Literature DB >> 12561129

An analysis of response, direction, and place learning in an open field and T maze.

Darlene M Skinner1, Cheryl M Etchegary, Elysia C Ekert-Maret, Colleen J Baker, Carolyn W Harley, John H Evans, Gerard M Martin.   

Abstract

Rats were trained to locate food in a response, direction, or place problem on an open field located at 2 positions. In Experiment 1, both the response and direction groups solved the problem. The place group failed to solve the task in approximately 300 trials. Experiment 2 demonstrated that rats need distinguishable start points to solve a place problem when neither a response nor a direction solution is available. Findings from Experiment 3 suggest that a combination of path traveled and distinct cues help to differentiate start points. Experiment 4 replicated the findings using a T maze. These results suggest "place" solutions are difficult for rats. The data are discussed with respect to conditional learning and modern spatial mapping theory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12561129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process        ISSN: 0097-7403


  16 in total

1.  Behaviorism, latent learning, and cognitive maps: needed revisions in introductory psychology textbooks.

Authors:  Robert Jensen
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2006

2.  The effects of response cost and species-typical behaviors on a daily time-place learning task.

Authors:  Scott H Deibel; Christina M Thorpe
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Place versus response learning in rats.

Authors:  Mark R Cole; Amy Clipperton; Caryn Walt
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Lesions of the hippocampus or dorsolateral striatum disrupt distinct aspects of spatial navigation strategies based on proximal and distal information in a cued variant of the Morris water task.

Authors:  James P Rice; Douglas G Wallace; Derek A Hamilton
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 5.  Framing spatial cognition: neural representations of proximal and distal frames of reference and their roles in navigation.

Authors:  James J Knierim; Derek A Hamilton
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 37.312

6.  On the nature of three-dimensional encoding in the cognitive map: Commentary on Hayman, Verriotis, Jovalekic, Fenton, and Jeffery.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Taube; Michael Shinder
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2012-09-21       Impact factor: 3.899

7.  Distance and direction, but not light cues, support response reversal learning.

Authors:  S L Wright; G M Martin; C M Thorpe; K Haley; D M Skinner
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  Directional responding of C57BL/6J mice in the Morris water maze is influenced by visual and vestibular cues and is dependent on the anterior thalamic nuclei.

Authors:  Robert W Stackman; Joan C Lora; Sidney B Williams
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  The head-direction signal is critical for navigation requiring a cognitive map but not for learning a spatial habit.

Authors:  Brett Gibson; William N Butler; Jeffery S Taube
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Lesions of the dorsal tegmental nuclei disrupt control of navigation by distal landmarks in cued, directional, and place variants of the Morris water task.

Authors:  Benjamin J Clark; James P Rice; Katherine G Akers; Felicha T Candelaria-Cook; Jeffrey S Taube; Derek A Hamilton
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 1.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.