Summary
We have studied the responses of leopard frogs,Rana pipiens, to live mealworms presented at different distances on the mid-sagittal plane. The response of normal frogs to stimuli at nearer distances consists of a direct snap whose amplitude increases with stimulus distance. For greater distances, the response consists of a forward hop whose amplitude also varies with stimulus distance. Over an intermediate range of distances, responses may be either snaps or hops. Whichever response occurs is of appropriate amplitude. The distance at which frogs switch from predominantly snapping responses to predominantly hopping responses increases with body size.
Like normal frogs, unilaterally blinded frogs respond to stimuli at nearer distances with snaps whose amplitude varies with stimulus distance, switch from snapping to hopping over an intermediate range of distances, and respond to stimuli at greater distances with hops whose amplitude also increases with stimulus distance. In many cases, unilateral blinding did however result in a decrease in the distance at which the frogs switched from snapping to hopping. Such changes were not accompanied by the changes in snap or hop amplitude which would be expected if unilateral blinding resulted in generalized changes in distance judgement. Normal variations in snap amplitude and switches from snapping to hopping were also observed in frogs subjected to unilateral eye removal prior to the metamorphic eye migration which creates the adult binocular visual field.
These results imply that neither distance discrimination nor any of the kinds of variation in motor output which occur with increasing stimulus distance necessarily depend on binocular cues. The behaviors studied also appear to be largely independent of normal binocular experience. More generally, our results suggest that the movement triggered by a stimulus at a particular location is not determined entirely by the retinal and superficial tectal region activated but rather reflects a combination of a retinal local sign signal with other kinds of information. The latter probably include signals related to stimulus distance and body posture, and may include signals related to body size as well.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adamson J, Burke J, Grobstein P (1984) Recovery of the ipsilateral oculotectal projection following nerve crush in the frog: evidence that retinal afferents make synapses at abnormal tectal locations. J Neurosci 4:2635–2649
Collett T (1977) Stereopsis in toads. Nature 267:349–351
Collett T, Harkness L (1982) Depth vision in animals. In: Ingle D, Goodale R, Mansfield R (eds) Analysis of visual behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 111–176
Comer C, Grobstein P (1981) Tactually elicited prey acquisition behavior in the frog,Rana pipiens, and a comparison with visually elicited behavior. J Comp Physiol 142:141–150
Ewert J-P, Burghagen H, Schürg-Pfeiffer E (1983) Neuroethological analysis of the innate releasing mechanism for preycatching behavior in toads. In: Ewert J-P, Capranica R, Ingle D (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New York, pp 413–475
Fite KY (1973) The visual fields of the frog and toad: a comparative study. Behav Biol 9:707–718
Fite KY, Rego M (1974) Binocular vision and prey-catching behavior in the leopard frog,Rana pipiens. Abstr Soc Neurosci:211
Fite KY, Scalia F (1976) Central visual pathways in the frog. In: Fite KY (ed) The amphibian visual system. Academic Press, New York, pp 87–118
Gibson JJ (1950) Perception of the visual world. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Grobstein P (1983) Further thoughts on the linkage between tectum and prey capture motor output. In: COINS Technical Report 83-19, Center for Systems Neuroscience, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (unpaginated)
Grobstein P, Comer C, Kostyk S (1980) The potential binocular field and its tectal representation inRana pipiens. J Comp Neurol 190:175–185
Grobstein P, Comer C, Kostyk SK (1983) Frog prey capture behavior: between sensory maps and directed motor output. In: Ewert J-P, Capranica R, Ingle D (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New York, pp 331–347
Grüsser OJ, Grüsser-Cornehls U (1976) Neurophysiology of the anural visual system. In: Llinás R, Precht W (eds) Frog neurobiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 297–385
Hoskins S, Kostyk SK, Grobstein P (1982) Orienting behavior of juvenile frogs with both a premetamorphically rotated and a normal eye. Behav Brain Res 4:55–62
Ingle D (1970) Visuomotor functions of the frog optic tectum. Brain Behav Evol 3:57–71
Ingle D (1972) Depth vision in monocular frogs. Psychon Sci 29:37–38
Ingle D (1976) Spatial vision in anurans. In: Fite KY (ed) The amphibian visual system. Academic Press, New York, pp 119–140
Ingle D (1982) Organization of visuomotor behaviors in vertebrates. In: Ingle D, Goodale M, Mansfield R (eds) Analysis of visual behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 67–109
Ingle D (1983) Brain mechanisms of visual localization by frogs and toads. In: Ewert J-P, Capranica R, Ingle D (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New York, pp 177–226
Jacobson M (1962) The representation of the retina on the optic tectum of the frog. Correlation between retinotectal magnification factor and retinal ganglion cell count. Q J Exp Physiol 47:170–178
Jacobson M (1971) Absence of adaptive modification in developing retinotectal connections in frogs after visual deprivation or disparate stimulation of the eyes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 68:528–532
Jordan M, Luthardt G, Meyer-Naujoks C, Roth G (1980) The role of eye accommodation in the depth perception of common toads. Z Naturforsch 35:851–852
Kaufman L (1974) Sight and mind. Oxford, New York
Kostyk SK, Grobstein P (1982a) Visual orienting deficits in frogs with various unilateral lesions. Behav Brain Res 6:379–388
Kostyk SK, Grobstein P (1982b) Frog prey orienting: evidence for the involvement of an uncrossed tectofugal pathway. Soc Neurosci Abstr 8:292
Lashley KS (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In: Jeffries LA (ed) Cerebral mechanisms in behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 112–136
Sperry RW (1965) Embryogenesis of behavioral nerve nets. In: DeHaan R, Ursprung H (eds) Organogenesis. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 161–186
Taylor AC, Kollros JJ (1946) Stages in the normal development ofRana pipiens. Anat Rec 94:7–23
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grobstein, P., Reyes, A., Zwanziger, L. et al. Prey orienting in frogs: Accounting for variations in output with stimulus distance. J. Comp. Physiol. 156, 775–785 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610830
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610830