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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Applewhite, P.B., Gardner, F.T., & Lapan, E. (1969). Physiology of habituation learning in a protozoan. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 31, 842–849.
Boucsein, W., Hoffman, G. (1979). A direct comparison of the skin conductance and skin resistance methods. Psychophysiol. 16(1), 66–70.
Boucsein, W., Baltissen, R., Evler, M. (1984). Dependence of skin conductance reactions and skin resistance reactions upon previous level. Psychophysiol. 21(2), 212–218.
Brudzynski, S. (2001). Personal communication.
Bruner, J. & Kennedy, D. (1970). Habituation: occurrence at a neuromuscular junction. Science, 169, 92–94.
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.
Davies, D.R. & Krkovic, J. (1965). Skin conductance, alpha-activity and vigilance. Amer. J. Psych. 78, 304–306.
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.
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.
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.
Eisenstein, E.M., Eisenstein, D. & Bonheim, P. (1991). Initial habituation or sensitization depends on magnitude of first response. Physiol. & Behav. 49, 211–215.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hamilton, T. C. (1975). Behavioral plasticity in protozoans. In. E.M. Eisenstein (ed.), Aneural organisms in neurobiology (pp. 111–130), New York: Plenum Press.
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.
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.
Kandel, E.R. (1976). Cellular basis of behavior. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Kimble, G.A. (1961). Hilgard & Marquis’ Conditioning and learning, revised. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, inc., 2nd edition.
Kinastowski, W. (1963). Der einfluss der mechanischen reize auf die kontraktilitat vonSpirostomum ambiguum ehrbg. Acta Protozool. 1, 201–222.
Leuba, C. (1955). Toward some integration of learning theories: The concept of optimal stimulation. Psych. Reports 1, 27–33.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Schultz, D.P. (1965). Sensory Restriction. Effects on behavior (pp. 30–31), Academic Press, New York and London.
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.
Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary. 18th edition (1997). Philadelphia, Pa: F.A. Davis, co.
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.
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.
Thompson, R.F. & Spencer, W.A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 73, 16–43.
Thorpe, W.H. (1963). Learning and instinct in animals. London: Methuen.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eisenstein, E.M., Eisenstein, D. & Smith, J.C. The evolutionary significance of habituation and sensitization across phylogeny: A behavioral homeostasis model. Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science 36, 251–265 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02688794
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02688794