Neuroethological Analysis of the Innate Releasing Mechanism for Prey-Catching Behavior in Toads

Ewert, Jörg-Peter; Burghagen, H.; Schürg-Pfeiffer, E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-4412-4_21

Cited by 58 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 103 publications

(141 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prey capture behavior of normal anurans has been described by many past workers [Ingle, 1968[Ingle, , 1970Ewert, 1970;Comer and Grobstein, 1981b;Ewert et al, 1981;Grobstein, 1982, 1987a]. Our findings confirm past reports Grobstein, 1982, 1987a] that normal Rana pipiens can make orienting turns to visual stimuli at locations throughout a full 360 degrees around the animal in the horizontal plane.…”

Section: The Visual Orienting Behavior Of Normal Frogssupporting

confidence: 82%

The Effects of Telencephalic Lesions on Visually Mediated Prey Orienting Behavior in the Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)

Patton

Grobstein²

1998

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we report studies aimed at characterizing the relationship between forebrain and midbrain systems involved in the control of prey orienting behavior in the leopard frog. In frogs, unilateral forebrain lesions, like unilateral tectal lobe lesions, have their most prominent effects in the contralateral monocular visual field. Such lesions produce partial reductions in response frequency in the binocular visual field as well. Similar sequelae follow unilateral tectal lobe removal. These findings suggest that the effects of unilateral forebrain removal can be largely attributed to removal of a facilitating influence on the tectal lobe on the same side of the brain. In the case of both forebrain and midbrain lesions, behavior was assayed not only in terms of the frequency with which animals responded to stimuli at various locations in the visual field (as is usually done) but also in terms of the latency of whatever responses were observed. A striking inverse relationship between response frequency and response latency was found, both in lesioned and in normal frogs. This relationship has not previously been noticed, doesn’t appear to be an obvious consequence of any existing models of the neuronal circuitry underlying anuran orienting behavior, and is difficult to account for in terms of the time scales associated with axonal conduction times and synaptic delays. It may be easier to account for in terms of the responses to perturbation of large interacting systems of neurons, and this possibility seems worthy of further exploration.

show abstract

Section: The Visual Orienting Behavior Of Normal Frogssupporting

confidence: 82%

The Effects of Telencephalic Lesions on Visually Mediated Prey Orienting Behavior in the Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens)

Patton

Grobstein²

1998

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The neurons were classified according to Ewert et al [1983] and Ewert [1984] by the following criteria: (a) on-off characteristics in response to brisk changes of diffuse light; (b) size of the ERF; (c) response to a stationary stimulus after the stimulus was moved into the ERF center; (d) stimulus discrimination in re sponse to W, A and Si, and (e) recording site.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparative behavioral experiments in nonmov ing, self-moving and passively moved toads have pro vided evidence that the background texture plays a prominent role in the discrimination of moving reti nal images caused by object motion or self-induced motion [Burghagen and Ewert, 1983]. Obviously, not the 'reafference principle' [von Holst and Mittelstädt, 1950] but surround inhibition [Frost, 1982] appears to be the main tool by which toads classify the origin of a moving retinal image.…”

Section: Moving Textured Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Obviously, not the 'reafference principle' [von Holst and Mittelstädt, 1950] but surround inhibition [Frost, 1982] appears to be the main tool by which toads classify the origin of a moving retinal image. For example, a self-moving toad orients and snaps toward a small black station ary object of prey shape if it occurs against a homo geneous white or gray background, but the same object is masked if it is attached to a black/whitetextured background [Burghagen and Ewert, 1983].…”

Section: Moving Textured Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Quantitative behavioral experiments in common toads have shown that moving textured backgrounds may have masking effects on the detection of a mov ing visual prey object [Ewert and Härter, 1969;Burghagen and Ewert, 1983;Ewert et al, 1983].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Influence of Stationary and Moving Textured Backgrounds on the Response of Visual Neurons in Toads (Bufo bufo L.)

Tsai¹,

Ewert²

1988

Brain Behav Evol

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that configurational prey recognition in common toads is performed by feature-analyzing functional units consisting of assemblies of connected neurons such as retinal (classes R2, R3), tectal [classes T5(1), T5(2), T5(3)], and pretectal (class TH3) cells. In the present paper, effects of textured backgrounds on the response of these neurons to a configurational moving stimulus have been tested quantitatively. (1) In all investigated neurons, neither the overall activation nor the respective stimulus-response relationships were significantly influenced by a stationary black/white-textured background as far as black stimulus objects are concerned. (2) The neuronal activity in response to a moving object (signal) could be inhibited (masked) if a black/white-textured background (noise) was moving simultaneously at the same speed. The strength (I) of this 'surround inhibition' (signal masking by the background) was different in the various classes of neurons, i.e. strongest for T5(2) and weakest for R3: I_T5(2) I_T5(1) I_T5(3) > I_R2 > I_TH3 I_R3. These inhibitory effects were not correlated with the size of the neuronal excitatory receptive field (ERF), since T4 neurons (ERF = 180°) in this context displayed response properties similar to T5(2) neurons (ERF < 30°). (3) It is suggested that the signal (prey)-masking effect of a moving textured background is brought about by pretecto (TH3)-tectal [T5(1), T5(2)] inhibitory connectivity which allows toads: (a) to select prey from nonprey; (b) to discriminate between prey and a textured background, and (c) to determine the origin of moving retinal images caused either by object movement or by self-induced motion.

show abstract

Bibliography

2006

The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroethological Analysis of the Innate Releasing Mechanism for Prey-Catching Behavior in Toads

Cited by 58 publications

References 103 publications

The Effects of Telencephalic Lesions on Visually Mediated Prey Orienting Behavior in the Leopard Frog <i>(Rana pipiens)</i>

The Effects of Telencephalic Lesions on Visually Mediated Prey Orienting Behavior in the Leopard Frog <i>(Rana pipiens)</i>

Influence of Stationary and Moving Textured Backgrounds on the Response of Visual Neurons in Toads <i>(Bufo bufo </i>L.)

Bibliography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About