Stimulation of positively and negatively reinforcing sites in the avian brain

Goodman, Irving; Brown, Jerram L.

doi:10.1016/0024-3205(66)90208-6

Cited by 37 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equivocal results were obtained by stimulations in chickens (Phillips and Youngnen, 1971) and in mallard ducks (Maley, 1969). Ackerman et al (1960) reported that stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus of pigeons caused hyperphagia; however, Goodman and Brown (1966) could not confirm these results in the same species. Tweeton et al ( 1973) conducted an extensive study involving stimulation at 625 different sites in the anterior hypothalamus and supra-and preoptic areas of the brains of 68 chickens.…”

Section: Hypothalamic Centersmentioning

confidence: 96%

Alimentary Canal: Anatomy, Regulation of Feeding, and Motility

Duke¹

1986

Avian Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hypothalamic Centersmentioning

confidence: 96%

Alimentary Canal: Anatomy, Regulation of Feeding, and Motility

Duke¹

1986

Avian Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…McGaugh et al [1966], McGill [1965], Hailman and Klopfer [1972] is that their results are representative of what can be expected from ESB in birds. This is quite misleading, for, at best, tine kinds of res ponses that they chose to discuss are so rare that with well over 2,000 sti mulus points in ducks and chickens we have been unable to replicate them in our laboratory, nor have other workers in chickens [Putkonen, 1967;Cannon and Salzen, 1971], doves V owles, 1966, 1967]; coturnix quail [Potash, 1970] or pigeons [Goodman and Brown, 1966], The responses to ESB in our ducks can be discussed in terms of three broadly intergrading levels of motor control effected by ESB. The first is that of very strong ESB control over relatively restricted acts such as rhythmically repeated vocalizations, forced turning, and bill and feathertract movements whose onset, offset and intensity (amplitude of move ment, repetition frequency, speed of movement) are very closely correlat ed with stimulus parameters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrical Stimulation of the Brain as a Tool for Study of Animal Communication; pp. 270–286

Phillips¹,

Youngren²

1973

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrical Stimulation of the brains (ESB) of 63 Mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) that were free to move about in a 1.5 X 1.5 X 1.5 m chamber yielded detectable responses from 416 of the 515 sites tested (286 in males, 130 in females). Responses ranged from relatively simple acts such as feather-tract movements or rapid opening and closing of the bill through prolonged oiling-preening sequences to complex attack and escape activities. Plots of histologically verified electrode locations indicated that most responses were elicited from fairly extensive and widely (but not completely) overlapping regions. All attack points were from di- and telencephalic sites while escape responses were evoked from many mesencephalic points as well. Threat sites overlapped both of these response sets and threat accompanied all attack more intense than occasional nipsor jabs at a companion. Stimulus control of the evoked responses varied from questionable increases in probability of some acts to highly repeatable actions, that commenced with latencies of a second or less, at stimulus onset and terminated promptly at the end of stimulation. In attack and escape behavior variable actions were sometimes taken to achieve similar ends. Hunger, thirst and nonagonistic social behavior were not evoked.

show abstract

“…Thus Harwood and Vowles (1966) increased feeding in Streptopelia risoria by forebrain ESB, but the effects came after long latencies and persisted after stimulus offset. Goodman and Brown (1966), working with pigeons, found no sites which, when stimulated, would yield feeding even though they sampled areas reported by Akerman et al (1960) to be positive for feeding. In subsequent experiments (Goodman and Brown, personal communication) found two relatively weak feeding sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%