Advertisement

Neuroethological Analysis of the Innate Releasing Mechanism for Prey-Catching Behavior in Toads

  • Jörg-Peter Ewert
  • Harald Burghagen
  • Evelyn Schürg-Pfeiffer
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 56)

Abstract

The ontogeny of amphibians to some extent resembles the transition of vertebrates from an aquatic to a terrestrial life during early evolutionary history. These animals provide some of the classical preparations in research of the relationship between structure and function. Studies of nerve conduction, neuromuscular transmission, neural integration, sense organs, development, regeneration, and functional plasticity — to cite a few examples from neurobiological research — have been obtained in great detail in the frog and provide one of the most complete descriptions of a vertebrate nervous system (Llinas and Precht, 1976). On the basis of those studies concepts have been developed with regard to our understanding of comparable functions at higher levels of differentiation and integration in vertebrates with a more complex organization.

Keywords

Optic Tectum Common Toad Command System Bufo Bufo Tectal Neuron 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akert, K., 1949, Der visuelle Greifreflex. Helv. physiol. Pharmacol. Acta, 7:112–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbib, M.A., 1981, Rana computatrix: An evolving model of visuomotor coordination in frog and toad. COINS Tech. Rep. (Univ. Mass. Amherst), 81-6:1–27.Google Scholar
  3. Arbib, M.A., and Lara, R., 1981, A neural model of the interaction of tectal columns in prey-catching behavior. COINS Tech. Rep. (Univ. Mass. Amherst), 81-3:1–37.Google Scholar
  4. Autrum, H., 1959, Das Fehlen unwillkürlicher Augenbewegungen beim Frosch. Naturwissenschaften, 46:436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow, H.B., 1953, Summation and inhibition in the frog’s retina. J. Physiol. (Lond.), 173:377–407.Google Scholar
  6. Bechterev, W., 1884, Über die Funktion der Vierhügel. Pflügers Arch. Ges. Physiol. Mensch. Tiere, 73:501–534.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, A., and Ewert, J.-P., 1979, Prey selection by toads (Bufo bufo L.) in response to configurational stimuli moving in the visual field z,y-coordinates. J. Comp. Physiol., 129:207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birukow, G., and Meng, M., 1955, Eine neue Methode zur Prüfung des Gesichtssinnes bei Amphibien. Naturwissenschaften, 42:652–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blankenagel, S., 1931, Untersuchungen über die Großhirnfunktionen von Rana temporaria L. Zool. Jb. Abt. allg. Zool., 49:272–322.Google Scholar
  10. Borchers, H.-W., and Ewert, J.-P., 1979, Correlation between behavioral and neuronal activities of toads Bufo bufo (L.) in response to moving configurational prey stimuli. Behav. Processes, 4:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borchers, H.-W., Burghagen, H., and Ewert, J.-P., 1978, Key stimuli of prey for toads (Bufo bufo L.): Configuration and movement patterns. J. Comp. Physiol., 128:189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brehm, A., 1876, Brehm’s Thierleben, Fische, Kriechthiere und Lurche, New ed. 1980 by Ullstein GmbH, Frankfurt/M., Berlin, Wien.Google Scholar
  13. Brower, VZ.J., and Brower, L.P., 1962, Experimental studies of mimicry 6: The reaction of toads (Bufo terrestris) to honeybees (Apis mellifera) and their dronefly mimics (Eristalis vinetorum). Amer. Naturalist, 96:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, W.T., and Ingle, D., 1973, Receptive field changes produced in frog thalamic units by lesions of the optic tectum. Brain Res., 59:405–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, W.T., and Marker, W.B., 1977, Unit responses in the frog’s caudal thalamus. Brain Behav. Evol., 14:274–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brzoska, J., and Schneider, H, 1978, Modification of prey-catching behavior by learning in the common toad (Bufo b. bufo L., Anura, Amphibia): Changes in response to visual objects and effects of auditory stimuli. Behav. Processes, 3:125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burghagen, H., and Ewert, J.-P., 1982, Influence of the background on the perception of non-moving prey dummies by toads Bufo bufo L., (submitted).Google Scholar
  18. Clairambault, P., 1976, Development of the prosencephalon, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Collett. T., 1977, Stereopsis in toads. Nature, 267:349–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Comer, C., and Grobstein, P., 1978, Prey acquisition in atectal frogs. Brain Res., 153:217–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Comer, C., and Grobstein, P., 1981a, Organization of sensory inputs to the midbrain of the frog, Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Physiol., 142:161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Comer, C., and Grobstein, P., 1981b, Involvement of midbrain structures in tactually and visually elicited prey aquisition behavior in the frog Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Physiol., 142:151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cott, H.B., 1936, The effectiveness of protective adaptations in the hive-bee, illustrated by experiments on the feeding reactions, habit formation and memory of the common toad (Bufo bufo bufo). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1:113–133.Google Scholar
  24. Dean, J., 1980, Encounters between bombardier beetles and two species of toads (Bufo americanus, B.marinus): Speed of prey-capture does not determine success. J. Comp. Physiol., 135:41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diebschlag, E., 1935, Zur Kenntnis der Großhirnfunktionen einiger Urodelen und Anuren. Z. vergl. Physiol., 21:343–394.Google Scholar
  26. Doty, R.W., 1976, The concept of neural centers, in “Simpler Networks and Behavior”, J.C. Fentress, ed., Sinauer Ass., Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
  27. Ebbesson, S.O.E., 1969, Brain stem afferents from the spinal cord in a sample of reptilian and amphibian species. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 167:80–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebbesson, S.O.E., 1980, The parcellation theory and its relation to interspecific variability in brain organization, evolutionary and ontogenetic development, and neuronal plasticity. Cell Tissue Res., 213:179–212.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., 1951, Nahrungserwerb und Beuteschema der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Behaviour, 4:1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eikmanns, K.-H., 1955, Verhaltensphysiologische Untersuchungen über den Beutefang und das Bewegungssehen der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. Tierpsychol., 12:229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ewert, J.-P., 1967a, Untersuchungen über die Anteile zentral nervöser Aktionen an der taxisspezifischen Ermüdung beim Beutefang der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 57:263–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ewert, J.-P., 1967b, Elektrische Reizung des retinalen Projektionsfeldes im Mittelhirn der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol., 295:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ewert, J.-P., 1967c, Aktivierung der Verhaltensfolge beim Beutefang der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.) durch elektrische Mittelhirnreizung. Z. vergl. Physiol., 54:455–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ewert, J.-P., 1968, Der Einfluß von Zwischenhirndefekten auf die Visuomotorik im Beute-und Fluchtverhalten der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 61:41–70.Google Scholar
  35. Ewert, J.-P., 1969a, Quantitative Analyse von Reiz-Reaktions-beziehungen bei visuellem Auslösen der Beutefang-Wendereaktion der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol., 308:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ewert, J.-P., 1969b, Das Beutefangverhalten zwischenhirndefekter Erdkröten (Bufo bufo L.) gegenüber bewegten und ruhenden visuellen Mustern. Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol., 306:210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ewert, J.-P., 1971, Single unit response of the toad (Bufo americanus) caudal thalamus to visual objects. Z. vergl. Physiol., 74:81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ewert, J.-P., 1974, The neural basis of visually guided behavior, in “Recent Progress in Perception”, R. Held, ed., Readings in Scientific American, Freeman Comp., San Francisco.Google Scholar
  39. Ewert, J.-P., 1976, The visual system of the toad: Behavioral and physiological studies on a pattern recognition system, in “The Amphibian Visual System”, K.V. Fite, ed., Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
  40. Ewert, J.-P., 1980, “Neuroethology. An Introduction to the Neurophysiological Fundamentals of Behavior”, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Ewert, J.-P., 1981, Neural coding of ‘worms1 and ‘antiworms’ in the brain of toads: The question of hardwired and softwired systems, in “Brain Mechanisms of Behaviour in Lower Vertebrates”, P.R. Laming, ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  42. Ewert, J.-P., 1983, Tectal functions underlying prey-catching and predator avoidance behaviors in toads, in “Neurology of the Optic Tectum”, H. Vanegas, ed., Plenum Press, New York, (in press).Google Scholar
  43. Ewert, J.-P., und Borchers, H.-W., 1971, Reaktionscharakteristik von Neuronen aus dem Tectum opticum und Subtectum der Erdkröte Bufo bufo (L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 71:165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ewert, J.-P., and Burghagen, H., 1979a, Ontogenetic aspects on visual’ size-constancy’ phenomena in the midwife toad Alytes obstetricans (Laur.). Brain, Behav. Evol., 16:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ewert, J.-P., and Burghagen, H., 1979b, Configurational prey selection by Bufo, Alytes, Bombina, and Hyla. Brain, Behav. Evol., 16:157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ewert, J.-P., and Gebauer, L., 1973, Größenkonstanzphänomene im Beutefangverhalten der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 85:303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ewert, J.-P., and Härter, H.-A., 1968, Inhibitionsphänomene im visuellen System der Erdkröte. Naturwissenschaften, 55:237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ewert, J.-P., and Härter, H.-A., 1969, Der hemmende Einfluß gleichzeitig bewegter Beuteattrappen auf das Beutefangverhalten der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 64:135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ewert, J.-P., and Hock, F.J., 1972, Movement sensitive neurones in the toad’s retina. Exp. Brain Res., 16:41–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ewert, J.-P., and Ingle, D.J., 1971, Excitatory effects following habituation of prey-catching activity in frogs and toads. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 77:369–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ewert, J.-P., and Inst. Wiss. Film, 1982, Gestalt Perception in the Common Toad I: Innate Prey Recognition (Film No C1430), II: Modification of Prey Recognition by Learning (Film No C1431), III: Neuroethological Analysis of Innate Prey Recognition (Film No C1432); Institut für den Wissenschaftlichen Film (IWF), Göttingen.Google Scholar
  52. Ewert, J.-P., and Kehl, W., 1978, Configurational prey-selection by individual experience in the toad Bufo bufo. J. Comp. Physiol., 126:105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ewert, J.-P., and Rehn, B., 1969, Quantitative Analyse der Reiz-Reaktionsbeziehungen bei visuellem Auslösen des Fluchtverhaltens der Wechselkröte (Bufo viridis Laur.). Behaviour, 35:212–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ewert, J.-P., und Seelen, W.v., 1974, Neurobiologie und System-Theorie eines visuellen Muster-Erkennungsmechanismus bei Kröten. Kybernetik, 14:167–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ewert, J.-P., and Traud, R., 1979, Releasing stimuli for antipredator behaviour in the common toad Bufo bufo (L.). Behaviour, 68:170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ewert, J.-P., und Wietersheim, A.v., 1974a, Musterauswertung durch tectale und thalamus/praetectale Nervennetze im visuellen System der Kröte (Bufo bufo L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 92:131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ewert, J.-P., und Wietersheim, A.v., 1974b, Der Einfluß von Thalamus/ Praetectum-Defekten auf die Antwort von Tectum-Neuronen gegenüber bewegten visuellen Mustern bei der Kröte (Bufo bufo L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 92:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ewert, J.-P., Speckhardt, I., und Amelang, W., 1970, Visuelle Inhibition und Excitation im Beutefangverhalten der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Z. vergl. Physiol., 68:84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ewert, J.-P., Hock, F.J., und Wietersheim, A.v., 1974, Thalamus/ Praetectum/Tectum: Retinale Topographie und physiologische Interaktionen bei der Kröte (Bufo bufo L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 92:343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ewert, J.-P., Borchers, H.-W., and Wietersheim, A.v., 1978, Question of prey feature detectors in the toad’s Bufo bufo (L.) visual system: A correlation analysis. J. Comp. Physiol., 126:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ewert, J.-P., Borchers, H.-W., and Wietersheim, A.v., 1979a, Directional sensitivity, invariance and variability of tectal T5 neurons in response to moving configurational stimuli in the toad Bufo bufo (L.). J. Comp. Physiol., 132:191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ewert, J.-P., Arend, B., Becker, V., and Borchers, H.-W., 1979b, Invariants in configurational prey selection by Bufo bufo (L.). Brain, Behav. Evol., 16:38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ewert, J.-P., Burghagen, H., Albrecht, L., and Kepper, J., 1982, Effects of background structure on the discrimination of configurational moving prey dummies by toads Bufo bufo (L.). J. Comp. Physiol., (in press).Google Scholar
  64. Finkenstädt, Th., 1980, Disinhibition of prey-catching in the salamander following thalamic-pretectal lesions. Naturwi ssenschaften, 67:471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Finkenstädt, Th., 1981, Effects of forebrain lesions on visual discrimination in Salamandra salamandra. Naturwissenschaften, 68:268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Fite, K.V., 1969, Single unit analysis of binocular neurons in the frog optic tectum. Exp. Neurol., 24:475–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Fite, K.V., and Scalia, F., 1976, Central visual pathways in the frog, in “The Amphibian Visual System”, K.V. Fite, ed., Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
  68. Gaze, R.M., 1958, The representation of the retina on the optic lobe of the frog. Q. J. Exp. Physiol., 43:209–214.Google Scholar
  69. Gibson, J.J., 1950, The perception of visual surfaces. Amer. J. Physiol., 63:367–384.Google Scholar
  70. Gorlick, D.L., Constantine-Paton, M., and Kelley, D.B., 1981, A 2-deoxyglucose autoradiographic investigation of sensory inputs to the optic tectum in Rana pipiens. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 7:269.Google Scholar
  71. Grobstein, P., Comer, C., Hollyday, M., and Archer, S.M., 1978, A crossed isthmotectal projection in Rana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuotectal projection. Brain Res., 156:117–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Gruberg, E.R., and Lettvin, J.Y., 1980, Anatomy and physiology of a binocular system in the frog Rana pipiens. Brain Res., 192:313–325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Gruberg, E.R., and Udin, S.B., 1978, Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Neur., 179:487–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Grüsser, O.-J., and Grüsser-Cornehls, U., 1968, Neurophysiologische Grundlagen visueller angeborener Auslösemechanismen beim Frosch. Z. vergl. Physiol. 59:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Grüsser, O.-J., und Grüsser-Cornehls, U., 1970, Die Neurophysiologie visuell gesteuerter Verhaltensweisen bei Anuren. Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges. Köln, 1970:201–218.Google Scholar
  76. Grüsser, O.-J., and Grüsser-Cornehls, U., 1976, Neurophysiology of the anuran visual system, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Grüsser-Cornehls, U., 1973, Bewegungsempfindliche Neuronensysteme im visuellen System von Amphibien. Eine vergleichende neurophysiologische Untersuchung. Nova Acta Leopoldina (Halle) N.F., 37(2):117–136.Google Scholar
  78. Heatwole, H., and Heatwole, A., 1968, Motivational aspects of feeding behavior in toads. Copeia, 4:692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Hess, W.R., 1949, Motorik und Zwischenhirn. Arch. Psychiatr. Neurol., 184:267–280.Google Scholar
  80. Hess, W.R., 1968, Hypothalamus und Thalamus, 2. Aufl., G. Thieme, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  81. Hess, W.R., Bürgi, S. und Bucher, V., 1946, Motorische Funktionen des Tektal-Tegmentalgebietes. Monatsschr. Psychiatr. u. Neurol., 112:1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Himstedt, W., Freidank, U., and Singer, E., 1976, Die Veränderung eines Auslösemechanismus im Beutefangverhalten während der Entwicklung von Salamandra salamandra (L.). Z. Tierpsychol., 41:235–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hinsche, G., 1935, Ein Schnappreflex nach “Nichts” bei Anuren. Zool. Anz., 111:113.Google Scholar
  84. Honigmann, H., 1944, The visual perception of movement by toads. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 132:291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Hoyle, G., 1977, ed., “Identified Neurons and Behavior of Arthropods”, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  86. Ingle, D., 1968, Visual releasers of prey-catching behavior in frogs and toads. Brain, Behav. Evol., 1:500–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ingle, D., 1971, Prey-catching behavior of anurans toward moving and stationary objects. Vision Res. Suppl., 3:447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ingle, D., 1973a, Disinhibition of tectal neurons by pretectal lesions in the frog. Science, 180:422–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ingle, D., 1973b, Size-preference for prey catching in frogs: Relationship to motivational state. Behav. Biol., 9:485–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ingle, D., 1975, Selective visual attention in frogs. Science, 188:1033–1035.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ingle, D., 1976, Spatial vision in anurans, in “The Amphibian Visual System”, K.V. Fite, ed., Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
  92. Ingle, D., 1977, Detection of stationary objects by frogs (Rana pipiens) after ablation of optic tectum. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 91:1359–1364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ingle, D., 1980, Some effects of pretectum lesions on the frog’s detection of stationary objects. Behav. Brain Res., 1:139–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Kaess, W., and Kaess, F., 1960, Perception of apparent motion in the common toad. Science, 132:953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Kicliter, E., and Ebbesson, S.O.E., 1976, Organization of the ‘nonolfactory’ telencephalon, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  96. Kuffler, S.W., 1953, Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. J. Neurophysiol., 16:37–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Kühn, A., 1919, “Die Orientierung der Tiere im Raum”, G.Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
  98. Kupferman, I., and Weiss, K.R., 1978, The command neuron concept. The Behav. and Brain Sci., 1:3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Laming, P.R., and Ewert, J.-P., 1982a, Visual unit activity, EEG changes and sustained potential shifts in the brain of toads (Bufo bufo) in response to biologically significant stimuli: EEG synchrony and sustained potential shifts as possible mediators of responsiveness, (submitted).Google Scholar
  100. Laming, P.R., and Ewert, J.-P., 1982b, The effects of pretectal lesions on neuronal, sustained potential shifts and electroencephalographic responses of the toad’s tectum to presentation of a visual stimulus, (submitted).Google Scholar
  101. Lara, R., and Arbib, M.A., 1982, A model of the neural mechanism responsible for pattern recognition and stimulus specific habituation in amphibia, (submitted).Google Scholar
  102. Lara, R., Arbib, M.A., and Cromarty, A.S., 1981, The role of tectal column in facilitation of amphibian prey-catching behavior: A neural model. COINS Tech. Rep. (Univ. Mass. Amherst), 81-2:1–54.Google Scholar
  103. Lara, R., Cervantes, F., and Arbib, M.A., 1982, Two-dimensional model of retinal-tectal-pretectal interactions for the control of prey-predator recogniton and size preference in amphibia, (submitted).Google Scholar
  104. Lázár, Gy., 1979, Organization of the frog visual system, in “Recent Development of Biology in Hungary” Vol.8, R. Lissak, ed., Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.Google Scholar
  105. Lettvin, J.Y., Maturana, H.R., McCulloch, W.S., and Pitts, W.H., 1959, What the frog’s eye tells the frog’s brain. Proc. Inst. Radio. Engrs., N.Y., 47:1940–1951.Google Scholar
  106. Llinas, R., and Precht, W. eds., 1976, “Frog Neurobiology”, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  107. Lock, A., and Collett, T., 1979, A toad’s devious approach to its prey: A study of some complex uses of depth vision. J. Comp. Physiol., 131:179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Matsumoto, N., and Bando, T., 1980, Excitatory synaptic potentials and morphological classification of tectal neurons of the frog. Brain Res., 192:39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Northcutt, R.G., and Kicliter, E., 1980, Organization of the amphibian telencephalon, in “Comparative Neurology of the Telencephalon”, S.O.E. Ebbesson, ed., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  110. Porter, K.R., 1972, Herpetology, W.B.Saunders Comp., Philadelphia, London, Toronto.Google Scholar
  111. Rehn, B., 1977, “Cerebrale Repräsentation des Fluchtverhaltens der Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.)”, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  112. Roth, G., and Jordan, M., 1982, Response characteristics and stratification of tectal neurons in the toad Bufo bufo (L.). Exp. Brain Res., 45:393–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Scalia, F., 1976, The optic pathway of the frog: Nuclear organization and connections, in: “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  114. Schaefer, K.P., 1970, Unit analysis and electrical stimulation in the optic tectum of rabbits and cats. Brain, Behav. Evol., 3:222–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Schleidt, W., 1962, Die historische Entwicklung der Begriffe “Angeborenes auslösendes Schema” und “Angeborener Auslösemechanismus” in der Ethologie. Z. Tierpsychol., 19:697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Schneider, D., 1954, Beitrag zu einer Analyse des Beute-und Fluchtverhaltens einheimischer Anuren. Biol. Zbl., 73:225–282.Google Scholar
  117. Schürg-Pfeiffer, E., and Ewert, J.-P., 1981, Investigation of neurons involved in the analysis of Gestalt prey features in the frog Rana temporaria. J. Comp. Physiol., 141:139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Shinn, E.A., and Dole, J.W., 1978, Evidence for a role for olfactory cues in the feeding response of leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Herpetologia, 34:167–172.Google Scholar
  119. Stein, B.E., and Gaither, N.S., 1981, Sensory representation in reptilian optic tectum: Some comparisons with mammals. J. Comp. Neurol., 202:69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sternthal, D.E., 1974, Olfactory and visual cues in the feeding behavior of the leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Z. Tierpsychol., 34:240–246.Google Scholar
  121. Stevens, R.J., 1973, A cholinergic inhibitory system in the frog optic tectum: Its role in visual electrical responses and feeding behavior. Brain Res., 49:309–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Straznicky, K., and Gaze, R.M., 1972, The development of the tectum in Xenopus laevis: An autoradiographic study. J. Embryol. Exp. Morph., 28:87–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Székély, G., and Lázár, Gy., 1976, Cellular and synaptic architecture of the optic tectum, in “Frog Neurobiology”, R. Llinas and W. Precht, eds., Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  124. Tinbergen, N., 1951, “The Study of Instinct”, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  125. Trachtenberg, M.C., and Ingle, D., 1974, Thalamo-tectal projections in the frog. Brain Res., 79:419–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Weerasuriya, A., and Ewert, J.-P., 1981, Prey-selective neurons in the toad’s optic tectum and sensori-motor interfacing: HRP studies and recording experiments. J. Comp. Physiol., 144:429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wietersheim, A.v., and Ewert, J.-P., 1978, Neurons of the toad’s (Bufo bufo L.) visual system sensitive to moving configurational stimuli: A statistical analysis. J. Comp. Physiol., 126:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Wilczynski, W., 1978, “Connections of the Midbrain Auditory Center in the Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  129. Wilczynski, W., and Northcutt, R., 1977, Afferents to the optic tectum of the Leopard Frog: An HRP study. J. Comp. Neurol., 173:219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg-Peter Ewert
    • 1
  • Harald Burghagen
    • 1
  • Evelyn Schürg-Pfeiffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Arbeitsgruppe Neuroethologie und Biokybernetik, FB 19Universität des Landes Hessen, GhKKasselF.R. of Germany

Personalised recommendations