Middle Temporal Cortical Visual Area Visuospatial Function in Galago senegalensis

Bushbabies with lesions restricted to the middle temporal (MT) area and animals with larger extrastriate lesions including area MT were compared with normal control animals on tests of visuospatial localization and discrimination learning. Ablation of area MT was sufficient to produce impairments in directing behavior appropriately on the basis of visuospatial cues. Extension of the lesion into areas 18 and 19 produced more profound deficits. Retardation in learning a stripe discrimination problem was correlated with the extent of damage to the geniculostriate system. It is hypothesized that area MT is important in achieving and maintaining fixation on a target whereas cortical areas 18 and 19 are necessary for establishing the location of stimulation in visual space

Paradoxical effects of experience with food size and flavour in golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus)

Young hamsters were reared until 35 days of age with access to food pellets of one of three sizes. They were then given a choice between the three sizes of pellets: the familiar size and two unfamiliar sizes, and the rate of energy gain from eating pellets of each size was established. Contrary to predictions from optimal foraging theory, the animals chose pellets of the most unfamiliar size, not the most profitable ones. A taste preference study was conducted to see whether hamsters respond to taste cues as do other rodents. The animals showed a preference for familiar flavours. The results of these studies suggest that the sorts of experiences animals have had with food must be considered in any account of food choice behaviour

Development of visual species identification in ducklings: What is the role of imprinting?

The phenomenon of imprinting (a rapid form of exposure learning) is widely presumed to underlie the formation of normal, species-typical social preferences in precocial birds. To determine whether this is in fact the case, 24-h-old domestic and semi-wild mallard ducklings (Anas platyrhynchos) were allowed to follow a stuffed hen of one of three sympatric waterfowl species for 20 min. The models used were mallard, redhead (Aythya americana), and pintail (Anas acuta) hens. When later tested for their preference for the familiar hen in simultaneous choice tests with one of the other two stuffed models, only those birds trained with the Mallard and tested with the Mallard and Pintail models (designated the Mallard versus Pintail group) showed a preference for the familiar model. (That preference was shown by both domestic and semi-wild ducklings.) In none of the other three groups (Mallard versus Redhead, Redhead versus Mallard, and Pintail versus Mallard) was the imprinting procedure effective in producing a preference for the familiar model. When other ducklings were similarly trained with either the Mallard model, a red-and-white-striped box, or a green styrofoam ball, a preference for the familiar model was found in all four groups (.Mallard versus Red Box, Red Box versus Mallard, Red Box versus Green Ball, and Green Ball versus Red Box). Increasing the length of the training period from 20 min to 2 h and to 24 h did not produce a preference for the familiar Mallard over the unfamiliar Redhead. These results raise some doubt that imprinting as currently conceived is the behavioural mechanism of visual species identification as it occurs in nature

Theoretical Considerations in the Adaptation of Animal Communication Systems

Using concepts drawn from semiotic, the general theory of signs, and from the mathematical theory of communication, a theoretical framework is developed within which the problems relating to communication system adaptation may be defined and models of such adaptation constructed. The relationship between the semiotical notions of qualisign and legisign is used to define a concept of tolerance space that permits the statistical concept of equivocation to take on physical dimensions in the analysis of natural communication systems. For each of three central properties of the communication system (entropy, equivocation and semantic-pragmatic relations) the components of the system that determine the property are identified and the ways in which these components might adapt to environmental changes are discussed

Neophenogenesis: A developmental theory of phenotypic evolution

An important task for evolutionary biology is to explain how phenotypes change over evolutionary time. Neo-Darwinian theory explains phenotypic change as the outcome of genetic change brought about by natural selection. In the neo-Darwinian account, genetic change is primary; phenotypic change is a secondary outcome that is often given no explicit consideration at all. In this article, we introduce the concept of neophenogenesis: a persistent, transgenerational change in phenotypes over evolutionary time. A theory of neophenogenesis must encompass all sources of such phenotypic change, not just genetic ones. Both genetic and extra-genetic contributions to neophenogenesis have their effect through the mechanisms of development, and developmental considerations, particularly a rejection of the commonly held distinction between inherited and acquired traits, occupy a central place in neophenogenetic theory. New phenotypes arise because of a change in the patterns of organism-environment interaction that produce development in members of a population. So long as these new patterns of developmental interaction persist, the new phenotype(s) will also persist. Although the developmental mechanisms that produce the novel phenotype may change, as in the process known as "genetic assimilation", such changes are not necessary in order for neophenogenesis to occur, because neophenogenetic theory is a theory of phenotypic, not genetic, change

The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioral development

The inadequacies of dichotomous views of behavioral development that oppose learned and innate behavior, or genetic and environmental determinants of behavior, have long been recognized. However, they continue to exert a powerful influence on current thinking about development, often by way of metaphors that simply recast these old ideas in a more modern technical vocabulary. The idea that the information for behavior can be attributed to either genetic or environmental sources was originated by Lorenz and provides the basis for many current dichotomous accounts of behavioral development. Lorenz's "sources of information" metaphor for development is fundamentally flawed, however, as are those more recent accounts that are based on it. The alternative interactionist account of development, most clearly articulated by Lehrman, is a far more powerful and coherent theoretical framework for development, but it has not been broadly assimilated into psychology and continues to be widely misunderstood. In particular, the interactionist account does not involve a radical environmenta-lism, does not attribute all behavior to the effects of learning, and does not interpret development as a gene-environment interaction. The attractive simplicity of dichotomous thinking encourages its continued application to the study of development despite the fact that it is clearly inadequate to the complexities of developmental analysis

Developmental explanation and the ontogeny of birdsong: Nature/nurture redux

Despite several decades of criticism, dichotomous thinking about behavioral development (the view that the behavioral phenotype can be partitioned into inherited and acquired components) remains widespread and influential. This is particularly true in study of birdsong development, where it has become increasingly common to diagnose songs, elements of songs, or precursors of songs (song templates) as either innate or learned on the basis of isolation-rearing experiments. The theory of sensory templates has encouraged both the dichotomous approach (by providing a role for genetic blueprints to guide song learning) and an emphasis on structural rather than functional aspects of song development. As a result, potentially important lines of investigation have been overlooked and the interpretation of existing data is often flawed. Evidence for a genetic origin of behavioral differences is frequently interpreted as evidence for the genetic determination of behavioral characters. The technique of isolation rearing remains the methodology of choice for many investigators, despite the fact that it offers only a rather crude analysis of the contribution of experience to song development and provides no information at all about genetic contributions to development. The latter could in principle be elucidated by the application of developmental-genetic techniques, but it is unlikely that these can easily be applied to the study of birdsong. Because developmental questions are so often posed in terms of the learned—innate dichotomy, "experience"istaken to be synonymous with "learning" and the possible role of nonobvious contributions to song development has largely been ignored. An alternative approach, based on Daniel Lehrman's interactionist theory of development, permits a more thorough appreciation of the problems that have yet to be addressed, and provides a more secure conceptual foundation for theories of song development

Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior

Explaining how genes influence behavior is important to many branches of psychology, including development, behavior genetics, and evolutionary psychology. Presented here is a developmental model linking the immediate consequence of gene activity (transcription of messenger RNA molecules from DNA sequences) to behavior through multiple molecular, cellular, and physiological levels. The model provides a level of detail appropriate to theories of behavioral development that recognizes the molecular level of gene action, dispensing with the metaphorical use of such terms as blueprints, plans, or constraints that has obscured much previous discussion. Special attention is paid to the possible role of immediate-early genes in initiating developmental responses to experience, adding specificity to the claim that neither genes nor experience act alone to shape development

An early manuscript in the history of American comparative psychology: Lewis Henry Morgan’s “Animal Psychology”

Abstract: Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) is best known as the 1st ethnographer of Native American culture, but he also wrote on animal psychology, beginning in 1843, some 50 years before the founding of comparative psychology as a scientific discipline. Although not an evolutionist, Morgan argued that animals possess many human mental abilities, such as reason and moral judgment, and he rejected the scientific utility of the concept of instinct, a view that did not gain much currency in psychology until the rise of behaviorism in the 1920s. This 1857 manuscript, which is in the Lewis Henry Morgan Papers at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, formed the basis for the last chapter of his 1868 monograph on the American beaver but gives additional information on his sources and an expanded criticism of the concept of instinct

Three pioneers of American comparative psychology, 1843-1890: Lewis Henry Morgan, John Bascom, and Joseph LeConte

Abstract: Scientific comparative psychology in America dates from the mid-1890s, but there is a body of earlier literature on the topic, written during a period of theistic debates over Darwinian evolution. The anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan rejected instinct as an explanation of animal behavior in 1843 and defended the mental similarities between animals and humans, although he was not an evolutionist. John Bascom's textbook Comparative Psychology (1878) is the earliest American work to use that title, and its theistic approach anticipates some arguments found in much later evolutionary works. Beginning in 1860, the geologist Joseph LeConte, who is well known for defending the compatibility of evolution and religion, wrote several articles in which he outlined a comparative evolutionary approach to psychological problems. However, these writers did not establish a coherent research tradition and were ignored by the "New Psychologists" of the 1880s