The dependence of the rat's choice of pathways upon the length of the daily trial series.

Wingfield, Robert C.; Dennis, Wayne

doi:10.1037/h0070208

Cited by 43 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is revealing to begin this exercise with brief comparison of the early research into these two phenomena. Early studies of spontaneous alternation used an animal learning paradigm (e.g., Wingfield & Dennis, ) whereas inhibition of return was discovered in a paradigm developed by Posner to explore human visual attention (Posner & Cohen, ). Early studies of both phenomena were concerned with characterizing their nature by manipulating situational variables such as timing and context (for reviews see Lalonde, , and Klein, ).…”

Section: Exploring Similarities and Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together

Phillmore

Klein

2019

Hippocampus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two isolated spatial phenomena share a similar “been there; done that” effect on spatial behavior. Originally discovered in rodent learning experiments, spontaneous alternation is a tendency for the organism to visit a different arm in a T‐maze on subsequent trials. Originally discovered in human studies of attention, inhibition of return is a tendency for the organism to orient away from a previously attended location. Whereas spontaneous alternation was identified by O'Keefe & Nadel as dependent on an intact hippocampus, inhibition of return is dependent on neural structures that participate in oculomotor control (the superior colliculus, parietal and frontal cortex). Despite the isolated literatures, each phenomenon has been assumed to reflect a basic novelty‐seeking process, avoiding places previously visited or locations attended. In this commentary, we explore and compare the behavioral manifestations and neural underpinnings of these two phenomena, and suggest what is still needed to determine whether they operate in parallel or serial.

show abstract

Section: Exploring Similarities and Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together

Phillmore

Klein

2019

Hippocampus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a variety of two-choice experiments with rats (e.g., Glanzer, 1953;Heathers, 1940;Montgomery, 1952;Walker, 1956;Wingfield & Dennis, 1934), spatial alternation was found to be spontaneous in the sense that it was not differentially rewarded. In some cases, the animals were rewarded on each trial for choosing either of the two alternatives; in other cases, neither choice was rewarded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term spatial memory in honeybees

Isnec

Couvillon

Bitterman

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging honeybees were trained individually in two-choice spatial problems. Differentially rewarded for spatial alternation in Experiment 1 ("win-shift" training), they showed instead a clear tendency to perseverate-that is, to prefer on each trial the location of reward on the immediately preceding trial. On the basis of the results of Experiments 2 and 3, in which one location was rewarded over shorter or longer series of consecutive trials, an associative interpretation of the perseveration found in the first experiment was rejected in favor of an interpretation in terms of short-term spatial memory. Experiment 4, in which the animals were rewarded on each trial for choosing either location, also showed perseveration. Honeybees, like rats, seem to remember a rewarded location recently visited, but tend to return to it rather than, like rats, to avoid it.In recent experiments by Brown and Demas (1994; see also Demas & Brown, 1995), honeybees were studied in an analogue of the radial maze designed by Olton and Samuelson (1976) for the study of short-term memory in rats. Confronted on each trial with an array of six baited targets, the honeybees showed some tendency to avoid targets visited earlier on the trial, from which Brown and Demas concluded that the control of performance by short-term or "working" memory, as known in a variety of vertebrate species, is to be found also in honeybees. The conclusion is difficult, however, to accept in the light of a series of criticisms of the technique employed by Brown and Demas that have been offered by Burmeister, Couvillon, and Bitterman (1995). In subsequent experiments not open to those criticisms, Burmeister et al. used arrays of three or four targets and found only some rather marked position biases that might conceivably have masked any short-term memory effects. They suggested that subsequent work be done in even simpler situations, analogues of the two-choice situations in which the reluctance of rats to return to recently visited locations was first clearly established (see, e.g., Glanzer, 1953;Montgomery, 1952).Ohyama, Couvillon, and Bitterman (1995) trained individual foragers with targets of two different colors, rewarding them on each trial for choosing the nonrewarded color of the immediately preceding trial (alternation or "win-shift" training). The animals did not learn to alternate, but from the very beginning showed instead a reliable tendency to perseverate in the choice of color-that is, to choose on each trial the rewarded color of the im- mediately preceding trial. There was perseveration also in the choice of location. The colored targets between which the animals were permitted to choose on each trial were presented at two fixed locations, each color as often in each location as in the other and as likely to be rewarded in each location as in the other. Although not differentially rewarded either for spatial alternation or for spatial perseveration, the animals showed-again from the very beginning-a reliable tendency to go on each trial to the...

show abstract

“…These time intervals seem to be too long to study the effect of intertrial interval, since the effect is generally believed to be within a minute or at most a few minutes in rat or human level (Dember & Fowler, 1958). In Experiment II, was examined the effect of maze cues and a 24 hr-intertrial interval on alternation, Scientic Research Grant of the Ministry of Education, Japan, 1964-1965 moved, the worm was exposed to the bright illumination, and it crawled to the dark arm and then to either goal-box. Procedure: Each animal was taken from the living-box and carried to the experimental room in the transfer-box and placed under the dark illumination for about 30min.…”

Section: Tokyo University Of Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFFECT OF INTERTRIAL INTERVAL AND REMOVAL OF THE SUPRAPHARYNGEAL GANGLION UPON SPONTANEOUS ALTERNATION IN THE EARTHWORM, <I>PHERETIMA COMMUNISSIMA</I>

Iwahara

Fujita

1965

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dependence of the rat's choice of pathways upon the length of the daily trial series.

Cited by 43 publications

References 9 publications

The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together

The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together

Short-term spatial memory in honeybees

EFFECT OF INTERTRIAL INTERVAL AND REMOVAL OF THE SUPRAPHARYNGEAL GANGLION UPON SPONTANEOUS ALTERNATION IN THE EARTHWORM, <I>PHERETIMA COMMUNISSIMA</I>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About