Literature DB >> 14733483

Exploring the limits of spatial memory in rats, using very large mazes.

Mark R Cole1, Robyn Chappell-Stephenson.   

Abstract

In Experiment 1, rats foraged for food in six successive phases with 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, and 48 arms attached in random locations to a large radial maze. The percentage of novel choices appeared to be determined more by spatial proximity than by number of arms. In Experiment 2, rats foraged for food in four successive phases with 8, 16, 24, and 48 arms attached to the maze in spread-out or tight configurations. Performance was poor in the tight configurations regardless of the number of arms. Performance was excellent in the 8-arm spread-out condition but declined as 16 and, then again, 24 arms were added. Thus, spatial separation, not number of locations, was the chief determinant of performance in the first two experiments. In Experiment 3, in successive phases, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 16, and 8 food towers were set in a circle on the floor, with the spatial separation between adjacent towers held constant at 33 cm. The percentage of novel choices declined as 8 towers became 16 and did not change again with 24, 32, 40, or 48 towers in place but then increased again as 16 towers became 8. In Experiment 4, in successive phases, 8, 16, 24, and 32 food towers were set in a circle, with the spatial separation between adjacent towers held constant at 66 cm. The percentage of novel choices declined as 8 towers became 16 and again as 16 towers became 24 but did not decline further. These data were discussed in terms of the fundamental problems posed by variations in the number of food locations in the pursuit of the limit of spatial memory in rats.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14733483     DOI: 10.3758/bf03195996

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Behav        ISSN: 1543-4494            Impact factor:   1.986


  6 in total

1.  The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.

Authors:  G A MILLER
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1956-03       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem.

Authors:  E L Charnov
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1976-04       Impact factor: 1.570

Review 3.  Spatial memory and stereotypic behaviour of animals in radial arm mazes.

Authors:  J Lanke; L Månsson; M Bjerkemo; P Kjellstrand
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1993-03-12       Impact factor: 3.252

4.  Control of choice by the spatial configuration of goals.

Authors:  M F Brown; M Terrinoni
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1996-10

5.  The effects of an intramaze cue search rule on rat's spatial working memory.

Authors:  J S Cohen; P Burkhart; N Jones; N K Innis
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 1.777

6.  Hierarchical structures: chunking by food type facilitates spatial memory.

Authors:  N L Dallal; W H Meck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1990-01
  6 in total
  5 in total

1.  The Magic Number 70 (plus or minus 20): Variables Determining Performance in the Rodent Odor Span Task.

Authors:  L Brooke April; Katherine Bruce; Mark Galizio
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2013-08-01

Review 2.  A conceptual and practical guide to the behavioural evaluation of animal models of the symptomatology and therapy of schizophrenia.

Authors:  Benjamin K Yee; Philipp Singer
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 5.249

3.  JULIDE: a software tool for 3D reconstruction and statistical analysis of autoradiographic mouse brain sections.

Authors:  Delphine Ribes; Julia Parafita; Rémi Charrier; Fulvio Magara; Pierre J Magistretti; Jean-Philippe Thiran
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Rats (Rattus norvegicus) flexibly retrieve objects' non-spatial and spatial information from their visuospatial working memory: effects of integrated and separate processing of these features in a missing-object recognition task.

Authors:  Corrine Keshen; Jerome Cohen
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  A novel paradigm for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.

Authors:  Geng-Di Huang; Li-Xin Jiang; Feng Su; Hua-Li Wang; Chen Zhang; Xin Yu
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 6.222

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.