Advertisement

Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 251–265 | Cite as

The evolutionary significance of habituation and sensitization across phylogeny: A behavioral homeostasis model

  • E. M. Eisenstein
  • D. Eisenstein
  • James C. Smith
Papers

Abstract

The phenomenon of habituation may be interpreted as a process that has evolved for filtering out iterative stimuli of little present relevance. That habituation is seen in aneural as well as neural organisms throughout phylogeny with remarkably similar characteristics suggests that its role is an important one in animal survival. If habituation is to be viewed as a process to filter out iterative stimuli that have no significant consequences, then how is sensitization to be viewed? One way of viewing these two behavioral changes, i.e. habituation and sensitization, is that they are homeostatic processes which optimize an organism’s likelihood of detecting and assessing the significance of a stimulus in a new iterative series or a change in it. If one views the level of initial responsiveness to a new stimulus as a function of an organism’s threshold just prior to stimulus occurrence, then “high responders” (i.e. those who initially react more strongly) are assumed to have a lower threshold for detecting and assessing the significance of this stimulus than are the “low responders” (i.e. those who initially react more weakly). Thus, high-responders would initially receive more sensory input and progressively decrease their responsiveness to a non-threatening stimulus (habituation). Likewise, initial low-responders would receive less sensory input followed by a decreased threshold and an increased response to the next stimulus occurrence (sensitization). The level of responsiveness achieved in both habituaters and sensitizers, as an asymptote is approached, is a balance between being too sensitive to an unimportant stimulus (and possibly missing other significant stimuli) and being too insensitive, and missing a change in the relevance of the present stimulus. These response changes can be taken as indices of the organism’s mechanisms for achieving an appropriate threshold level to an iterative stimulus in order to accurately assess its present significance and then eventually to asymptote at an optimal stable response level. This approach toward an asymptote is a behavioral homeostatic process that reflects the accumulated significance of the iterative stimulus at each occurrence. The purpose of adding “behavioral” to the term “homeostasis” is to extend the usual meaning of the concept from primarily internal processes to also include (a) iterative external stimulation, (b) the organism’s initial threshold to the initial stimulus as well as (c) the behavior which results from it. Since we are discussing organisms that range from intact, single-celled protozoa to intact mammals, as well as surgically simplified preparations, the termsstimulus, response andbehavior will be used broadly. While other investigators have focused on specific cellular mechanisms underlying habituation and sensitization in a given organism, this paper focuses on the adaptive significance of these two behavioral processes viewed across phylogeny.

Keywords

habituation sensitization evolution learning behavior homeostasis behavioral homeostasis sensoristasis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonov, I., Kandel, E. R., Hawkins, R.D. (1999). The contribution of facilitation of monosynaptic PSP’s to dishabituation and sensitization of theAplysia siphon withdrawal reflex. J. Neurosci. 19(23), 10438–10450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Applewhite, P.B., Gardner, F.T., & Lapan, E. (1969). Physiology of habituation learning in a protozoan. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 31, 842–849.Google Scholar
  3. Boucsein, W., Hoffman, G. (1979). A direct comparison of the skin conductance and skin resistance methods. Psychophysiol. 16(1), 66–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boucsein, W., Baltissen, R., Evler, M. (1984). Dependence of skin conductance reactions and skin resistance reactions upon previous level. Psychophysiol. 21(2), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brudzynski, S. (2001). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. & Kennedy, D. (1970). Habituation: occurrence at a neuromuscular junction. Science, 169, 92–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, T.E., Kaplan, S.W., Kandel, E.R., Hawkins, R.D. (1997). A simplified preparation for relating cellular events to behavior: Mechanisms contributing to habituation, dishabituation, and sensitization of theAplysia gill-withdrawal reflex. J. Neurosci. 17(8), 2886–2899.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, D.R. & Krkovic, J. (1965). Skin conductance, alpha-activity and vigilance. Amer. J. Psych. 78, 304–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dempsey, E.W. Homeostasis. In: S.S. Stevens (Ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 1951 Chapter 6, pp. 209–235. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. N.Y. 1951.Google Scholar
  10. Eisenstein, E.M. (1975). Aneural systems and neurobiology: A point of view. In E.M. Eisenstein (ed.), Aneural organisms in neurobiology (pp. 1–3), New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenstein, E.M., Brunder, D.G. & Blair, H.J. (1982). Habituation and sensitization in an aneural cell: Some comparative and theoretical considerations. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 5, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenstein, E.M., Eisenstein, D. & Bonheim, P. (1991). Initial habituation or sensitization depends on magnitude of first response. Physiol. & Behav. 49, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenstein, E.M., Osborn, D. & Blair, H.J. (1973). Behavior modification in protozoa. In A. Perez-Miravete (ed.), Behavior of microorganisms, (pp. 247–256), New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenstein, E.M., & Peretz, B. (1973). Comparative aspects of habituation in invertebrates. In H.V.S. Peeke & M.J. Herz (eds.), Habituation, v2 (pp. 1–34), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Graham, F.K. (1973). Habituation and dishabituation of responses innervated by the autonomic nervous system. In H.V.S. Peeke, & M.J. Herz (eds.), Habituation, v1. (pp. 163–218), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Groves, P.M., Lee, D. & Thompson, R.F. (1969). Effects of stimulus frequency and intensity on habituation and sensitization in acute spinal cat. Physiol & Behav. 4, 383–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groves, P.M. & Thompson, R.F. (1973). A dual-process theory of habituation: Neural mechanisms. In H.V.S. Peeke, & M.J. Herz (eds.), Habituation, v.2. (pp 175–205), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, T. C. (1975). Behavioral plasticity in protozoans. In. E.M. Eisenstein (ed.), Aneural organisms in neurobiology (pp. 111–130), New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, T.C., Thompson, J.M. & Eisenstein, E.M. (1974). Quantitative analysis of ciliary and contractile responses during habituation training inSpirostomum ambiguum. J. Behav. Biol., 12, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins, R.D., Cohen, T.E., Greene, W., Kandel, E.R. (1998). Relationships between dishabituation, sensitization, and inhibition of the gill-and siphon-withdrawal reflex inAplysia californica: Effects of response measure, test time, and training stimulus. Behav. Neuroscience 112(1), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kandel, E.R. (1976). Cellular basis of behavior. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  22. Kimble, G.A. (1961). Hilgard & Marquis’ Conditioning and learning, revised. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, inc., 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  23. Kinastowski, W. (1963). Der einfluss der mechanischen reize auf die kontraktilitat vonSpirostomum ambiguum ehrbg. Acta Protozool. 1, 201–222.Google Scholar
  24. Leuba, C. (1955). Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal stimulation. Psych. Reports 1, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcus, E.A., Nolen, T.G., Rankin, C.H. & Carew, T.J. (1988). Behavioral dissociation of dishabituation, sensitization, and inhibition in Aplysia. Science, 241, 210–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matysiak, J. (1980). Interindividual differences in animal behavior in light of the theory of need for stimulation. Psycholog. Monographs of the Polish Academy of Sciences, V. 31 (pp. 130–136).Google Scholar
  27. Osborn, D., Blair, H.J., Thomas, J. & Eisenstein, E.M. (1973). The effects of vibratory and electrical stimulation on habituation in the ciliated protozoan,Spirostomum ambiguum. Behav. Biol. 8, 655–664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Overmier, J.B. & Lawry, J.A. (1979). Pavlovian conditioning and the mediation of behavior. The psychology of learning and motivation, 13, 1–55, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pakula, A. & Sokolov, E.N. (1973). Habituation in gastropoda: Behavioral, interneuronal, and endoneuronal aspects. In H.V.S. Peeke & M.J. Herz (eds.) Habituation, v. 2 (pp. 35–107). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
  30. Schultz, D.P. (1965). Sensory Restriction. Effects on behavior (pp. 30–31), Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  31. Sokolov, E.N. (1960). Neuronal models and the orienting reflex. In M.A.B. Brazier (ed.), The central nervous system and behavior (pp. 187–276), New York: Josiah Macey, jr. foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary. 18th edition (1997). Philadelphia, Pa: F.A. Davis, co.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, R.F., Berry, S.D. Rinaldi, P.C. & Berger, T.W. (1979). Habituation and the orienting reflex: The dual-process theory revisited. In. International conference on orienting reflex in humans. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum & associates.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, R.F., Groves, P.M., Teyler, T.J., & Roemer, R.A., (1973). A dual-process theory of habituation: Theory and behavior. In H.V.S. Peeke & M.J. Herz (eds.), Habituation, v. 1 (pp. 239–271). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, R.F. & Spencer, W.A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 73, 16–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thorpe, W.H. (1963). Learning and instinct in animals. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  37. Trapold, M.A. & Overmier, J.B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 427–452), New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  38. Wood, D.C. (1970). Parametric studies of the response decrement produced by mechanical stimuli in the protozoan,Stentor coeruleus. J. Neurobiol. 1(3), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wyers, E.J., Peeke, H.V.S. & Herz, M.J. (1973). Behavioral habituation in invertebrates. In H.V.S. Peeke & M.J. Herz (eds.), Habituation, v. 1, (pp. 1–57), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Eisenstein
    • 2
  • D. Eisenstein
  • James C. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Bureau of InvestigationLos Angeles
  2. 2.Research & Development (691/151) West Los Angeles V.A. Medical CenterLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations