Maneuvering safely through the environment is central to survival of almost all species. The ability to do this depends on learning and remembering locations. This capacity is encoded in the brain by two systems: one using cues outside the organism (distal cues), allocentric navigation, and one using self-movement, internal cues and nearby proximal cues, egocentric navigation. Allocentric navigation involves the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and surrounding structures; in humans this system encodes allocentric, semantic, and episodic memory. This form of memory is assessed in laboratory animals in many ways, but the dominant form of assessment is the Morris water maze (MWM). Egocentric navigation involves the dorsal striatum and connected structures; in humans this system encodes routes and integrated paths and, when overlearned, becomes procedural memory. In this article, several allocentric assessment methods for rodents are reviewed and compared with the MWM. MWM advantages (little training required, no food deprivation, ease of testing, rapid and reliable learning, insensitivity to differences in body weight and appetite, absence of nonperformers, control methods for proximal cue learning, and performance effects) and disadvantages (concern about stress, perhaps not as sensitive for working memory) are discussed. Evidence-based design improvements and testing methods are reviewed for both rats and mice. Experimental factors that apply generally to spatial navigation and to MWM specifically are considered. It is concluded that, on balance, the MWM has more advantages than disadvantages and compares favorably with other allocentric navigation tasks.
Maneuvering safely through the environment is central to survival of almost all species. The ability to do this depends on learning and remembering locations. This capacity is encoded in the brain by two systems: one using cues outside the organism (distal cues), allocentric navigation, and one using self-movement, internal cues and nearby proximal cues, egocentric navigation. Allocentric navigation involves the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and surrounding structures; in humans this system encodes allocentric, semantic, and episodic memory. This form of memory is assessed in laboratory animals in many ways, but the dominant form of assessment is the Morris water maze (MWM). Egocentric navigation involves the dorsal striatum and connected structures; in humans this system encodes routes and integrated paths and, when overlearned, becomes procedural memory. In this article, several allocentric assessment methods for rodents are reviewed and compared with the MWM. MWM advantages (little training required, no food deprivation, ease of testing, rapid and reliable learning, insensitivity to differences in body weight and appetite, absence of nonperformers, control methods for proximal cue learning, and performance effects) and disadvantages (concern about stress, perhaps not as sensitive for working memory) are discussed. Evidence-based design improvements and testing methods are reviewed for both rats and mice. Experimental factors that apply generally to spatial navigation and to MWM specifically are considered. It is concluded that, on balance, the MWM has more advantages than disadvantages and compares favorably with other allocentric navigation tasks.
Authors: Matthew R Skelton; Tori L Schaefer; Devon L Graham; Ton J Degrauw; Joseph F Clark; Michael T Williams; Charles V Vorhees Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Abby A Li; Larry P Sheets; Kathleen Raffaele; Virginia Moser; Angela Hofstra; Alan Hoberman; Susan L Makris; Robert Garman; Brad Bolon; Wolfgang Kaufmann; Roland Auer; Edmund Lau; Thomas Vidmar; Wayne J Bowers Journal: Neurotoxicol Teratol Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Jennifer Rha; Stephanie K Jones; Jonathan Fidler; Ayan Banerjee; Sara W Leung; Kevin J Morris; Jennifer C Wong; George Andrew S Inglis; Lindsey Shapiro; Qiudong Deng; Alicia A Cutler; Adam M Hanif; Machelle T Pardue; Ashleigh Schaffer; Nicholas T Seyfried; Kenneth H Moberg; Gary J Bassell; Andrew Escayg; Paul S García; Anita H Corbett Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Celeste Y C Wu; Francesca M Lerner; Alexandre Couto E Silva; Harlee E Possoit; Tsung-Han Hsieh; Jake T Neumann; Alireza Minagar; Hung Wen Lin; Reggie H C Lee Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Max C Richter; Susann Ludewig; Alex Winschel; Tobias Abel; Charlotte Bold; Leonie R Salzburger; Susanne Klein; Kang Han; Sascha W Weyer; Ann-Kristina Fritz; Bodo Laube; David P Wolfer; Christian J Buchholz; Martin Korte; Ulrike C Müller Journal: EMBO J Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 11.598
Authors: Emily M Pitzer; Chiho Sugimoto; Gary A Gudelsky; Courtney L Huff Adams; Michael T Williams; Charles V Vorhees Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Zachary A Cordner; Seva G Khambadkone; Gretha J Boersma; Lin Song; Tyler N Summers; Timothy H Moran; Kellie L K Tamashiro Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Ryan A Kirk; Raymond P Kesner; Li-Ming Wang; Qi Wu; Rheal A Towner; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Geroscience Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 7.713