Behavioral control by stimulus components of an imprinting object

Effects of environmental novelty on filial behavior in imprinted ducklings

“…The next phase of the experiment entailed brightening the illumination of the subject compartment, a procedure that is known to increase rates of distress vocalization in 4-day-old ducklings (Eiserer, 1977 Figure 1, indicated that approach to the stationary stimulus tended to be lower than approach to the moving stimulus in the short-exposure subjects but not in the long-exposure subjects. The other possible effects-the lighting x stimulus interaction and the groups x lighting x stimulus interaction-did not approach significance (F < 1.0 in both cases).…”

Acquisition of behavioral control by static visual features of an imprinting object: Species generality

“…At 10-16 h posthatch, each subject was assigned randomly to either the moving-stimulus group (M), for which the imprinting object was in continuous motion throughout each exposure session, or the stationary stimulus group (S), for which the imprinting object remained stationary throughout each exposure session. Group sizes for each species were as follows: ducks, 4 M and 4 S; pheasant, 4 M and 4 S; chickens, 6 M and 6 S; turkeys, 6 M and 6 S; and quail, 6 M and 4 S. Although these sample sizes are small relative to those typically employed in the imprinting literature, previous closely related research (Eiserer, 1977(Eiserer, , 1980Eiserer & Hoffman, 1974;Eiserer et aI., 1975;Gaioni et al, 1978;Hoffman et aI., 1972) has indicated that the phenomenon of concern is robust enough to bear investigation with a small-n methodology.…”

“…Although the object may not initially elicit filial responses if it remains stationary (Hoffman et al, 1970), it will do so after the duckling has received prolonged exposure to the object in motion (Eiserer, 1977). Importantly, the acquisition of behavioral control by the stationary imprinting object can be demonstrated even under conditions in which prolonged' exposure to the stationary object itself is not sufficient, that is, when repeated exposure to the object in motion is essential (Hoffman, Eiserer, & Singer, 1972).…”

“…As noted elsewhere (Eiserer, 1978b(Eiserer, , 1980, the acquisition of behavioral control by initially neutral features of an imprinting object seems to represent the very essence of infantile attachments to specific surrogate objects. Moreover, the acquisition phenomenon is of great theoretical interest as well, particularly in connection with classical conditioning vs. perceptual learning theories of imprinting (Eiserer, 1978b(Eiserer, , 1980 however, apparently the only precocial bird in which the effect has been specifically studied is the duck (Eiserer, 1977(Eiserer, , 1980Eiserer & Hoffman, 1973, 1974Eiserer, Hoffman, & Klein, 1975;Gaioni, Hoffman, DePaulo, & Stratton, 1978;Hoffman et al, 1972). Klopfer (1965) reported a similar effect in chicks; subjects exposed to a moving object subsequently preferred that object even when it was stationary.…”

Effects of food primes on the operant behavior of nondeprived rats

“…Comparable priming effects can also be readily demonstrated in the context of imprinting (Eiserer, 1977;Eiserer & Hoffman, 1973). Thus, ducklings trained to peck a pole for the rewarding presentation of an imprinting object can be induced, via a brief stimulus presentation, to respond during periods when they are otherwise little inclined to respond.…”