Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 433–443 | Cite as

Where to place the rewards? Exploration bias in mice influences performance in the classic hole-board spatial memory test

  • Patricia Sampedro-PiqueroEmail author
  • M. Carmen Mañas-Padilla
  • Fabiola Ávila-Gámiz
  • Sara Gil-Rodríguez
  • Luis J. SantínEmail author
  • Estela Castilla-OrtegaEmail author
OriginalPaper

Abstract

The classic hole-board paradigm (a square arena with 16 holes arranged equidistantly in a 4 × 4 pattern) assesses both exploration and spatial memory in rodents. For spatial memory training, food rewards are hidden in a fixed set of holes. The animal must not visit (i.e. nose-poke) the holes that are never baited (reference memory; RM) nor re-visit a baited hole within a session (working memory; WM). However, previous exploratory bias may affect performance during reward searching. During habituation sessions with either all holes rewarded or all holes empty, mice intrinsically preferred poking peripheral holes (especially those located in the maze’s corners) over centre holes. During spatial memory training, mice progressively shifted their hole pokes and staying time to the central area that contained hidden rewards, while mice exposed to the empty apparatus still preferred the periphery. A group of pseudotrained mice, for whom rewards were located randomly throughout the maze, also increased their central preference. Furthermore, reward location influenced memory measures. Most repeated pokes (WM-errors) were scored in the locations that were most intrinsically appealing to mice (i.e. the corner and wall-baited holes), supporting a strong influence of previous exploratory bias. Regarding RM, finding rewards located in the centre holes, which were initially less preferred, entailed more difficulty and required more trials to learn. This outcome was confirmed by a second experiment that varied the pattern of rewarded holes, as well as the starting positions. Therefore, reward location is a relevant aspect to consider when designing a hole-board memory task.

Keywords

Habituation Periphery Anxiety Corner Reference memory Working memory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO, Agencia Estatal de Investigación) cofounded by the European Research Development Fund -AEI/FEDER, UE- (PSI2015-73156-JIN to E.C.O.; PSI2017-82604R to L.J.S.) and from University of Malaga (Plan Propio 2017—‘Ayudas para proyectos dirigidos por jóvenes investigadores’, PPIT.UMA.B1.2017/38 to P.S.P). Author P.S.P. holds a ‘Juan de la Cierva-formación’ grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (code: FJCI-2015-23925). Author M.M.P. holds Predoctoral contract from University of Malaga (Plan Propio 2017). Author F.A.G holds Young researchers contract from the University of Malaga co-funded by the Regional Government of Andalusia and the European Social Fund. Author E.C.O holds a ‘Jóvenes Investigadores’ grant (code: PSI2015-73156-JIN) from MINECO-AEI/FEDER, UE. The authors acknowledge CIBERTEC for their technical assistance with the automatised hole-board apparatus and the IBIMA’s common support structures of Animal Experimentation (Animal Facility at the University of Málaga) for the maintenance of mice, and of Methodological and Statistical Consulting for their statistical advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10071_2019_1256_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1543 KB)

References

  1. Antunes M, Biala G (2012) The novel object recognition memory: neurobiology, test procedure, and its modifications. Cogn Process 13:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourin M, Hascoet M (2003) The mouse light/dark box test. Eur J Pharmacol 463:55–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2999(03)01274-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castilla-Ortega E, Sanchez-Lopez J, Hoyo-Becerra C, Matas-Rico E, Zambrana-Infantes E, Chun J, De Fonseca FR, Pedraza C, Estivill-Torrus G, Santin LJ (2010) Exploratory, anxiety and spatial memory impairments are dissociated in mice lacking the LPA1 receptor. Neurobiol Learn Mem 94:73–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2010.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark BJ, Hamilton DA, Whishaw IQ (2006) Motor activity (exploration) and formation of home bases in mice (C57BL/6) influenced by visual and tactile cues: modification of movement distribution, distance, location, and speed. Physiol Behav 87:805–816  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.01.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cowan N (2008) What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Prog Brain Res 169:323–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creer DJ, Romberg C, Saksida LM, van Praag H, Bussey TJ (2010) Running enhances spatial pattern separation in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:2367–2372.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911725107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorfman A, Nielbo KL, Eilam D (2016) Traveling companions add complexity and hinder performance in the spatial behavior of rats. PLoS One 11:e0146137.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Douma BR, Korte SM, Buwalda B, la Fleur SE, Bohus B, Luiten PG (1998) Repeated blockade of mineralocorticoid receptors, but not of glucocorticoid receptors impairs food rewarded spatial learning. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23:33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(97)00091-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eilam D, Golani I (1989) Home base behavior of rats (Rattus novergicus) exploring a novel environment. Behav Brain Res 39:199–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(89)80102-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuc KA, Gregersen BM, Gannon KS, Dodart JC (2006) Holeboard discrimination learning in mice. Genes Brain Behav 5:355–363.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00168.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Labots M, Van Lith HA, Ohl F, Arndt SS (2015) The modified hole board-measuring behavior, cognition and social interaction in mice and rats. J Vis Exp 8:52529.  https://doi.org/10.3791/52529 Google Scholar
  12. Moy SS, Nadler JJ, Poe MD, Nonneman RJ, Young NB, Koller BH, Crawley JN, Duncan GE, Bodfish JW (2008) Development of a mouse test for repetitive, restricted behaviors: relevance to autism. Behav Brain Res 188:178–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.10.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pellow S, Chopin P, File SE, Briley M (1985) Validation of open:closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat. J Neurosci Methods 14:149–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0270(85)90031-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richardson JTE (2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res Rev 6:135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sampedro-Piquero P, Moreno-Fernandez RD, Mañas-Padilla MC, Gil-Rodriguez S, Gavito AL, Pavon FJ, Pedraza C, Garcia-Fernandez M, Ladron de Guevara-Miranda D, Santin LJ, Castilla-Ortega E (2018) Training memory without aversion: appetitive hole-board spatial learning increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Neurobiol Learn Mem 151:35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2018.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon P, Dupuis R, Costentin J (1994) Thigmotaxis as an index of anxiety in mice. Influence of dopaminergic transmissions. Behav Brain Res 61:59–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(94)90008-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van der Staay FJ, van Nies J, Raaijmakers W (1990) The effects of aging in rats on working and reference memory performance in a spatial holeboard discrimination task. Behav Neural Biol 53:356–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-1047(90)90226-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van der Staay FJ, Gieling ET, Pinzon NE, Nordquist RE, Ohl F (2012) The appetitively motivated “cognitive” holeboard: a family of complex spatial discrimination tasks for assessing learning and memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:379–403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiss O, Dorfman A, Ram T, Zadicario P, Eilam D (2017) Rats do not eat alone in public: Food-deprived rats socialize rather than competing for baits. PLoS One 12:e0173302.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wernecke KE, Fendt M (2015) The olfactory hole-board test in rats: a new paradigm to study aversion and preferences to odors. Front Behav Neurosci 9:223.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Whishaw IQ, Gharbawie OA, Clark BJ, Lehmann H (2006) The exploratory behavior of rats in an open environment optimizes security. Behav Brain Res 171:230–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2006.03.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winne J, Teixeira L, de Andrade Pessoa J, Gavioli EC, Soares-Rachetti V, Andre E, Lobao-Soares B (2015) There is more to the picture than meets the rat: a study on rodent geometric shape and proportion preferences. Behav Brain Res 284:187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Woldeit ML, Korz V (2010) Theta oscillations during holeboard training in rats: different learning strategies entail different context-dependent modulations in the hippocampus. Neuroscience 165:642–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yaski O, Eilam D (2007) The impact of landmark properties in shaping exploration and navigation. Anim Cogn 10:415–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0073-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Sampedro-Piquero
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. Carmen Mañas-Padilla
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fabiola Ávila-Gámiz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara Gil-Rodríguez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luis J. Santín
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Estela Castilla-Ortega
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Insituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMAMalagaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Psicobiología y Metodología de las CC, Facultad de PsicologíaUniversidad de MálagaMalagaSpain
  3. 3.Unidad de Gestión Clínica de Salud Mental, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA)Hospital Regional Universitario de MálagaMalagaSpain

Personalised recommendations