Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 771–782 | Cite as

Changing within-trial array location and target object position enhances rats’ (Rattus norvegicus) missing object recognition accuracy

  • Marium Arain
  • Varakini Parameswaran
  • Jerome Cohen
Original Paper

Abstract

Six rats were trained to find a previously missing target or ‘jackpot’ object in a square array of four identical or different objects (the test segment of a trial) after first visiting and collecting sunflower seeds from under the other three objects (the study segment of a trial). During training, objects’ local positions within the array and their global positions within the larger foraging array were varied over trials but were not changed between segments within a trial. Following this training, rats were tested on their accuracy for finding the target object when a trial’s test array was sometimes moved to a different location in the foraging arena or when the position of the target object within the test array had been changed. Either of these manipulations initially slightly reduced rats’ accuracy for finding the missing object but then enhanced it. Relocating test arrays of identical objects enhanced rats’ performance only after 10-min inter-segment intervals (ISIs). Relocating test arrays of different objects enhanced rats’ performance only after 2-min ISIs. Rats also improved their performance when they encountered the target object in a new position in test arrays of different objects. This enhancement effect occurred after either 2- or 30-min ISIs. These findings suggest that rats separately retrieved a missing (target) object’s spatial and non-spatial information when they were relevant but not when they were irrelevant in a trial. The enhancement effects provide evidence for rats’ limited retrieval capacity in their visuo-spatial working memory.

Keywords

Visuo-spatial working memory Missing object recognition Rats (Rattus norvegicus

References

  1. Arain MB, Cohen J (2011) Rats’ (Rattus norvegicus) hierarchical retrieval of redundant information from working memory in the missing object recognition task. Conference of the Comparative Cognition Society, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkley CL, Jacobs LF (2007) Sex and species differences in spatial memory in food storing kangaroo rats. Anim Behav 73:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biegler R, Morris RGM (1993) Landmark stability is a prerequisite for spatial but not for discrimination learning. Nature 361:631–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biegler R, Morris RGM (1996) Landmark stability: further studies pointing to a role in spatial learning. Q J Exp Psychol 49B:307–345Google Scholar
  5. Brodbeck DR (1994) Memory for spatial and local cues: a comparison of a storing and a non-storing species. Anim Learn Behav 22:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamizo VD (2003) Acquisition of knowledge about spatial location: assessing the generality of learning. Q J Exp Psychol 56B:102–113Google Scholar
  7. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Pop Bio 9:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng K, Shettleworth SJ, Huttenlocher J, Rieser JJ (2007) Bayesian integration of spatial information. Psychol Bull 133:625–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen J, Bussey K (2003) Rats form cognitive maps from spatial configurations of proximal arm cues in an enclosed 4-arm radial maze. Learn Motiv 34:168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J, Han X, Matei A, Parameswaran V, Zuniga R, Hlynka M (2010) Rats’ visual-spatial working memory: new object choice accuracy as a function of number of objects in the study array. Learn Motiv 41:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole MR, Chappell-Stephenson R (2003) Exploring the limits of spatial memory in rats, using very large radial mazes. Learn Behav 31:349–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole RP, Barnet RC, Miller RR (1995) Effect of relative stimulus validity: learning or performance deficit? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collett TS, Cartwright BA, Smith BA (1986) Landmark learning and visuo-spatial memories in gerbils. J Comp Physiol A 158:835–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook RG, Brown MF, Riley DA (1985) Flexible memory processing by rats: use of prospective and retrospective information in the radial maze. J Exper Psychol Anim Behav Process 11:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowan N (2001) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Brain Behav Sci 24:87–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs LF (2002) The evolution of the cognitive map. Brain Behav Evol 62:128–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobs LF, Schenk F (2003) Unpacking the cognitive map: the parallel map theory of hippocampal function. Psychol Rev 110:285–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jitsumori M, Taneya J, Kikawa J (1992) Directed forgetting of elements in compound samples. J Exp Anal Behav 58:135–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamil AC, Yoerg SI, Clements KC (1988) Rules to leave by: patch departure in foraging blue jays. Anim Behav 31:843–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kendrick DF, Rilling ME (1986) AIM: a theory of active and inactive memory. In: Kendrick DF, Rilling ME, Denny MR (eds) Theories of animal memory. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 129–152Google Scholar
  21. Krebs JR, McCleery RH (1984) Optimization in behavioral ecology. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 91–121Google Scholar
  22. MacDonald S, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Cheng K (2004) Strategies in landmark use by children, adults, and marmoset monkeys. Learn Motiv 35:322–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackintosh NJ (1975) A theory of attention: variations in associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychol Rev 82:276–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mackintosh NJ (2002) Do not ask whether they have a cognitive map, but how they find their way about. Psicológica 23:165–185Google Scholar
  25. Miller RR, Matzel LD (1988) The comparator hypothesis: a response rule for the expression of associations. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 51–92Google Scholar
  26. O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Black AH, Prokasy WF (eds) Classical conditioning II: current research and theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 64–99Google Scholar
  28. Roberts WA (1998) Principles of animal cognition. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts WA, Mitchell S (1994) Can a pigeon simultaneously process temporal and numerical information? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20:66–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santi A, Musgrave S, Bradford AB (1988) Utilization of cues signaling different test stimulus dimensions in delayed matching to sample by pigeons. Learn Motiv 19:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Spetch ML, Edwards CA (1988) Pigeons’ (Columba livia) use of global and local cues from spatial memory. Anim Behav 36:293–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spetch ML, Kelly DM (2006) Comparative spatial cognition: processes in landmark- and surface-based place finding. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 210–228Google Scholar
  34. Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE (1996) Learning the configuration of landmark array: I: touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Comp Psychol 110:55–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE, Linkenhoker BA, Kelly DM, Doerkson SR (1997) Use of landmark configuration in pigeons and humans: II. Generality across search tasks. J Comp Psychol 111:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sutton JE (2002) Multiple-landmark piloting in pigeons (Columba livia): landmark configuration as a discriminative cue. J Comp Psychol 116:391–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sutton JE, Olthoff A, Roberts WA (2000) Landmark use by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). Anim Learn Behav 28:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tolman EC (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55:189–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tremblay J, Cohen J (2005) Spatial configuration and list learning of proximally cued arms by rats in the enclosed four-arm radial maze. Learn Behav 33:78–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vlasak AN (2006) Global and local spatial landmarks: their role during foraging by Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus). Anim Cog 9:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vollmer-Conna US, Lemon J (1998) Spatial configuration and proximal cues. Learn Motiv 29:102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marium Arain
    • 1
  • Varakini Parameswaran
    • 1
  • Jerome Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations