When given the option between a ground-level prey presented in front and another prey presented 90° to the side, leopard frogs have a front preference. When given a choice between prey objects presented at the left and right sides, some individual leopard frogs have a side preference. Repeated prey object presentations at one side predispose leopard frogs to respond to the opposite side when presented with prey objects at both sides. The phenomenon is preserved through a half minute delay between single prey presentations (biasing) and two prey presentations (testing) but not through a three-minute delay between biasing and testing. Ten biasing presentations on a side are sufficient to induce opposite side preference, while three biasing presentations are insufficient. Attempts to permanently modify preferences by completely exhausting responsiveness to a single side were unsuccessful. A neural model for the effect of biasing on behavior is shown.

Keywords:
Prey selection, Biasing, Leopard frog, Habituation, Lateralization
1.
Bisazza, A., C. Cantalupo, A. Robins, L.J. Rogers, and G. Vallortigara (1996) Right-pawedness in toads. Nature, 379: 408.
2.
Cervantes-Perez, F., A.D. Guevara-Pozas, and A.A. Herrera-Becerra (1990) Modulation of prey-catching behavior in toads: data and modeling. In Visual Structures and Integrated Functions (ed. by J.-P. Ewert and M.A. Arbib), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 397–415.
3.
Ewert, J.-P. (1970) Neural mechanisms of prey-catching and avoidance behavior in the toad (Bufo bufo L.). Brain Behav. Evol., 3: 36–56.
4.
Ewert, J.-P. (1984) Tectal mechanisms that underlie prey-catching and avoidance behavior in toads. In Comparative Neurology of the Optic Tectum (ed. by H. Vanegas), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 247–416.
5.
Ewert, J.-P., and D.J. Ingle (1971) Excitatory effects following habituation of prey-catching activity in frogs and toads. J. Comp. Physiol., 77: 369–374.
6.
Govind, C.K. (1992) Claw asymmetry in lobsters: case study in developmental neuroethology. J. Neurobiol., 23: 1423–1425.
7.
Grobstein, P. (1988) Between the retinotectal projection and directed movement: topography of a sensorimotor interface. Brain Behav. Evol., 31: 34–48.
8.
Ingle, D.J. (1968) Visual releasers of prey catching behavior in frogs and toads. Brain Behav. Evol., 1: 500–518.
9.
Ingle, D.J. (1973) Disinhibition of tectal neurons by pretectal lesions in the frog. Science, 180: 422–424.
10.
Ingle, D.J. (1975) Focal attention in the frog: behavioral and physiological correlates. Science, 188: 1033–1035.
11.
Ingle, D.J., and J. Cook (1977) The effect of viewing distance upon size preference of frogs for prey. Vis. Res., 17: 1009–1013.
12.
Lettvin, J.Y., H.R. Maturana, W.S. McCulloch, and W.H. Pitts (1961) Two remarks on the visual system of the frog. In Sensory Communication (ed. by W.R. Rosenblith), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 757–776.
13.
Stevens, R.J. (1973) A cholinergic inhibitory system in the frog optic tectum: its role in visual electrical responses and feeding behavior. Brain Res., 49: 309–321.
14.
Weber, B.C., R.F. Waldeck, and E.R. Gruberg (1996) Seeing beyond the midline: the role of contralateral isthmotectal projection in the leopard frog. Vis. Neurosci., 13: 467–476.
1998
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.