The control of feeding behavior by an imprinted stimulus.
An imprinted visual cue can turn feeding on and off even though it never delivers food.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Scientists worked with newly hatched ducklings. The birds had imprinted on a moving red box. Later the box was used to start or stop feeding.
The team removed the box for short periods. They watched how this changed when and how much the ducklings ate.
What they found
The imprinted box alone could control feeding. No food ever came from the box. Strongest control happened when the box was taken away and then returned.
Feeding started quickly each time the box re-appeared. This shows an imprinted stimulus can act like a reinforcer without food pairing.
How this fits with other research
Hoffman et al. (1966) first showed the same red box could make ducklings peck a key. The 1969 study widens the finding to a new response: eating.
Pliskoff et al. (1967) proved the effect lasts weeks. Together the three papers build a line: imprinted stimulus → key peck → feeding → long-term control.
Cruse et al. (1966) found food pellets themselves can cue behavior. Both studies reveal everyday items gaining control without extra training.
Why it matters
You now have proof that strong stimuli need not be edible to shape mealtime. For picky eaters or tube-fed clients, try pairing a favorite toy or song with bites. Remove it briefly, then bring it back to restart eating. The stimulus itself becomes the green light for the next bite.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a highly preferred toy, present it only when bites occur, and briefly remove it if eating stops.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Imprinted ducklings were trained to peck a pole using brief presentations of the imprinted stimulus as the response-contingent (reinforcing) event. Subjects were then permitted to spend extended periods with continuous access to food and the imprinted stimulus (via a pole peck). For other (control) subjects the experimental situation was restricted to either responding for the stimulus, or feeding in the absence of the stimulus. For subjects in the control conditions, both activities occurred in cyclic fashion. When, however, there was continuous opportunity to respond for the stimulus and food was available, the tendency to respond was related to the tendency to feed. Other experiments showed that independent presentations of the stimulus could initiate feeding in imprinted ducklings with no prior pairing of the stimulus with food and with no prior pole-peck training. The most consistent control over feeding, however, was exhibited by ducklings that were imprinted and also accustomed to periodic removals of the stimulus. It is concluded that in ducklings, imprinting procedures are sufficient to endow an arbitrary stimulus with the capacity to release feeding behavior.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1969 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-847