Acquisition of behavioral control by a stationary imprinting stimulus

Behavioral control by stimulus components of an imprinting object

“…Among these similarities are the facts that both types of features are initially neutral in their effects upon ongoing distress vocalization (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1974;Hoffman et al, 1972), both types acquire suppressive properties only when they are paired with visual movement (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1974;Hoffman et al, 1972), and, after such acquisition, both types subsequently retain those suppressive properties throughout prolonged periods in which they are no Ionger accompanied by visual movement (Eiserer, Hoffman, & Klein, 1975). The present experiment adds still another Results Figure 2 shows the mean number of seconds of distress vocalization emitted during, and in the 10 sec immediately following, presentations of the moving object and its visual and auditory features, relative to parallel baseline periods.…”

“…Although the static visual features and the auditory features of a laboratory imprinting object may not innately elicit filial behavior, these features can gradually acquire strong suppressive properties if the ducklings receive prolonged exposure to the object in motion (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1974;Eiserer, Hoffman, & Klein, 1975;Hoffman, Eiserer, & Singer, 1972). Thus, in ducklings that periodically see the imprinting object in motion, the static visual features and the auditory features gradually acquire the ability to suppress distress calls by themselves (i.e., without the accompaniment of visual motion).…”

“…Thus, in ducklings that periodically see the imprinting object in motion, the static visual features and the auditory features gradually acquire the ability to suppress distress calls by themselves (i.e., without the accompaniment of visual motion). Importantly, prolonged exposure to these initially neutral features by themselves does not seem sufficient for the acquisition of suppressive properties; repeated exposure to the object in motion is needed (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1974;Hoffman et al, 1972).…”

Acquisition of behavioral control by static visual features of an imprinting object: Species generality

“…Although the object may not initially elicit filial responses if it remains stationary (Hoffman et al, 1970), it will do so after the duckling has received prolonged exposure to the object in motion (Eiserer, 1977). Importantly, the acquisition of behavioral control by the stationary imprinting object can be demonstrated even under conditions in which prolonged' exposure to the stationary object itself is not sufficient, that is, when repeated exposure to the object in motion is essential (Hoffman, Eiserer, & Singer, 1972).…”

“…As noted elsewhere (Eiserer, 1978b(Eiserer, , 1980, the acquisition of behavioral control by initially neutral features of an imprinting object seems to represent the very essence of infantile attachments to specific surrogate objects. Moreover, the acquisition phenomenon is of great theoretical interest as well, particularly in connection with classical conditioning vs. perceptual learning theories of imprinting (Eiserer, 1978b(Eiserer, , 1980 however, apparently the only precocial bird in which the effect has been specifically studied is the duck (Eiserer, 1977(Eiserer, , 1980Eiserer & Hoffman, 1973, 1974Eiserer, Hoffman, & Klein, 1975;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978;Hoffman et al, 1972). Klopfer (1965) reported a similar effect in chicks; subjects exposed to a moving object subsequently preferred that object even when it was stationary.…”