En route to delineating hippocampal roles in spatial learning

Poulter, Steven; Austen, Joseph M.; Kosaki, Yutaka; Dachtler, James; Lever, Colin; McGregor, Anthony

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2019.111936

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This distinction has been realised by a recent virtual reality experiment in humans, showing that memory recall for words was better when participants actively explored a novel virtual environment, as opposed to passively experiencing the input of another participant (Schomaker & Wittmann, 2021). In a similar vein, passive transport training of hippocampal-lesioned and sham rats in a Morris water maze task led the control group to perform worse than the lesioned group on probe-trials when rats had to actively swim to the goal location (Poulter et al, 2019). This is echoed neurally, as when rats were passively transported in a car instead of self-generated movement, their place cell activity was degraded in number and resolution (Terrazas et al, 2005).…”

Section: Short Timescalesmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Hippocampal Horizon: Constructing and Segmenting Experience for Episodic Memory

Ross

Easton

2022

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Short Timescalesmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Hippocampal Horizon: Constructing and Segmenting Experience for Episodic Memory

Ross

Easton

2022

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…But they are at odds with the notion of separate memory systems that operate in parallel, because the rules of operation for each system seem to be domain-general rather than domain-specific (Heyes, 2003). Indeed, associative competition between spatial memory systems at the level of learning has been demonstrated both by the failure of cognitive mapping when landmark vectors are particularly salient, and by the facilitation of learning governed by one system when the other is lesioned (Kosaki et al, 2015;Poulter et al, 2019; see also Gibson & Shettleworth, 2005). Further research, in addition to the purely behavioural studies we report here, and those of Mou and colleagues discussed above, will be required to test the possibility that functionally distinctive brain systems compete for control over learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To discourage learning based on a fixed egocentric route, which could interfere with mapping of the environment (Morris, 1981;Poulter et al, 2019;Whishaw & Mittleman, 1986), participants in both groups began Stage 1 and 2 training trials from one of 4 locations, facing in a randomised direction. For the Boundary Stable group, when locating a given goal, participants began one trial from each of the four different start locations for each landmark position described previously.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in rats, Kosaki et al (2015) found that lesions to the dorsolateral striatum impaired navigation with respect to a landmark, but that they facilitated memory for a cognitive map of the distal cues in the environment. Poulter et al (2019) found the reciprocal effect when lesions to the hippocampus facilitated learning based on landmarks. These data have been interpreted as evidence that the hippocampal and striatal systems do not necessarily operate in parallel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel memory systems

Buckley¹,

Austen²,

Myles³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some theories of spatial learning predict that associative rules apply under only limited circumstances. For example, learning based on a boundary has been claimed to be immune to cue competition effects because boundary information is the basis for the formation of a cognitive map, whilst landmark learning does not involve cognitive mapping. This is referred to as the cue type hypothesis. However, it has also been claimed that cue stability is a prerequisite for the formation of a cognitive map, meaning that whichever cue type was perceived as stable would enter a cognitive map and thus be immune to cue competition, while unstable cues will be subject to cue competition, regardless of cue type. In experiments 1 and 2 we manipulated the stability of boundary and landmark cues when learning the location of two hidden goals. One goal location was constant with respect to the boundary, and the other constant with respect to the landmark cues. For both cue types, the presence of distal orientation cues provided directional information. For half the participants the landmark cues were unstable relative to the boundary and orientation cues, whereas for the remainder of the participants the boundary was unstable relative to landmarks and orientation cues. In a second stage of training, all cues remained stable so that both goal locations could be learned with respect to both landmark and boundary information. According to the cue type hypothesis, boundary information should block learning about landmarks regardless of cue stability. According to the cue stability hypothesis, however, landmarks should block learning about the boundary when the landmarks appear stable relative to the boundary. Regardless of cue type or stability the results showed reciprocal blocking, contrary to both formulations of incidental cognitive mapping. Experiment 3 established that the results of Experiments 1 and 2 could not be explained in terms of difficulty in learning certain locations with respect to different cue types. In a final experiment, following training in which both landmarks and boundary cues signalled two goal locations, a new goal location was established with respect to the landmark cues, before testing with the boundary, which had never been used to define the new goal location. The results of this novel test of the interaction between boundary and landmark cues indicated that new learning with respect to the landmark had a profound effect on navigation with respect to the boundary, counter to the predictions of incidental cognitive mapping of boundaries.

show abstract

“…Moreover, as pointed out by Andre et al (2019) , “the distinct constellation of brain structures may participate to the space representation differently depending on the navigation strategy employed, the availability of sensory information and the phase of memory utilisation” (see also Sirota and Buzsàki, 2005 ). For example, in many studies the hippocampus has been shown to be a key player in processing allocentric information and spatial mapping of the environment, but recent studies have also revealed the participation of this structure in the control of self-generated motion ( Poulter et al, 2019 ). Successful investigation of the dynamic pattern of brain regions and neurotransmitter circuit activity during the formation of unified space representation requires the identification of relatively distinct temporal stages of learning processes in the MWM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Activity of Choline Acetyltransferase From Different Synaptosomal Fractions at the Distinct Stages of Spatial Learning in the Morris Water Maze

Сторожева

Захарова

Proshin

2021

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulated data have evidenced that brain cholinergic circuits play a crucial role in learning and memory; however, our knowledge about the participation of neocortical and hippocampal cholinergic systems in spatial learning needs to be refined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of the activity of membrane-bound and soluble choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) in the synaptosomal sub-fractions of the neocortex and hippocampus with performance of the spatial navigation task in the Morris water maze at different temporal stages of memory trace formation. To identify distinct stages of memory formation, rats were trained using a 5-day protocol with four trials per day. The mean escape latency for each trial was collected, and the entire dataset was subjected to principal component analysis. Based on the Morris water maze protocol, there were three relatively distinct stages of memory formation: days 1–2, day 3, and days 4–5. The remotely stored memory trace tested in repeated and reversal learning beginning on day 19 (14 days after the end of initial learning) was associated at the individual level mainly with performance during the second trial on day 21 (the third day or repeated or reversal learning). The ChAT activity data suggest the participation of cortical cholinergic projections mainly in the first stage of spatial learning (automatic sensory processing) and the involvement of hippocampal interneurons in the second stage (error-corrected learning). Cholinergic cortical interneurons participated mainly in the stage of asymptotic performance (days 4–5). It is advisable to evaluate other signalling pathways at the identified stages of memory formation.

show abstract

En route to delineating hippocampal roles in spatial learning

Cited by 8 publications

References 67 publications

The Hippocampal Horizon: Constructing and Segmenting Experience for Episodic Memory

The Hippocampal Horizon: Constructing and Segmenting Experience for Episodic Memory

The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel memory systems

Evaluation of the Activity of Choline Acetyltransferase From Different Synaptosomal Fractions at the Distinct Stages of Spatial Learning in the Morris Water Maze

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About