Synthese

, Volume 177, Issue 2, pp 261–283 | Cite as

Reconsidering ‘spatial memory’ and the Morris water maze

Article

Abstract

The Morris water maze has been put forward in the philosophy of neuroscience as an example of an experimental arrangement that may be used to delineate the cognitive faculty of spatial memory (e.g., Craver and Darden, Theory and method in the neurosciences, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2001; Craver, Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007). However, in the experimental and review literature on the water maze throughout the history of its use, we encounter numerous responses to the question of “what” phenomenon it circumscribes ranging from cognitive functions (e.g., “spatial learning”, “spatial navigation”), to representational changes (e.g., “cognitive map formation”) to terms that appear to refer exclusively to observable changes in behavior (e.g., “water maze performance”). To date philosophical analyses of the water maze have not been directed at sorting out what phenomenon the device delineates nor the sources of the different answers to the question of what. I undertake both of these tasks in this paper. I begin with an analysis of Morris’s first published research study using the water maze and demonstrate that he emerged from it with an experimental learning paradigm that at best circumscribed a discrete set of observable changes in behavior. However, it delineated neither a discrete set of representational changes nor a discrete cognitive function. I cite this in combination with a reductionist-oriented research agenda in cellular and molecular neurobiology dating back to the 1980s as two sources of the lack of consistency across the history of the experimental and review literature as to what is under study in the water maze.

Keywords

Cognition Experimental learning paradigm Mechanisms Reliability Spatial memory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bechtel W. (2008) Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Lawrence Erlbaum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel W. (2009) Molecules, systems, and behavior: Another view of memory consolidation. In: Bickle J. (eds) Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickle J. (2003) Philosophy and neuroscience: A ruthlessly reductive account. Kluwer Academic Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickle J. (2006) Reducing mind to molecular pathways: Explicating the reductionism implicit in current cellular and molecular neuroscience. Synthese 151: 411–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliss T., Lømo T. (1973) Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. Journal of Physiology 232(2): 331–356Google Scholar
  6. Bogen J., Woodward J. (1988) Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review 97: 303–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandeis R., Brandys Y., Yehuda S. (1989) The use of the Morris water maze in the study of memory and learning. International Journal of Neuroscience 48: 29–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang H. (2004) Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, H. (2009). Operationalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/.
  10. Craver C. (2007) Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver C., Darden L. (2001) Discovering mechanisms in neurobiology: The case of spatial memory. In: Machamer P. K., Grush R., McLaughlin P. (eds) Theory and method in the neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 112–136Google Scholar
  12. Cummins R. (1975) Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy 72(20): 741–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis S., Butcher S., Morris R. G. (1992) The NMDA receptor antagonist D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoate (D-AP5) impairs spatial learning and LTP in vivo at intracerebral concentrations comparable to those that block LTP in vitro. Journal of Neuroscience 12(1): 21–34Google Scholar
  14. D’Hooge R., De Deyn P. (2001) Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory. Brain Research Reviews 36: 60–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dudai Y. (1989) The neurobiology of memory: Concepts, findings, trends. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Dudai Y. (2002) Memory from A to Z: Keywords, concepts and beyond. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Eichenbaum H., Stewart C., Morris R.G. (1990) Hippocampal representation in place learning. The Journal of Neuroscience 10(11): 3531–3542Google Scholar
  18. Feest, U. (2003). Operationism, experimentation, and concept formation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Feest U. (2005) Operationism in psychology: What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 41(2): 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feest, U. (Forthcoming). What exactly is stabilized when phenomena are stabilized? Synthese.Google Scholar
  21. Hebb, D. O. (1949 [2002]). The organization of behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hodges H. (1996) Maze procedures: The radial-arm and water maze compared. Cognitive Brain Research 3: 167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Machamer P. K. (2009) Neuroscience, learning and the return to behaviorism. In: Bickle J. (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris R. G. (1981) Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learning and Motivation 12: 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morris R. G. (1984) Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 11: 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morris R. G. (1989) Synaptic plasticity and learning: Selective impairment of learning rats and blockade of long-term potentiation in vivo by the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist AP5. Journal of Neuroscience 9(9): 3040–3057Google Scholar
  27. Morris R. G. (1990) Toward a representational hypothesis of the role of hippocampal synaptic plasticity in spatial and other forms of learning. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium in Quantitative Biology 5: 161–173Google Scholar
  28. Morris R. G. (2003) Long-term potentiation and memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 358: 643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morris R. G., Anderson E., Lynch G., Baudry M. (1986) Selective impairment of learning and blockade of long-term potentiation by an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, AP5. Nature 319: 774–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morris R. G., Davis S., Butcher S. P. (1990) Hippocampal synaptic plasticity and NMDA receptors: A role in information storage?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences 329(1253): 187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morris R.G., Frey U. (1997) Hippocampal synaptic plasticity: Role in spatial learning or the automatic recording of attended experience?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 352: 1489–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris R. G., Garrud P., Rawlins J., O’Keefe J. (1982) Place navigation impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions. Nature 297: 681–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Keefe J., Dostrovsky J. (1971) The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence form unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Research 34: 171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Keefe J., Nadel L. (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Redish A. D. (1999) Beyond the cognitive map: From place cells to episodic memory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. Redish A. D. (2001) The hippocampal debate: Are we asking the right questions?. Behavioral Brain Research 127: 81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Restle F. (1957) Discrimination of cues in mazes: A resolution of the ‘place-vs.-response’ question. The Psychological Review 64(4): 217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan, J. A. (2007). Reliability and validity of experiment in the neurobiology of learning and memory. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  39. Sullivan J. A. (2009) The multiplicity of experimental protocols: a challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuro science. Synthese 167(3): 511–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sullivan, J. A. (Forthcoming). A role for representation in cognitive neurobiology. Philosophy of Science, PSA 2008 symposia papers.Google Scholar
  41. Sullivan, J. A., Machamer, P. K., & Thiels, E. (2004). The study of learning and memory then and now: evidence for conceptual change? Paper presented at the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Sullivan, J. A., Machamer, P. K., & Thiels, E. (2005). The study of learning and memory then and now: Conceptual problems and experimental limitations. Paper presented at the Learning and Memory Workshop, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Sutherland R. J., Hamilton D. A. (2004) Rodent spatial navigation: At the crossroads of cognition and movement. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 28: 687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweatt J. D. (2009) Mechanisms of memory (2nd ed.). Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Tolman E. (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55: 189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tolman E. C., Ritchie B. F., Kalish D. (1946) Studies in spatial learning. II. Place learning versus response learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolman E. C., Ritchie B. F., Kalish D. (1947) Studies in spatial learning. V. Response learning vs. place learning by the non-correction method. Journal of Experimental Psychology 37: 285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations