Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 303–309

Trace classical conditioning in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): what do they learn?

  • Janicke Nordgreen
  • Andrew Michael Janczak
  • Anne Lene Hovland
  • Birgit Ranheim
  • Tor Einar Horsberg
Original Paper

Abstract

There are two main memory systems: declarative and procedural memory. Knowledge of these two systems in fish is scarce, and controlled laboratory studies are needed. Trace classical conditioning is an experimentally tractable model of declarative memory. We tested whether rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) can learn by trace conditioning and form stimulus–stimulus, as opposed to stimulus–response, associations. We predicted that rainbow trout trained by trace conditioning would show appetitive behaviour (conditioned response; CR) towards the conditioned stimulus (CS; light), and that the CR would be sensitive to devaluation of the unconditioned stimulus (US; food). The learning group (L, N = 14) was trained on a CS + US contingency schedule with a trace interval of 3.4 s. The control group (CtrL, N = 4) was kept on a completely random schedule. The fish that learnt were further trained as either an experimental (L, N = 6) or a memory control (CtrM, N = 3) group. The L group had the US devalued. The CtrM group received only food. No fish in the CtrL group, but nine fish from the L group conditioned to the light. When tested, five L fish changed their CRs after US devaluation, indicating learning by stimulus–stimulus association of the light with the food. CtrM fish retained their original CRs. To the best of our knowledge, this experiment is the first to show that rainbow trout can learn by trace classical conditioning. The results indicate that the fish learnt by ‘facts-learning’ rather than by reflex acquisition in this study.

Keywords

Rainbow trout Classical conditioning Declarative Semantic Learning Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Supplementary material

S1: The video clip shows a fish from the CtrL group tested in the learning test. The fish is positioned in the tank to the right, in the left corner of the close zone. It remains there, unresponsive throughout the test. (MPG 2992 kb)

S2: The video clip shows a fish from the L group tested in the learning test. The fish is positioned in the tank to the left. When the CS is turned off, the fish swims towards the feeder and enters the close zone. (MPG 4238 kb)

S3: The video clip shows the same fish from the L group as in S2, tested in the devaluation test. The fish no longer approaches the feeder in the close zone, but remains unresponsive at the border between the far and close zone. (MPG 4420 kb)

S4: The video clip shows a CtrM fish tested in the devaluation test. The fish is positioned in the tank to the right, in the close zone under the feeder. When the CS is turned off, the fish shows increased activity under the feeder directed towards the feeder. (MPG 3162 kb)

References

  1. Bitterman ME (1975) Comparative analysis of learning. Science 188:699–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bokkers EAM, Koene P, Rodenburg TB, Zimmerman PH, Spruijt BM (2004) Working for food under conditions of varying motivation in broilers. Anim Behav 68:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breuning SE, Wolach AH (1977) Successive negative contrast effects with goldfish (Carassius auratus). Psychol Rec 3:565–575Google Scholar
  4. Christian KM, Thompson RF (2003) Neural substrates of eyeblink conditioning: acquisition and retention. Learn Mem 10:427–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark RE, Squire LR (1998) Classical conditioning and brain systems: the role of awareness. Science 280:77–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark RE, Squire LR (1999) Human eyeblink classical conditioning: Effects of manipulating awareness of the stimulus contingencies. Psychol Sci 10:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark RE, Manns JR, Squire LR (2002) Classical conditioning, awareness and brain systems. Trends Cogn Sci 6:524–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton NS, Dickinson A (1999) Memory for the content of caches by scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 25:82–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Couvillon PA, Bitterman ME (1985) Effect of experience with a preferred food on consummatory responding for a less preferred food in goldfish. Anim Learn Behav 13:433–438Google Scholar
  10. Cozzutti C, Vallortigara G (2001) Hemispheric memories for the content and position of food caches in the domestic chick. Behav Neurosci 115:305–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dörr S, Neumeyer C (2000) Color constancy in goldfish: the limits. J Comp Physiol A 186:885–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlop R, Millsopp S, Laming P (2006) Avoidance learning in goldfish (Carassius auratus) and trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and implications for pain perception. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery NJ (2006) Cognitive ornithology: the evolution of avian intelligence. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 361:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forkman B (2000) Domestic hens have declarative representations. Anim Cogn 3:135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez Garcia A, Álvarez E, Durán E, Ocaña FM, Broglio C, Jiménez-Moya F, Salas C, Rodriguez F (2004) Delay vs trace conditioning following pallium ablation in goldfish. FENS Abstr 2:A042.10Google Scholar
  16. Holland PC, Straub JJ (1979) Differential effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after pavlovian appetitive conditioning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 5:65–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kandel ER, Kupfermann I, Iversen S (2000) Learning and memory. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM (eds) Principles of neural science, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 1227–1246Google Scholar
  18. Mackintosh NJ (1983) Conditioning and associative learning. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackintosh NJ (1988) Approaches to the study of animal intelligence. Br J Psychol 79:509–525Google Scholar
  20. Macphail EM (1987) The comparative psychology of intelligence. Behav Brain Sci 10:645–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macphail EM (1998) The evolution of consciousness. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Manteifel YB, Karelina MA (1996) Conditioned food aversion in the goldfish, Carassius auratus. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 115:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin P, Bateson P (1993) Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreira PSA, Pulman KGT, Pottinger TG (2004) Extinction of a conditioned response in rainbow trout selected for high or low responsiveness to stress. Horm Behav 46:450–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson J, Kristiansen TS, Fosseidengen JE, Ferno A, van den Bos R (2008) Learning in cod (Gadus morhua): long trace interval retention. Anim Cogn 11:215–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Olsson IAS, Keeling LJ, Mcadie TM (2002) The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: an adaptation and a critical discussion of the method. Anim Welf 11:1–10Google Scholar
  27. Portavella M, Vargas JP, Torres B, Salas C (2002) The effects of telencephalic pallial lesions on spatial, temporal, and emotional learning in goldfish. Brain Res Bull 57:397–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Portavella M, Salas C, Vargas JP, Papini MR (2003) Involvement of the telencephalon in spaced-trial avoidance learning in the goldfish (Carassius auratus). Physiol Behav 80:49–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Portavella M, Torres B, Salas C (2004) Avoidance response in goldfish: emotional and temporal involvement of medial and lateral telencephalic pallium. J Neurosci 24:2335–2342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rescorla RA (1967) Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychol Rev 74:71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2002) Modularity and spatial reorientation in a simple mind: encoding of geometric and nongeometric properties of a spatial environment by fish. Cognition 85:B51–B59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2005) Animals’ use of landmarks and metric information to reorient: effects of the size of the experimental space. Cognition 97:121–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2007) How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces. Anim Cogn 10:47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Squire LR (2004) Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn Mem 82:171–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tulving E (1985) Memory and consciousness. Can Psychol 26:1–12Google Scholar
  37. Yue S, Moccia RD, Duncan IJH (2004) Investigating fear in domestic rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, using an avoidance learning task. Appl Anim Behav Sci 87:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yue S, Duncan IJH, Moccia RD (2008) Investigating fear in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) using the conditioned-suppression paradigm. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 11:14–27PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janicke Nordgreen
    • 1
  • Andrew Michael Janczak
    • 2
  • Anne Lene Hovland
    • 3
  • Birgit Ranheim
    • 1
  • Tor Einar Horsberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and ToxicologyThe Norwegian School of Veterinary ScienceOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Production Animal Clinical SciencesThe Norwegian School of Veterinary ScienceOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Animal and Aquacultural SciencesNorwegian University of Life SciencesAasNorway

Personalised recommendations