scholarly journals Memory Alone Does Not Account for the Way Rats Learn a Simple Spatial Alternation Task

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (38) ◽  
pp. 7311-7317 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Kastner ◽  
Anna K. Gillespie ◽  
Peter Dayan ◽  
Loren M. Frank
2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 556-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muneyoshi Takahashi ◽  
Johan Lauwereyns ◽  
Yoshio Sakurai ◽  
Minoru Tsukada

The classical notion of hippocampal CA1 “place cells,” whose activity tracks physical locations, has undergone substantial revision in recent years. Here, we provide further evidence of an abstract spatial code in hippocampal CA1, which relies on memory and adds complexity to the basic “place cell.” Using a nose-poking paradigm with four male Wistar rats, we specifically concentrated on activity during fixation, when the rat was immobile and waiting for the next task event in a memory-guided spatial alternation task. The rat had to alternate between choosing the right and left holes on a trial-by-trial basis, without any sensory cue, and relying on an internal representation of the sequence of trials. Twelve tetrodes were chronically implanted for single-unit recording in the right CA1 of each rat. We focus on 76 single neurons that showed significant activation during the fixation period compared with baseline activity between trials. Among these 76 fixation neurons, we observed 38 neurons that systematically changed their fixation activity as a function of the alternation sequence. That is, even though these rats were immobile during the fixation period, the neurons fired differently for trials in which the next spatial choice should be left (i.e., RIGHT-TO-LEFT trials) compared with trials in which the next spatial choice should be right (i.e., LEFT-TO-RIGHT trials), or vice versa. Our results imply that these neurons maintain a sequential code of the required spatial response during the alternation task and thus provide abstract information, derived from memory, that can be used for efficient navigation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor C. Wang ◽  
Steven L. Neese ◽  
Donna L. Korol ◽  
Susan L. Schantz

2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
pp. 512-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adele J. Kapellusch ◽  
Adam W. Lester ◽  
Benjamin A. Schwartz ◽  
Anne C. Smith ◽  
Carol A. Barnes

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 ◽  
pp. 71-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan K. Horton ◽  
Laura Zheng ◽  
Ashley Williams ◽  
John T. Doucette ◽  
Katherine Svensson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Kastner ◽  
Eric A. Miller ◽  
Zhounan Yang ◽  
Demetris K. Roumis ◽  
Daniel F. Liu ◽  
...  

AbstractIndividual animals perform tasks in different ways, yet the nature and origin of that variability is poorly understood. In the context of spatial memory tasks, variability is often interpreted as resulting from differences in memory ability, but the validity of this interpretation is seldom tested since we lack a systematic approach for identifying and understanding factors that make one animal’s behavior different than another. Here we identify such factors in the context of spatial alternation in rats, a task often described as relying solely on memory of past choices. We combine hypothesis-driven behavioral design and reinforcement learning modeling to identify spatial preferences that, when combined with memory, support learning of a spatial alternation task. Identifying these preferences allows us to capture differences among animals, including differences in overall learning ability. Our results show that to understand the complexity of behavior requires quantitative accounts of the preferences of each animal.


2002 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick E. Williams ◽  
Donald White ◽  
William S. Messer

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timberly Lamontagne ◽  
Christian Ramsey-Faulkner ◽  
Travis McDaniel ◽  
John Roflow ◽  
Mark E. Bardgett

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document