Animal Cognition

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 29–36 | Cite as

Orientation in the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis: response versus place learning

  • Christelle Alves
  • Raymond Chichery
  • Jean Geary Boal
  • Ludovic DickelEmail author
Original Article


Several studies have demonstrated that mammals, birds and fish use comparable spatial learning strategies. Unfortunately, except in insects, few studies have investigated spatial learning mechanisms in invertebrates. Our study aimed to identify the strategies used by cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to solve a spatial task commonly used with vertebrates. A new spatial learning procedure using a T-maze was designed. In this maze, the cuttlefish learned how to enter a dark and sandy compartment. A preliminary test confirmed that individual cuttlefish showed an untrained side-turning preference (preference for turning right or left) in the T-maze. This preference could be reliably detected in a single probe trial. In the following two experiments, each individual was trained to enter the compartment opposite to its side-turning preference. In Experiment 1, distal visual cues were provided around the maze. In Experiment 2, the T-maze was surrounded by curtains and two proximal visual cues were provided above the apparatus. In both experiments, after acquisition, strategies used by cuttlefish to orient in the T-maze were tested by creating a conflict between the formerly rewarded algorithmic behaviour (turn, response learning) and the visual cues identifying the goal (place learning). Most cuttlefish relied on response learning in Experiment 1; the two strategies were used equally often in Experiment 2. In these experiments, the salience of cues provided during the experiment determined whether cuttlefish used response or place learning to solve this spatial task. Our study demonstrates for the first time the presence of multiple spatial strategies in cuttlefish that appear to closely parallel those described in vertebrates.


Cuttlefish T-maze Side-turning preference Place strategy Response strategy 



We thank Dr. J. Lejeune for statistical advice and the staff of the C.R.E.C. for their technical assistance. This research was supported by a grant from the Ministère de la Recherche et de la Technologie to C.A. The experiments complied with the French animal testing laws.


  1. Andrade C, Alwarshetty M, Sudha S, Suresh Chandra J (2001) Effect of innate direction bias on T-maze learning in rats: implications for research. J Neurosci Methods 110:31–35 DOI 10.1016/S0165-0270(01)00415-0Google Scholar
  2. Benhamou S, Poucet B (1996) A comparative analysis of spatial memory processes. Behav Processes 35:113–126 DOI 10.1016/0376-6357(95)00060-7Google Scholar
  3. Boal JG (1996) A review of simultaneous visual discrimination as a method of training octopuses. Biol Rev 71:157–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boal JG, Dunham AW, Williams KT, Hanlon RT (2000) Experimental evidence for spatial learning in octopuses (Octopus bimaculoides). J Comp Psychol 114(3):246–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boletzky SV (1972) A note on aerial prey-capture by Sepia officinalis (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). Vie Milieu 23(1A):133–140Google Scholar
  6. Budelmann BU (1994) Cephalopod sense organs, nerves and the brain: adaptations for high performance and life style. Mar Fresh Behav Physiol 25:13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne RA, Kuba M, Griebel U (2002) Lateral asymmetry of eye use in Octopus vulgaris. Anim Behav 64:461-468 DOI 10.1006/anbe.2002.3089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne RA, Kuba MJ, Meisel DV (2004) Lateralized eye use in Octopus vulgaris shows antisymmetrical distribution. Anim Behav 68(5):1107–1114 DOI 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.11.027Google Scholar
  9. Carman HM, Mactutus CF (2001) Proximal versus distal cue utilization in spatial navigation: the role of visual acuity?. Neurobiol Learn Mem 78:332–346 DOI 10.1006/nlme.2002.4062Google Scholar
  10. Colombo PJ, Brightwell JJ, Countryman RA (2003) Cognitive strategy-specific increases in phosphorylated cAMP Response Element-Binding protein and c-Fos in the hippocampus and dorsal striatum. J Neurosci 23(8):3547–3554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dudchenko PA (2001) How do animals actually solve the T maze?. Behav Neurosci 115(4):850-860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franz MO, Mallot HA (2000) Biomimetic robot navigation. Robot Auton Syst 30:133–153 DOI 10.1016/S0921-8890(99)00069-XGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson BM, Shettleworth SJ (2005) Place versus response learning revisited: tests of blocking on the radial maze. Behav Neurosci 119(2):567–586 DOI 10.1037/0735-7044.119.2.567Google Scholar
  14. Giurfa M, Capaldi EA (1999) Vectors, routes and maps: New discoveries about navigation in insects. Trends Neurosci 22:237–242 DOI 10.1016/S0166-2236(99)01406-XGoogle Scholar
  15. Golledge RG (1999) Wayfinding behavior. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanlon RT, Messenger JB (1996) Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Healy S (1998) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobs LF (2003) The evolution of the cognitive map. Brain Behav Evol 62:128–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karson MA (2003) Simultaneous discrimination learning and its neural correlates in the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis (Cephalopoda: Mollusca). Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  20. Karson MA, Boal JG, Hanlon RT (2003) Experimental evidence for spatial learning in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). J Comp Psychol 117(2):149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehman RAW (1981) Lateralized asymmetry of behavior in animals at the population and individual level. Behav Brain Sci 4:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. López JC, Broglio C, Rodríguez F, Thinus-Blanc C, Salas C (1999) Multiple spatial learning strategies in goldfish (Carassius auratus) Anim Cogn 2:109–120 DOI 10.1007/s100710050031Google Scholar
  23. Mather JA (1991) Navigation by spatial memory and use of visual landmarks in octopuses. J Comp Physiol A 168:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mather JA (1995) Cognition in cephalopods. In: Slater PJB, Rosenblatt JS, Snowdon CT (eds) Advances in the study of behavior vol 24. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, US, pp 317–353Google Scholar
  25. Messenger JB (1968) The visual attack of the cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Anim Behav 16:342–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Odling-Smee L, Braithwaite VA (2003) The influence of habitat stability on landmark use during spatial learning in the three-spined stickleback. Anim Behav 65:701–707 DOI 10.1006/anbe.2003.2082Google Scholar
  27. O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Packard A (1972) Cephalopods and fish: the limits of convergence. Biol Rev 47:241–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Packard MG, McGaugh JL (1996) Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 65(1):65–72 DOI 10.1006/nlme.1996.0007Google Scholar
  30. Restle F (1957) Discrimination of cues in mazes: A resolution of the “place-vs-response” question. Psychol Rev 64:217–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanders GD (1975) The Cephalopods. In: Corning WC, Dyal JA, Willows AOD (eds) Invertebrate learning vol 3. Plenium Press, New York, pp 1–101Google Scholar
  32. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Vallortigara G, Rogers LJ, Bisazza A (1999) Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain lateralization. Brain Res Rev 30(2):164–175 DOI 10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00012-0Google Scholar
  34. Walker JJ, Longo N, Bitterman ME (1970) The octopus in the laboratory. Handling, maintenance, training. Behav Res Methods Instrum 2(1):15–18Google Scholar
  35. Wehner R, Lehrer M, Harvey WR (1996) Navigation: migration and homing, vol 199. Company of Biologists Limited, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells MJ (1964) Detour experiments with octopuses. J Exp Biol 41:621–642Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christelle Alves
    • 1
    • 2
  • Raymond Chichery
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean Geary Boal
    • 3
  • Ludovic Dickel
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Physiologie du Comportement des CéphalopodesUniversité de CaenCaen cedexFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Recherches en Environnement CôtierLuc-sur-MerFrance
  3. 3.Department of BiologyMillersville UniversityMillersvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations