The tonic immobility reaction in chickens: Response characteristics and methodology

Gallup, Gordon G.; Nash, Richard F.; Wagner, Alan M.

doi:10.3758/bf03208389

Cited by 70 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiment 1 showed that both distress call and ambulation latencies were positively correlated with tonic immobility duration, a finding that is consistent with previous work (Gallup, Ledbetter, & Maser, 1976;Gallup, Nash, & Wagner, 1971). Table 1 shows that distress-call latency is also significantly and positively correlated with ambulation latency in 12 of 13, or over 90070, of the groups tested.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Table 1 shows that distress-call latency is also significantly and positively correlated with ambulation latency in 12 of 13, or over 90070, of the groups tested. The fact that the initiation of distress calling can be used to predict both the termination of freezing in the present study and tonic immobility (Gallup, Nash, & Wagner, 1971) may be indicative of an adaptive strategy. Given the importance of movement cues in triggering predatory orientation and attack, distress calling, after a period of silence, may serve as a means of testing the surroundings for predatory cues prior to the resumption of movement (Gallup & Suarez, 1980).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predatory overtones of open-field testing in chickens

Suarez

Gallup

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a modelwhich holds that open-field behavior is due in large part to an interaction between social separation and the threat of predation, seven experiments were conducted to examine the relationship between tonic immobility and open-field activity in chickens. The results showed that placement in an open field prior to testing for tonic immobility reliably enhanced the duration of immobility. Similarly, procedures that have been shown to modify the length of the immobility episode had a comparable effect on the timing of activity onset in an open field. Since tonic immobility has been independently implicated as a putative predator defense, the correspondence between open-field behavior and tonic immobility was taken as indirect support for the hypothesis that open-field testing contains overtones of predation.153

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory overtones of open-field testing in chickens

Suarez

Gallup

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anoles and chickens often show head movements that suggest a visual examination of the immediate environment before termination of TI episodes, and the albino rat, which relies heavily on its sense of smell, appears to show a comparable behavior employing another sensory system. The second difference seen in rats was that they required many more inductions to produce TI than either chickens (Gallup, Nash, & Wagner, 1971) or anoles (Edson & Gallup, 1972); also, the rats showed much more fighting, biting, and scratching than these other species. This seems to suggest that although tonic immobility may have developed in the rat as a predator defense, it is not now apredominant response and occurs only after a number of other defenses have failed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although chickens are known to habituate rapidly to TI over trials (Gallup, Nash, & Wagner, 1971), an increase in duration of immobility is not unknown. Bayard (1957) and Liberson (1948) reported increases in durations of TI in guinea pigs under conditions of massed practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circadian rhythms of tonic immobility in the rat: Evidence of an endogenous mechanism

Hennig

Dunlap

1977

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Birds from one group were individually p!aced into the testing side of the box and given 15 sec of manual restraint using the procedure described by Gallup, Nash, & Wagner (1971). With the Plexiglas in position and the adjoining chamber empty, each bird was positioned 15 cm in front of the Plexiglas during manual restraint.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%