Literature DB >> 20204918

Theoretical accounts of spatial learning: a neurobiological view (commentary on Pearce, 2009).

Kathryn J Jeffery1.   

Abstract

Theories of learning have historically taken, as their starting point, the assumption that learning processes have universal applicability. This position has been argued on grounds of parsimony, but has received two significant challenges: first, from the observation that some kinds of learning, such as spatial learning, seem to obey different rules from others, and second, that some kinds of learning take place in processing modules that are separate from each other. These challenges arose in the behavioural literature but have since received considerable support from neurobiological studies, particularly single neuron studies of spatial learning, confirming that there are indeed separable (albeit highly intercommunicating) processing modules in the brain, which may not always interact (within or between themselves) according to classic associative principles. On the basis of these neurobiological data, reviewed here, it is argued that rather than assuming universality of associative rules, it is more parsimonious to assume sets of locally operating rules, each specialized for a particular domain. By this view, although almost all learning is associative in one way or another, the behavioural-level characterization of the rules governing learning may vary depending on which neural modules are involved in a given behaviour. Neurobiological studies, in tandem with behavioural studies, can help reveal the nature of these modules and the local rules by which they interact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20204918      PMCID: PMC3160474          DOI: 10.1080/17470210903540771

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  59 in total

Review 1.  Path integration and the neural basis of the 'cognitive map'.

Authors:  Bruce L McNaughton; Francesco P Battaglia; Ole Jensen; Edvard I Moser; May-Britt Moser
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Behavioral correlates of the distributed coding of spatial context.

Authors:  Michael I Anderson; Sarah Killing; Caitlin Morris; Alan O'Donoghue; Dikennam Onyiagha; Rosemary Stevenson; Madeleine Verriotis; Kathryn J Jeffery
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.899

3.  Dominance of the proximal coordinate frame in determining the locations of hippocampal place cell activity during navigation.

Authors:  Jennifer J Siegel; Joshua P Neunuebel; James J Knierim
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Learning about environmental geometry: an associative model.

Authors:  Noam Y Miller; Sara J Shettleworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2007-07

Review 5.  Integration of the sensory inputs to place cells: what, where, why, and how?

Authors:  Kathryn J Jeffery
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.899

Review 6.  Self-localization and the entorhinal-hippocampal system.

Authors:  Kathryn J Jeffery
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 7.  Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module.

Authors:  Ken Cheng
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-08-04       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Parallel striatal and hippocampal systems for landmarks and boundaries in spatial memory.

Authors:  Christian F Doeller; John A King; Neil Burgess
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries.

Authors:  Christian F Doeller; Neil Burgess
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-04-14       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Unmasking the CA1 ensemble place code by exposures to small and large environments: more place cells and multiple, irregularly arranged, and expanded place fields in the larger space.

Authors:  André A Fenton; Hsin-Yi Kao; Samuel A Neymotin; Andrey Olypher; Yevgeniy Vayntrub; William W Lytton; Nandor Ludvig
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective.

Authors:  Ken Cheng; Janellen Huttenlocher; Nora S Newcombe
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-12

2.  Temporal and spatial contiguity are necessary for competition between events.

Authors:  Estibaliz Herrera; José A Alcalá; Toru Tazumi; Matthew G Buckley; José Prados; Gonzalo P Urcelay
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 3.  Modularity, comparative cognition and human uniqueness.

Authors:  Sara J Shettleworth
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Learned predictiveness training modulates biases towards using boundary or landmark cues during navigation.

Authors:  Matthew G Buckley; Alastair D Smith; Mark Haselgrove
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  The developmental trajectory of intramaze and extramaze landmark biases in spatial navigation: An unexpected journey.

Authors:  Matthew G Buckley; Mark Haselgrove; Alastair D Smith
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2015-04-06

6.  Are Distal and Proximal Visual Cues Equally Important during Spatial Learning in Mice? A Pilot Study of Overshadowing in the Spatial Domain.

Authors:  Marie Hébert; Jan Bulla; Denis Vivien; Véronique Agin
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.558

7.  Failure to demonstrate short-cutting in a replication and extension of Tolman et al.'s spatial learning experiment with humans.

Authors:  Stuart P Wilson; Paul N Wilson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Shape shifting: Local landmarks interfere with navigation by, and recognition of, global shape.

Authors:  Matthew G Buckley; Alastair D Smith; Mark Haselgrove
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 3.051

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.