Higher Order Chunking in Serial Pattern Learning by Rats in the T-Maze

Cohen, Jerome; Westlake, K.; Pepin, Marie E.

doi:10.1006/lmot.2001.1090

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Veterans of a previous two-choice object discrimination experiment, they were 12 months old, and they weighed over 450 g at the start of this study. We employed the general maintenance and housing conditions described in Cohen, Westlake, and Pepin (2001). That is, we gave each rat its daily ration of 20-25 g of Purina Rodent Chow in its individual holding cage for 2 h following each experimental session, and we continuously provided water in individual holding and group home cages.…”

Section: Methods Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of forced-choice runway variations on rats’ T-maze serial pattern learning

Szelest

Cohen

2006

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methods Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of forced-choice runway variations on rats’ T-maze serial pattern learning

Szelest

Cohen

2006

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Procedures for shaping rats to run down each runway for four sunflower seeds and to return to the start chamber were the same as those in Cohen, Westlake, and Pepin (2001). The experimenter began a session by placing the rat in the start chamber in the darkened maze for 60 sec before illuminating the maze and lifting the center arm door for the first trial.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The apparatus in Cohen, Westlake, and Pepin (2001;see their Figure 1) was used. It consisted of an enclosed, black, wooden T-maze with a 7.5-cm-wide and 160-cm-long metal runway extending from each side arm.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In research on the hierarchical chunking model in our laboratory (Cohen, Westlake, & Pepin, 2001), we investigated whether rats could combine two sequences, RRN and RNR, into an even higher level, RRR, super chunk. In that study, some rats experienced each sequence on specifically distinct runways, left black and right striped runways in a T-maze (associated-runways group), whereas other rats received each sequence equally on each runway (nonassociated-runways group).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, so-called phrasing cues serve simply as events that signal (become associated with) a specific outcome on the next trial of a series. In Cohen, Westlake, and Pepin (2001), for example, rats would learn that a rewarded trial will always occur after a long delay but that an intermittently, unpredictably rewarded trial will always follow a short delay and will predict the opposite outcome for the next trial after another short delay in the lit start box. Furthermore, the type of runway following upon a long delay will also become associated with or predict the next runway for all the rats, as well as the next trial's outcome for the rats in the associated-runways group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integration and representation in rats’ serial pattern learning in the T-maze

Cohen

Simpson

Westlake

et al. 2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats were exposed to three-trial series consisting of reinforced (R) trials and one nonreinforced (N) trial in a fixed order, RRN and RNR (Experiments 1 and 2) or NRR and RRN (Experiment 3), on extended visually distinct runways in a T-maze. When initially presented with the same sequence on each series in a session (separate presentations) with the same runway on all trials within a series (Experiments 1 and 3), all the rats developed slower running speeds on N than on R trials. When a runway was sometimes changed between the first and next two trials during separate presentations training (Experiment 2) or both sequences were later intermixed within each session in each experiment, only rats exposed to each sequence on a specific runway maintained these serial running patterns. Rats displayed serial running patterns on a test RNN sequence similar to that on the RNR sequence (Experiment 2), as would be predicted by an intertrial association model of serial pattern learning (Capaldi & Molina, 1979), but responded on test RRR and NRN sequences (Experiment 3) as would be predicted by an ordinal-trialtag/intratrial association model (Burns, Wiley, & Payne, 1986). Results from test series of free-choice trials in Experiments 1 and 2 failed to support a prediction of the intratrial association model that these rats would integrate RRN and RNR sequences. Rather than always selecting a baited runway on both the second and the third free-choice trials, the rats only selected a baited runway on the third trial on the basis of their choice on the second trial, as would be predicted by the intertrial association model. Only after experiencing all possible outcome sequences during forced-choice training in Experiment 3 did these rats predominantly select a baited runway on every free-choice trial.

show abstract

Sequential behavior in the rat: A new model using food-reinforced instrumental behavior

Domenger

Schwarting

2005

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Higher Order Chunking in Serial Pattern Learning by Rats in the T-Maze

Cited by 6 publications

References 24 publications

Effects of forced-choice runway variations on rats’ T-maze serial pattern learning

Effects of forced-choice runway variations on rats’ T-maze serial pattern learning

Integration and representation in rats’ serial pattern learning in the T-maze

Sequential behavior in the rat: A new model using food-reinforced instrumental behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About