Learning & Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 348–354 | Cite as

Spatial integration with rats

Article

Abstract

Rats were trained to find the hidden platform in a Morris pool, whose location was defined by reference to a small number of landmarks around the circumference of the pool. In each of three experiments, an experimental group was trained on alternate trials with two different subsets of three of the available landmarks, with the two subsets sharing one landmark in common. When tested with landmarks drawn from both of their training configurations, but without the landmark common to the two sets, they had no difficulty in locating the platform. In Experiment 1, they performed at least as well as a group trained with all the available landmarks present on every trial. In Experiment 2, they performed significantly better than a group trained with two different subsets of landmarks that shared no one landmark in common.

References

  1. Adams, C. D., &Dickinson, A. (1981a). Actions and habits: Variations in associative representations during instrumental learning. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 143–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, C. D., &Dickinson, A. (1981b). Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33B, 109–121.Google Scholar
  3. Blaisdell, A. P., &Cook, R. G. (2005). Integration of spatial maps in pigeons.Animal Cognition,8, 7–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brogden, W. J. (1939). Sensory pre-conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamizo, V. D., Manteiga, R. D., Rodrigo, T., &Mackintosh, N. J. (2006). Competition between landmarks in spatial learning: The role of proximity to the goal.Behavioural Processes,71, 59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallistel, C. R. (1990).The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Morris, R. G. M. (1981). Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues.Learning & Motivation,12, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review,101, 587–607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Poucet, B. (1993). Spatial cognitive maps in animals: New hypotheses on their structure and neural mechanisms.Psychological Review,100, 163–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Razran, G. (1961). The observable unconscious and the inferable conscious in current Soviet psychophysiology: Interoceptive conditioning, semantic conditioning, and the orienting reflex.Psychological Review,68, 81–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., &Blaisdell, A. P. (2005). Sensory preconditioning in spatial learning using a touch screen task in pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 368–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Spetch, M. L. (1995). Overshadowing in landmark learning: Touchscreen studies with pigeons and humans.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 166–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sutherland, R. J., Chew, G. L., Baker, J. C., &Linggard, R. C. (1987). Some limitations on the use of distal cues in place navigation by rats.Psychobiology,15, 48–57.Google Scholar
  14. Worden, R. (1992). Navigation by fragment fitting: A theory of hippocampal function.Hippocampus,2, 165–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Psicologia BàsicaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations