I
Ira Leviton
Guest
Fixed a reference. Please see Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter.
[td]Ewert showed, by using spots, bars, and square stimuli of different sizes, that toads snapped at a moving bar which was moving in a direction parallel to its long axis, whereas the same bar oriented perpendicularly to the direction of movement (anti-worm configuration) was ignored as prey. Another experimental setup allowed worm or anti-worm stimuli to traverse the toad's visual field in different direction in the x-y co-ordinates, demonstrating that the worm vs anti-worm discrimination is invariant under changes in the direction of movement.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ewert JP, Arend B, Becker V, Borchers HW |title=Invariants in configurational prey selection by Bufo bufo (L.) |journal=Brain, Behavior and Evolution |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=38β51 |year=1979 |pmid=106924 |doi=10.1159/000121822}}</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]This has neurophysiological implications: In contrast to the orientation-selective βsimple cellsβ of mammals, in toads the T5.2-type neural feature detectors, which prefer worm-like objects, and the TH3-type feature detectors, which prefer anti-worm-like objects, exhibit approximately radially symmetric excitatory receptive fields (for a commentary see Stevens 1987). <ref>{{cite journal |vauthor=Stevens KA |title=Implicit versus explicit computation. Commentary to: J-P Ewert: Neuroethology of Releasing Mechanisms: Prey-Catching in Toads. |journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=387-388 |year=1987}}</ref>[/td]
[td]This has neurophysiological implications: In contrast to the orientation-selective βsimple cellsβ of mammals, in toads the T5.2-type neural feature detectors, which prefer worm-like objects, and the TH3-type feature detectors, which prefer anti-worm-like objects, exhibit approximately radially symmetric excitatory receptive fields (for a commentary see Stevens 1987). <ref>{{cite journal |author=Stevens KA |title=Implicit versus explicit computation. Commentary to: J-P Ewert: Neuroethology of Releasing Mechanisms: Prey-Catching in Toads. |journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=387-388 |year=1987}}</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]He also showed that the toad would crouch and go immobile in response to a large rectangle. Using worm and anti-worm stimuli like these, Ewert identified that the prey-recognition system in the visual pathway of the toad is based on a number of innate release mechanisms. In response to a worm-like moving stimulus, the toad exhibited the following behaviors: orienting, snapping, or mouth wiping. On the other hand, an anti-worm stimulus evoked a different set of avoidance behaviors: planting down or crouching. After determining the sensory recognition elements of each behavior with this experimental setup, Ewert and co-workers examined the neural mechanisms governing the toad's prey-recognition system and found a number of feature detectors.[/td]
[td]He also showed that the toad would crouch and go immobile in response to a large rectangle. Using worm and anti-worm stimuli like these, Ewert identified that the prey-recognition system in the visual pathway of the toad is based on a number of innate release mechanisms. In response to a worm-like moving stimulus, the toad exhibited the following behaviors: orienting, snapping, or mouth wiping. On the other hand, an anti-worm stimulus evoked a different set of avoidance behaviors: planting down or crouching. After determining the sensory recognition elements of each behavior with this experimental setup, Ewert and co-workers examined the neural mechanisms governing the toad's prey-recognition system and found a number of feature detectors.[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 29: | Line 29: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]Ewert showed, by using spots, bars, and square stimuli of different sizes, that toads snapped at a moving bar which was moving in a direction parallel to its long axis, whereas the same bar oriented perpendicularly to the direction of movement (anti-worm configuration) was ignored as prey. Another experimental setup allowed worm or anti-worm stimuli to traverse the toad's visual field in different direction in the x-y co-ordinates, demonstrating that the worm vs anti-worm discrimination is invariant under changes in the direction of movement.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ewert JP, Arend B, Becker V, Borchers HW |title=Invariants in configurational prey selection by Bufo bufo (L.) |journal=Brain, Behavior and Evolution |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=38β51 |year=1979 |pmid=106924 |doi=10.1159/000121822}}</ref>[/td]Revision as of 15:54, 30 August 2025
[/td][td]Ewert showed, by using spots, bars, and square stimuli of different sizes, that toads snapped at a moving bar which was moving in a direction parallel to its long axis, whereas the same bar oriented perpendicularly to the direction of movement (anti-worm configuration) was ignored as prey. Another experimental setup allowed worm or anti-worm stimuli to traverse the toad's visual field in different direction in the x-y co-ordinates, demonstrating that the worm vs anti-worm discrimination is invariant under changes in the direction of movement.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Ewert JP, Arend B, Becker V, Borchers HW |title=Invariants in configurational prey selection by Bufo bufo (L.) |journal=Brain, Behavior and Evolution |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=38β51 |year=1979 |pmid=106924 |doi=10.1159/000121822}}</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]This has neurophysiological implications: In contrast to the orientation-selective βsimple cellsβ of mammals, in toads the T5.2-type neural feature detectors, which prefer worm-like objects, and the TH3-type feature detectors, which prefer anti-worm-like objects, exhibit approximately radially symmetric excitatory receptive fields (for a commentary see Stevens 1987). <ref>{{cite journal |vauthor=Stevens KA |title=Implicit versus explicit computation. Commentary to: J-P Ewert: Neuroethology of Releasing Mechanisms: Prey-Catching in Toads. |journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=387-388 |year=1987}}</ref>[/td]
[td]This has neurophysiological implications: In contrast to the orientation-selective βsimple cellsβ of mammals, in toads the T5.2-type neural feature detectors, which prefer worm-like objects, and the TH3-type feature detectors, which prefer anti-worm-like objects, exhibit approximately radially symmetric excitatory receptive fields (for a commentary see Stevens 1987). <ref>{{cite journal |author=Stevens KA |title=Implicit versus explicit computation. Commentary to: J-P Ewert: Neuroethology of Releasing Mechanisms: Prey-Catching in Toads. |journal=The Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=387-388 |year=1987}}</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]He also showed that the toad would crouch and go immobile in response to a large rectangle. Using worm and anti-worm stimuli like these, Ewert identified that the prey-recognition system in the visual pathway of the toad is based on a number of innate release mechanisms. In response to a worm-like moving stimulus, the toad exhibited the following behaviors: orienting, snapping, or mouth wiping. On the other hand, an anti-worm stimulus evoked a different set of avoidance behaviors: planting down or crouching. After determining the sensory recognition elements of each behavior with this experimental setup, Ewert and co-workers examined the neural mechanisms governing the toad's prey-recognition system and found a number of feature detectors.[/td]
[td]He also showed that the toad would crouch and go immobile in response to a large rectangle. Using worm and anti-worm stimuli like these, Ewert identified that the prey-recognition system in the visual pathway of the toad is based on a number of innate release mechanisms. In response to a worm-like moving stimulus, the toad exhibited the following behaviors: orienting, snapping, or mouth wiping. On the other hand, an anti-worm stimulus evoked a different set of avoidance behaviors: planting down or crouching. After determining the sensory recognition elements of each behavior with this experimental setup, Ewert and co-workers examined the neural mechanisms governing the toad's prey-recognition system and found a number of feature detectors.[/td]
Continue reading...
