The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus
Twenty two newly hatched ducklings (A. platyrhynchos) were either exposed to a moving imprinting stimulus under one of several experimental conditions or exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. During these procedures special equipment was used to record distress calls. Ss individually exposed to...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behaviour 1968-01, Vol.30 (2/3), p.175-191 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 191 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2/3 |
container_start_page | 175 |
container_title | Behaviour |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Hoffman, Howard S. |
description | Twenty two newly hatched ducklings (A. platyrhynchos) were either exposed to a moving imprinting stimulus under one of several experimental conditions or exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. During these procedures special equipment was used to record distress calls. Ss individually exposed to a moving stimulus emitted first more and then fewer distress calls than Ss individually exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. Ss individually exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages emitted distress calls whenever the stimulus disappeared from the visual field, but not otherwise. Ss exposed to the moving stimulus while in the company of other Ss failed to emit distress calls during the imprinting procedures. In subsequent tests for the effects of the several procedures the imprinting stimulus was periodically presented and withdrawn. It was found that when tested in isolation: 1. Regardless of the conditions during imprinting procedures, Ss previously exposed to the moving stimulus emitted distress calls when the imprinted stimulus was withdrawn, but they seldom emitted distress calls when the stimulus was present. In general, Ss that had been exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages (i.e., with subject movement restricted) as well as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in the company of other Ss displayed the same vocalization pattern as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in isolation. These findings indicated that neither freedom to move about nor social isolation during exposure to an imprinting stimulus are necessary conditions for the imprinting stimulus to acquire control over S's distress calls. 2. Ss previously exposed to an empty stimulus compartment emitted more distress calls in the presence of the imprinted stimulus than in its absence. This implied that prior exposure to an imprinting stimulus was a necessary condition for stimulus withdrawal subsequently to evoke distress calls. 3. Additional tests were concerned with the factors that played a role in the behavioral control exhibited by the imprinted stimulus. For example, in the previous tests during stimulus withdrawal the imprinted stimulus was stationary and hence silent. In Test 3, during periods of stimulus withdrawal the stimulus continued to move under conditions in which S could hear but not see it. As in the initial tests, Ss emitted many distress calls during stimulus withdrawal, but they emitted very few calls during stimulus presentation. This find |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84894786</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>4533210</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4533210</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j255t-a68f7f4420963d1e1db3f0861367703c08c2c61c538601a69f7c12c126d2f6b03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhnNQ1nX1HygEBG-FfCc9eJDV1YUFD65eS5om2NI2a5Ie1l9vYIsHYWAYnofhnTkDS4QQL2TJywtwGWOXR8kpX4AFFwJThpbgYf9l4dqPKfgeegef2piCjRF-eqP79ken1o-wPkI9wu1wCO2YbAPfUztM_RSvwLnTfbTXc1-Bj83zfv1a7N5etuvHXdERzlOhhXLSMUZQKWiDLW5q6pDKEYSUiBqkDDECG06VQFiL0kmDSS7RECdqRFfg_rT3EPz3ZGOqhjYa2_d6tH6KlWKqZFKJLN79Ezs_hTFnqzBFVOGSIZKt29ma6sE2VT5r0OFYzV_J_ObEu5h8-MOMU0owor-OAGPf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1303819402</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hoffman, Howard S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Howard S.</creatorcontrib><description>Twenty two newly hatched ducklings (A. platyrhynchos) were either exposed to a moving imprinting stimulus under one of several experimental conditions or exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. During these procedures special equipment was used to record distress calls. Ss individually exposed to a moving stimulus emitted first more and then fewer distress calls than Ss individually exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. Ss individually exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages emitted distress calls whenever the stimulus disappeared from the visual field, but not otherwise. Ss exposed to the moving stimulus while in the company of other Ss failed to emit distress calls during the imprinting procedures. In subsequent tests for the effects of the several procedures the imprinting stimulus was periodically presented and withdrawn. It was found that when tested in isolation: 1. Regardless of the conditions during imprinting procedures, Ss previously exposed to the moving stimulus emitted distress calls when the imprinted stimulus was withdrawn, but they seldom emitted distress calls when the stimulus was present. In general, Ss that had been exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages (i.e., with subject movement restricted) as well as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in the company of other Ss displayed the same vocalization pattern as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in isolation. These findings indicated that neither freedom to move about nor social isolation during exposure to an imprinting stimulus are necessary conditions for the imprinting stimulus to acquire control over S's distress calls. 2. Ss previously exposed to an empty stimulus compartment emitted more distress calls in the presence of the imprinted stimulus than in its absence. This implied that prior exposure to an imprinting stimulus was a necessary condition for stimulus withdrawal subsequently to evoke distress calls. 3. Additional tests were concerned with the factors that played a role in the behavioral control exhibited by the imprinted stimulus. For example, in the previous tests during stimulus withdrawal the imprinted stimulus was stationary and hence silent. In Test 3, during periods of stimulus withdrawal the stimulus continued to move under conditions in which S could hear but not see it. As in the initial tests, Ss emitted many distress calls during stimulus withdrawal, but they emitted very few calls during stimulus presentation. This finding suggested that distress vocalization was primarily under the control of visual rather than auditory stimulation. Test 4 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when Ss were in their own cages versus out of them during testing. More distress calls were emitted when S's cages were removed than when Ss were tested while in their cages. This finding suggested that in part, the control over vocalization exerted by the imprinted stimulus was mediated by the familiarity of the stimulus configuration that prevailed at a given time. Test 5 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when S was tested in isolation versus in the company of a second duckling. Withdrawal of the imprinted stimulus yielded many distress calls when S was alone, but not when S was accompanied by a second duckling. This finding suggested that in isolated Ss the high incidence of distress calls in the absence of the imprinted stimulus was a reflectieon of the withdrawal of social stimulation. /// 22 frischgeschlüpften Stockentchen bot man entweder eine bewegte Führattrappe unter verschiedenen Versuchsbedingungen oder liess sie in einem leeren Zimmer allein und registrierte beidemal ihr Pfeifen des Verlassenseins. Einzeln zur Attrappe gesetzte Entchen pfiffen anfangs öfter, dann seltener als einzeln im leeren Zimmer gelassene. Bei der Attrappe einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen, sobald sie vor ihren Blicken verschwand; solange sie sie sahen, waren sie still. Gemeinsam frei beim "Führkumpan" Gelassene folgten ihm, ohne zu pfeifen. Als in weiteren Versuchen die Führattrappe vorübergehend gezeigt und wieder entfernt wurde, verhielten sich Einzeltiere wie folgt: 1. Alle, die die Attrappe schon kannten, pfiffen gleicherweise bei ihrem Verschwinden und nur selten in ihrer Anwesenheit, gleich ob sie sich im Einzelkäfig oder gesellig ihr folgend auf sie geprägt hatten. 2. Im leeren Raum Gehaltene pfiffen öfter bei der Attrappe als ohne sie, weil sie noch nicht auf sie geprägt waren. 3. Auch im dritten Versuch konnten die Entchen die weggenommene Attrappe natürlich nicht sehen, wohl aber hören, wie sie sich bewegte. In den Anfangsversuchen pfiffen sie viel nach Wegnahme der Attrappe und nur sehr wenig in ihrer Anwesenheit: den Führkumpan zu sehen ist wichtiger, als ihn zu hören. 4. Bisher einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen bei Wegnahme der Attrappe häufiger, wenn man sie freiliess, als wenn sie in ihrem Käfig blieben. Die gewohnte Umgebung bestimmt also die Pfeifhäufigkeit mit. 5. Einzeln gehaltene Tiere pfiffen auf Wegnahme der Attrappe mehr als in Anwesenheit eines zweiten Entchens: das häufige Pfeifen der Verlassenen bei Fehlen der Attrappe ist eine Nachwirkung des sozialer Reize überhaupt.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0005-7959</identifier><identifier>PMID: 5661340</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: E. J. Brill</publisher><subject>Acoustic stimulation ; Animal vocalization ; Animals ; Control groups ; Ducklings ; Ducks ; Experimental procedures ; Hatching ; Imprinting (Psychology) ; Mental stimulation ; Rooms ; Social isolation ; Visual fields ; Vocalization, Animal</subject><ispartof>Behaviour, 1968-01, Vol.30 (2/3), p.175-191</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1968 E. J. Brill</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4533210$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4533210$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,4024,27869,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5661340$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Howard S.</creatorcontrib><title>The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus</title><title>Behaviour</title><addtitle>Behaviour</addtitle><description>Twenty two newly hatched ducklings (A. platyrhynchos) were either exposed to a moving imprinting stimulus under one of several experimental conditions or exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. During these procedures special equipment was used to record distress calls. Ss individually exposed to a moving stimulus emitted first more and then fewer distress calls than Ss individually exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. Ss individually exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages emitted distress calls whenever the stimulus disappeared from the visual field, but not otherwise. Ss exposed to the moving stimulus while in the company of other Ss failed to emit distress calls during the imprinting procedures. In subsequent tests for the effects of the several procedures the imprinting stimulus was periodically presented and withdrawn. It was found that when tested in isolation: 1. Regardless of the conditions during imprinting procedures, Ss previously exposed to the moving stimulus emitted distress calls when the imprinted stimulus was withdrawn, but they seldom emitted distress calls when the stimulus was present. In general, Ss that had been exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages (i.e., with subject movement restricted) as well as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in the company of other Ss displayed the same vocalization pattern as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in isolation. These findings indicated that neither freedom to move about nor social isolation during exposure to an imprinting stimulus are necessary conditions for the imprinting stimulus to acquire control over S's distress calls. 2. Ss previously exposed to an empty stimulus compartment emitted more distress calls in the presence of the imprinted stimulus than in its absence. This implied that prior exposure to an imprinting stimulus was a necessary condition for stimulus withdrawal subsequently to evoke distress calls. 3. Additional tests were concerned with the factors that played a role in the behavioral control exhibited by the imprinted stimulus. For example, in the previous tests during stimulus withdrawal the imprinted stimulus was stationary and hence silent. In Test 3, during periods of stimulus withdrawal the stimulus continued to move under conditions in which S could hear but not see it. As in the initial tests, Ss emitted many distress calls during stimulus withdrawal, but they emitted very few calls during stimulus presentation. This finding suggested that distress vocalization was primarily under the control of visual rather than auditory stimulation. Test 4 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when Ss were in their own cages versus out of them during testing. More distress calls were emitted when S's cages were removed than when Ss were tested while in their cages. This finding suggested that in part, the control over vocalization exerted by the imprinted stimulus was mediated by the familiarity of the stimulus configuration that prevailed at a given time. Test 5 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when S was tested in isolation versus in the company of a second duckling. Withdrawal of the imprinted stimulus yielded many distress calls when S was alone, but not when S was accompanied by a second duckling. This finding suggested that in isolated Ss the high incidence of distress calls in the absence of the imprinted stimulus was a reflectieon of the withdrawal of social stimulation. /// 22 frischgeschlüpften Stockentchen bot man entweder eine bewegte Führattrappe unter verschiedenen Versuchsbedingungen oder liess sie in einem leeren Zimmer allein und registrierte beidemal ihr Pfeifen des Verlassenseins. Einzeln zur Attrappe gesetzte Entchen pfiffen anfangs öfter, dann seltener als einzeln im leeren Zimmer gelassene. Bei der Attrappe einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen, sobald sie vor ihren Blicken verschwand; solange sie sie sahen, waren sie still. Gemeinsam frei beim "Führkumpan" Gelassene folgten ihm, ohne zu pfeifen. Als in weiteren Versuchen die Führattrappe vorübergehend gezeigt und wieder entfernt wurde, verhielten sich Einzeltiere wie folgt: 1. Alle, die die Attrappe schon kannten, pfiffen gleicherweise bei ihrem Verschwinden und nur selten in ihrer Anwesenheit, gleich ob sie sich im Einzelkäfig oder gesellig ihr folgend auf sie geprägt hatten. 2. Im leeren Raum Gehaltene pfiffen öfter bei der Attrappe als ohne sie, weil sie noch nicht auf sie geprägt waren. 3. Auch im dritten Versuch konnten die Entchen die weggenommene Attrappe natürlich nicht sehen, wohl aber hören, wie sie sich bewegte. In den Anfangsversuchen pfiffen sie viel nach Wegnahme der Attrappe und nur sehr wenig in ihrer Anwesenheit: den Führkumpan zu sehen ist wichtiger, als ihn zu hören. 4. Bisher einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen bei Wegnahme der Attrappe häufiger, wenn man sie freiliess, als wenn sie in ihrem Käfig blieben. Die gewohnte Umgebung bestimmt also die Pfeifhäufigkeit mit. 5. Einzeln gehaltene Tiere pfiffen auf Wegnahme der Attrappe mehr als in Anwesenheit eines zweiten Entchens: das häufige Pfeifen der Verlassenen bei Fehlen der Attrappe ist eine Nachwirkung des sozialer Reize überhaupt.</description><subject>Acoustic stimulation</subject><subject>Animal vocalization</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Control groups</subject><subject>Ducklings</subject><subject>Ducks</subject><subject>Experimental procedures</subject><subject>Hatching</subject><subject>Imprinting (Psychology)</subject><subject>Mental stimulation</subject><subject>Rooms</subject><subject>Social isolation</subject><subject>Visual fields</subject><subject>Vocalization, Animal</subject><issn>0005-7959</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1968</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkE1LxDAQhnNQ1nX1HygEBG-FfCc9eJDV1YUFD65eS5om2NI2a5Ie1l9vYIsHYWAYnofhnTkDS4QQL2TJywtwGWOXR8kpX4AFFwJThpbgYf9l4dqPKfgeegef2piCjRF-eqP79ken1o-wPkI9wu1wCO2YbAPfUztM_RSvwLnTfbTXc1-Bj83zfv1a7N5etuvHXdERzlOhhXLSMUZQKWiDLW5q6pDKEYSUiBqkDDECG06VQFiL0kmDSS7RECdqRFfg_rT3EPz3ZGOqhjYa2_d6tH6KlWKqZFKJLN79Ezs_hTFnqzBFVOGSIZKt29ma6sE2VT5r0OFYzV_J_ObEu5h8-MOMU0owor-OAGPf</recordid><startdate>19680101</startdate><enddate>19680101</enddate><creator>Hoffman, Howard S.</creator><general>E. J. Brill</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>HQAFP</scope><scope>IBDFT</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19680101</creationdate><title>The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus</title><author>Hoffman, Howard S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j255t-a68f7f4420963d1e1db3f0861367703c08c2c61c538601a69f7c12c126d2f6b03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1968</creationdate><topic>Acoustic stimulation</topic><topic>Animal vocalization</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Control groups</topic><topic>Ducklings</topic><topic>Ducks</topic><topic>Experimental procedures</topic><topic>Hatching</topic><topic>Imprinting (Psychology)</topic><topic>Mental stimulation</topic><topic>Rooms</topic><topic>Social isolation</topic><topic>Visual fields</topic><topic>Vocalization, Animal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hoffman, Howard S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 23</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 27</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Behaviour</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hoffman, Howard S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus</atitle><jtitle>Behaviour</jtitle><addtitle>Behaviour</addtitle><date>1968-01-01</date><risdate>1968</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2/3</issue><spage>175</spage><epage>191</epage><pages>175-191</pages><issn>0005-7959</issn><abstract>Twenty two newly hatched ducklings (A. platyrhynchos) were either exposed to a moving imprinting stimulus under one of several experimental conditions or exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. During these procedures special equipment was used to record distress calls. Ss individually exposed to a moving stimulus emitted first more and then fewer distress calls than Ss individually exposed to an empty stimulus compartment. Ss individually exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages emitted distress calls whenever the stimulus disappeared from the visual field, but not otherwise. Ss exposed to the moving stimulus while in the company of other Ss failed to emit distress calls during the imprinting procedures. In subsequent tests for the effects of the several procedures the imprinting stimulus was periodically presented and withdrawn. It was found that when tested in isolation: 1. Regardless of the conditions during imprinting procedures, Ss previously exposed to the moving stimulus emitted distress calls when the imprinted stimulus was withdrawn, but they seldom emitted distress calls when the stimulus was present. In general, Ss that had been exposed to the moving stimulus while in their cages (i.e., with subject movement restricted) as well as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in the company of other Ss displayed the same vocalization pattern as Ss that had been exposed to the stimulus in isolation. These findings indicated that neither freedom to move about nor social isolation during exposure to an imprinting stimulus are necessary conditions for the imprinting stimulus to acquire control over S's distress calls. 2. Ss previously exposed to an empty stimulus compartment emitted more distress calls in the presence of the imprinted stimulus than in its absence. This implied that prior exposure to an imprinting stimulus was a necessary condition for stimulus withdrawal subsequently to evoke distress calls. 3. Additional tests were concerned with the factors that played a role in the behavioral control exhibited by the imprinted stimulus. For example, in the previous tests during stimulus withdrawal the imprinted stimulus was stationary and hence silent. In Test 3, during periods of stimulus withdrawal the stimulus continued to move under conditions in which S could hear but not see it. As in the initial tests, Ss emitted many distress calls during stimulus withdrawal, but they emitted very few calls during stimulus presentation. This finding suggested that distress vocalization was primarily under the control of visual rather than auditory stimulation. Test 4 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when Ss were in their own cages versus out of them during testing. More distress calls were emitted when S's cages were removed than when Ss were tested while in their cages. This finding suggested that in part, the control over vocalization exerted by the imprinted stimulus was mediated by the familiarity of the stimulus configuration that prevailed at a given time. Test 5 examined the effects of stimulus presentation and withdrawal when S was tested in isolation versus in the company of a second duckling. Withdrawal of the imprinted stimulus yielded many distress calls when S was alone, but not when S was accompanied by a second duckling. This finding suggested that in isolated Ss the high incidence of distress calls in the absence of the imprinted stimulus was a reflectieon of the withdrawal of social stimulation. /// 22 frischgeschlüpften Stockentchen bot man entweder eine bewegte Führattrappe unter verschiedenen Versuchsbedingungen oder liess sie in einem leeren Zimmer allein und registrierte beidemal ihr Pfeifen des Verlassenseins. Einzeln zur Attrappe gesetzte Entchen pfiffen anfangs öfter, dann seltener als einzeln im leeren Zimmer gelassene. Bei der Attrappe einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen, sobald sie vor ihren Blicken verschwand; solange sie sie sahen, waren sie still. Gemeinsam frei beim "Führkumpan" Gelassene folgten ihm, ohne zu pfeifen. Als in weiteren Versuchen die Führattrappe vorübergehend gezeigt und wieder entfernt wurde, verhielten sich Einzeltiere wie folgt: 1. Alle, die die Attrappe schon kannten, pfiffen gleicherweise bei ihrem Verschwinden und nur selten in ihrer Anwesenheit, gleich ob sie sich im Einzelkäfig oder gesellig ihr folgend auf sie geprägt hatten. 2. Im leeren Raum Gehaltene pfiffen öfter bei der Attrappe als ohne sie, weil sie noch nicht auf sie geprägt waren. 3. Auch im dritten Versuch konnten die Entchen die weggenommene Attrappe natürlich nicht sehen, wohl aber hören, wie sie sich bewegte. In den Anfangsversuchen pfiffen sie viel nach Wegnahme der Attrappe und nur sehr wenig in ihrer Anwesenheit: den Führkumpan zu sehen ist wichtiger, als ihn zu hören. 4. Bisher einzeln Gekäfigte pfiffen bei Wegnahme der Attrappe häufiger, wenn man sie freiliess, als wenn sie in ihrem Käfig blieben. Die gewohnte Umgebung bestimmt also die Pfeifhäufigkeit mit. 5. Einzeln gehaltene Tiere pfiffen auf Wegnahme der Attrappe mehr als in Anwesenheit eines zweiten Entchens: das häufige Pfeifen der Verlassenen bei Fehlen der Attrappe ist eine Nachwirkung des sozialer Reize überhaupt.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>E. J. Brill</pub><pmid>5661340</pmid><tpages>17</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0005-7959 |
ispartof | Behaviour, 1968-01, Vol.30 (2/3), p.175-191 |
issn | 0005-7959 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84894786 |
source | MEDLINE; Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Acoustic stimulation Animal vocalization Animals Control groups Ducklings Ducks Experimental procedures Hatching Imprinting (Psychology) Mental stimulation Rooms Social isolation Visual fields Vocalization, Animal |
title | The Control of Distress Vocalization by an Imprinted Stimulus |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T22%3A45%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Control%20of%20Distress%20Vocalization%20by%20an%20Imprinted%20Stimulus&rft.jtitle=Behaviour&rft.au=Hoffman,%20Howard%20S.&rft.date=1968-01-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2/3&rft.spage=175&rft.epage=191&rft.pages=175-191&rft.issn=0005-7959&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4533210%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1303819402&rft_id=info:pmid/5661340&rft_jstor_id=4533210&rfr_iscdi=true |