Studies in spatial learning. V. Response learning vs. place learning by the non-correction method.

Tolman, E. C.; Ritchie, Benbow F.; Kalish, Donald

doi:10.1037/h0057434

Cited by 63 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given this result, we turned to a cross-maze task often used to discriminate place-based from response-based learning (15,17,25). We chose a Tolman variation of the task (16,36), tailored for our purposes, because the cross-maze variation by Packard and McGaugh (15) has been reported to be difficult for mice (33)(34)(35). In this cross-maze paradigm, we were able to test declarative/place-based learning and procedural/response-based learning separately as well as to challenge the interaction between them by testing the ability to change between place-based and response-based learning.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Equivalents for these two forms of learning have been suggested for animals in many pioneering studies, and terminology has been adapted depending on whether the motivational drive (action-outcome vs. stimulus-response; goal-directed vs. habit) or the task objective (place-based vs. response-based) is more central to the learning. In rodents, the two learning systems are often probed by tasks requiring motor learning, a type of learning thought to be mainly procedural, or by navigational maze tasks in which place-based learning is suggested to correspond to declarative learning and response-based learning is representative of procedural learning (13)(14)(15)(16)(17).…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance

Schreiweis

Bornschein

Burguière

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

146

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition of language and speech is uniquely human, but how genetic changes might have adapted the nervous system to this capacity is not well understood. Two human-specific amino acid substitutions in the transcription factor forkhead box P2 (FOXP2) are outstanding mechanistic candidates, as they could have been positively selected during human evolution and as FOXP2 is the sole gene to date firmly linked to speech and language development. When these two substitutions are introduced into the endogenous Foxp2 gene of mice (Foxp2 hum ), cortico-basal ganglia circuits are specifically affected. Here we demonstrate marked effects of this humanization of Foxp2 on learning and striatal neuroplasticity. Foxp2 hum/hum mice learn stimulus-response associations faster than their WT littermates in situations in which declarative (i.e., place-based) and procedural (i.e., response-based) forms of learning could compete during transitions toward proceduralization of action sequences. Striatal districts known to be differently related to these two modes of learning are affected differently in the Foxp2 hum/hum mice, as judged by measures of dopamine levels, gene expression patterns, and synaptic plasticity, including an NMDA receptor-dependent form of long-term depression. These findings raise the possibility that the humanized Foxp2 phenotype reflects a different tuning of corticostriatal systems involved in declarative and procedural learning, a capacity potentially contributing to adapting the human brain for speech and language acquisition.T he gene encoding the transcription factor forkhead box P2 (FOXP2) is a promising candidate for investigating the evolutionary basis of human speech and language capabilities. Humans carrying only one functional copy of this transcription factor experience difficulties in learning and performing complex orofacial movements and have receptive and expressive deficits in oral and written language, whereas other cognitive skills are less affected. These speech and language deficits are associated with functional impairments in cortico-basal ganglia and corticocerebellar circuits (1). Since the time that the human and chimpanzee lineages separated, approximately 6 Mya, two amino acid substitutions have occurred in FOXP2, a higher rate of change than expected given its conservation in mammals (2, 3). Mice in which the endogenous Foxp2 gene has been "humanized" for these two amino acid changes (Foxp2 hum/hum mice) exhibit prominent neurochemical, neurophysiological, and neuroanatomical alterations in the striatum and related cortico-basal ganglia circuits (4, 5). These circuits are known to be essential for acquiring habits and other motor and cognitive behaviors (6), including vocal learning in songbirds (7) and speech and language capabilities in humans (8). However, whether learning behavior depending on these circuits is affected in Foxp2 hum/hum mice has so far not been investigated.A key functional distinction has been made between subregions of the striatum that underlie modes o...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance

Schreiweis

Bornschein

Burguière

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

146

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large number of studies have shown that the use of place and response strategies early in training depends largely on intra-and extra-maze cue arrangements and densities (Tolman et al, 1946(Tolman et al, , 1947Restle, 1957;Oliveira et al, 1997;Passino et al, 2002;Canal et al, 2005). The capacity to use environmental cues to drive the behaviour (i.e.…”

Section: The Use Of Place Versus Response Strategies Early In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-thinking the role of the dorsal striatum in egocentric/response strategy

Botreau

2010

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several experiments show that rats, in a simple T -maze, can use spatial or kinesthetic cues in learning place or response habits (Blodgett & McCutchan, 1947; Ritchie, Aeschliman, & Peirce, 1950;Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1947). Although Restle (1957) has made a behavioral analysis of the place vs. response controversy, there have been no studies directly assessing the neural bases of place and response performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of caudate and cortical lesions on place and response learning in rats

1980

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats with lesions in the caudate nucleus made fewer errors and took fewer trials to reach criterion than unoperated rats in acquisition and reversal performance on a T-maze task. On place and response performance, caudate and cortical rats did not differ from unoperated rats in number of errors and trials to criterion. Caudate rats were predominantly place learners, while cortical rats were mainly response learners. The results are discussed in relation to compensatory behavioral mechanisms following brain lesions.

show abstract

Studies in spatial learning. V. Response learning vs. place learning by the non-correction method.

Cited by 63 publications

References 1 publication

Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance

Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance

Re-thinking the role of the dorsal striatum in egocentric/response strategy

Effects of caudate and cortical lesions on place and response learning in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About