Behavior Modification in Protozoa

  • E. M. Eisenstein
  • D. Osborn
  • H. J. Blair


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.


Mechanical Stimulation Mechanical Stimulus Electric Shock Contractile Response Response Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Applewhite, P. B. „ Lapan, E. A., Gardner, F. T. (1969). Nature 222, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergstrom, S.R. (1968 a). Scand. J. Psychol. 9, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrom, S.R. (1968 b). Scand. J. Psychol. 9, 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buytendijk, F.J.J. (1919). Arch. Neerl. Physiol. 3, 455.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, L. (1956). Exp. Biol. 34, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Day, L.M. and Bentley, M. (1911). J. Animal Behav., l, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenstein, E.M. (1967). The Rockefeller Univ. Press, N. Y. 653.Google Scholar
  8. Ettiene, Earl M. (1970). J. Gen. Physiol., 56, 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelber, B. (1952). J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 45, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelber, B. (1954). Am. Psychol. 9, 374.Google Scholar
  11. Gelber, B. (1956 a). J. Genet. Psychol. 88, 31.Google Scholar
  12. Gelber, B. (1956 b). J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 49, 590.Google Scholar
  13. Gelber, B. (1957). Science 126, 1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelber, B. (1965). Animal Behav. 13, 21.Google Scholar
  15. Jahn, T.L. (1966). J. Cell. Physiol. 68, 135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennings, H.S. (1899). Am. J. Psychol. 10, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen, D.D. (1957a). Science 126, 1341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen, D. D. (1957 b). Science 125, 191.Google Scholar
  19. Jensen, D.D. (1965). Animal Behav. 13, 9.Google Scholar
  20. Kinastowski, W. (1963 a). Acta Protozool. 1, 201.Google Scholar
  21. Kinastowski, W. (1963b). Acta Protozool. 1. 223.Google Scholar
  22. Kinosita, H. (1938a). J. Faculty Sei., Tokyo Imperial Univ., 5, 71.Google Scholar
  23. Kinosita, H. (1938b). J. Faculty Sei., Tokyo Imperial Univ., 5, 93.Google Scholar
  24. Naito, Y. and Eckert, R. (1969). Sei. 164, 963.Google Scholar
  25. Wood, D.C. (1970 a). J. Neurobiol. 1, No. 3, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood, D.C. (1970b). J. Neurobiol. 1, No. 4, 363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wood, D. C. (1970 c). J. Neurobiol. 2, No. 1, 1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Company Ltd. 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Eisenstein
    • 1
  • D. Osborn
    • 1
  • H. J. Blair
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiophysicsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations