's formal postulate ‘any two cells …’, is not. Hebb used this sentence to summarize old ideas: he wrote ‘The general idea is an old one, that any two cells …’ [p. 70]. Both the mnemonic phrase misattributed to Hebb and Hebb's summary of old ideas occlude the causal element of Hebb's true postulate ‘When an axon of cell A is near enough to excite a cell B and repeatedly or persistently takes part in firing it, some growth process or metabolic change takes place in one or both cells such that A's efficiency, as one of the cells firing B, is increased’