A review is presented of several past studies which have shown behavioral modification in protozoa. At least two methodological problems inherent in these studies make it difficult to conclude unequivocally that learning has been shown: (1) often the behavioral changes seen over time could have been due to changes in the animal’s environment rather than in the animal itself; and (2) it has not been clearly demonstrated that the temporal order of the stimulus and response events was the relevant variable responsible for the behavioral change rather than the total amount of stimulation per se.
Recent work on decrement in the probability of the contractile response to intermittent mechanical stimulation and the effect of electrical stimulation on Spriostomum is discussed.
KeywordsMechanical Stimulation Mechanical Stimulus Electric Shock Contractile Response Response Level
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Buytendijk, F.J.J. (1919). Arch. Neerl. Physiol. 3, 455.Google Scholar
- Eisenstein, E.M. (1967). The Rockefeller Univ. Press, N. Y. 653.Google Scholar
- Gelber, B. (1954). Am. Psychol. 9, 374.Google Scholar
- Gelber, B. (1956 a). J. Genet. Psychol. 88, 31.Google Scholar
- Gelber, B. (1956 b). J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 49, 590.Google Scholar
- Gelber, B. (1965). Animal Behav. 13, 21.Google Scholar
- Jensen, D. D. (1957 b). Science 125, 191.Google Scholar
- Jensen, D.D. (1965). Animal Behav. 13, 9.Google Scholar
- Kinastowski, W. (1963 a). Acta Protozool. 1, 201.Google Scholar
- Kinastowski, W. (1963b). Acta Protozool. 1. 223.Google Scholar
- Kinosita, H. (1938a). J. Faculty Sei., Tokyo Imperial Univ., 5, 71.Google Scholar
- Kinosita, H. (1938b). J. Faculty Sei., Tokyo Imperial Univ., 5, 93.Google Scholar
- Naito, Y. and Eckert, R. (1969). Sei. 164, 963.Google Scholar