Literature DB >> 23729864

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

L Brooke April1, Katherine Bruce, Mark Galizio.   

Abstract

The olfactory span task (OST) uses an incrementing non-matching to sample procedure such that the number of stimuli to remember increases during the session. The number of consecutive correct responses (span length) and percent correct as a function of the memory load have been viewed as defining rodent working memory capacity limitations in several studies using the OST. However, the procedural parameters of the OST vary across experiments and their effects are not well understood. For example, in several studies, the number of stimuli to remember is confounded with the number of comparison stimuli displayed in the test arena. Experiment 1 addressed whether performance is influenced by the number of comparison choices available on any given trial (2, 5, 10) as well as the number of odor stimuli to remember during a session (12, 24, 36). Performance was most accurate when the number of stimuli to remember was low, as would be expected from a working memory interpretation of OST. However, accuracy was also affected by the number of comparison stimulus choices. High levels of accuracy were seen even with 36 odors, suggesting that the capacity for odor memory in rats was greater than suggested by previous research. Experiment 2 attempted to define this capacity by programming sessions with 36, 48 or 72 stimuli to remember in a group of rats that had previously received extensive OST training. Highly accurate performance (80% correct or better) was sustained throughout the session at even the greatest memory loads, arguing strongly against the notion that the OST models the limited capacity of human working memory. Experiment 3 explored the possibility that stimulus control in the OST is based on relative stimulus familiarity, rather than recognition of stimuli not yet presented during the current session. Number of odor cups visited increased with the number of comparisons in the arena, but rats rarely sampled all of the comparison odors before responding. However, on probe trials which included only stimuli that had been presented during the session, latency to respond and number of comparisons sampled was sharply increased. These data suggest that responding in the OST is determined not just by relative familiarity, but rather by a more specific "what-when" or perhaps "how long ago" form of stimulus control.

Entities:  

Keywords:  episodic-like memory; non-match-to-sample; odor span task; olfaction; rat; recognition memory; working memory

Year:  2013        PMID: 23729864      PMCID: PMC3665427          DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2013.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Learn Motiv        ISSN: 0023-9690


  21 in total

1.  Cortical cholinergic inputs mediate processing capacity: effects of 192 IgG-saporin-induced lesions on olfactory span performance.

Authors:  J Turchi; M Sarter
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 2.  Animal models of working memory: a review of tasks that might be used in screening drug treatments for the memory impairments found in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Paul A Dudchenko; John Talpos; Jared Young; Mark G Baxter
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 8.989

3.  Effects of dizocilpine (MK801) on olfactory span in rats.

Authors:  Dave A MacQueen; Laura Bullard; Mark Galizio
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 2.877

Review 4.  An overview of the tasks used to test working memory in rodents.

Authors:  Paul A Dudchenko
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 8.989

5.  Recognition memory: adding a response deadline eliminates recollection but spares familiarity.

Authors:  Magdalena M Sauvage; Zachery Beer; Howard Eichenbaum
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2010-02-13       Impact factor: 2.460

6.  Matching- and nonmatching-to-sample concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli.

Authors:  L Brooke April; Katherine Bruce; Mark Galizio
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.

Authors:  Wenyi Zhou; Jonathon D Crystal
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  The odour span task: a novel paradigm for assessing working memory in mice.

Authors:  Jared W Young; Lorraine E Kerr; John S Kelly; Hugh M Marston; Christopher Spratt; Keith Finlayson; John Sharkey
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2006-11-13       Impact factor: 5.250

9.  Working memory in the odor span task: effects of chlordiazepoxide, dizocilpine (MK801), morphine, and scopolamine.

Authors:  Mark Galizio; Melissa Deal; Andrew Hawkey; Brooke April
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 4.530

10.  Progressive impairment in olfactory working memory in a mouse model of Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Authors:  Jared W Young; John Sharkey; Keith Finlayson
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.673

View more
  22 in total

1.  Validation of the human odor span task: effects of nicotine.

Authors:  David A MacQueen; David J Drobes
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Generalizing from the Past, Choosing the Future.

Authors:  Sarah Cowie; Michael Davison
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2020-06-11

3.  Behavioral pharmacology of the odor span task: Effects of flunitrazepam, ketamine, methamphetamine and methylphenidate.

Authors:  Mark Galizio; Brooke April; Melissa Deal; Andrew Hawkey; Danielle Panoz-Brown; Ashley Prichard; Katherine Bruce
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Olfactory Stimulus Control and the Behavioral Pharmacology of Remembering.

Authors:  Mark Galizio
Journal:  Behav Anal (Wash D C)       Date:  2016-03-17

5.  Odor span task in dogs (Canis familiaris).

Authors:  Sarah Krichbaum; Bart Rogers; Emma Cox; L Paul Waggoner; Jeffrey S Katz
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 3.084

6.  Release from proactive interference in rat spatial working memory.

Authors:  William A Roberts; Hayden MacDonald; Lyn Brown; Krista Macpherson
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats.

Authors:  Ashley Prichard; Danielle Panoz-Brown; Katherine Bruce; Mark Galizio
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Rats Remember Items in Context Using Episodic Memory.

Authors:  Danielle Panoz-Brown; Hannah E Corbin; Stefan J Dalecki; Meredith Gentry; Sydney Brotheridge; Christina M Sluka; Jie-En Wu; Jonathon D Crystal
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Working Memory Systems in the Rat.

Authors:  Alexander Bratch; Spencer Kann; Joshua A Cain; Jie-En Wu; Nilda Rivera-Reyes; Stefan Dalecki; Diana Arman; Austin Dunn; Shiloh Cooper; Hannah E Corbin; Amanda R Doyle; Matthew J Pizzo; Alexandra E Smith; Jonathon D Crystal
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Effects of MDMA on olfactory memory and reversal learning in rats.

Authors:  Andrew Hawkey; L Brooke April; Mark Galizio
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 2.877

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.