Rats (Rattus norvegicus) flexibly retrieve objects' non-spatial and spatial information from their visuospatial working memory: effects of integrated and separate processing of these features in a missing-object recognition task.

Corrine Keshen, Jerome Cohen
Author Information
  1. Corrine Keshen: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada.
  2. Jerome Cohen: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada. jcohen@uwindsor.ca.

Abstract

After being trained to find a previous missing object within an array of four different objects, rats received occasional probe trials with such test arrays rotated from that of their respective three-object study arrays. Only animals exposed to each object's non-spatial features consistently paired with both its spatial features (feeder's relative orientation and direction) in the first experiment or with only feeder's relative orientation in the second experiment (Fixed Configuration groups) were adversely affected by probe trial test array rotations. This effect, however, was less persistent for this group in the second experiment but re-emerged when objects' non-spatial features were later rendered uninformative. Animals that had both types of each object's features randomly paired over trials but not between a trial's study and test array (Varied Configuration groups) were not adversely affected on probe trials but improved their missing-object recognition in the first experiment. These findings suggest that the Fixed Configuration groups had integrated each object's non-spatial with both (in Experiment 1) or one (in Experiment 2) of its spatial features to construct a single representation that they could not easily compare to any object in a rotated probe test array. The Varied Configuration groups must maintain separate representations of each object's features to solve this task. This prevented them from exhibiting such adverse effects on rotated probe trial test arrays but enhanced the rats' missing-object recognition in the first experiment. We discussed how rats' flexible use (retrieval) of encoded information from their visuospatial working memory corresponds to that of humans' visuospatial memory in object change detection and complex object recognition tasks. We also discussed how foraging-specific factors may have influenced each group's performance in this task.

Keywords

References

  1. Nat Neurosci. 2000 Feb;3(2):191-7 [PMID: 10649576]
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2005 Apr;31(2):254-9; discussion 260-1 [PMID: 15839781]
  3. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):92-114 [PMID: 11248943]
  4. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2000 Feb 1;17(1):125-42 [PMID: 20945176]
  5. Perception. 2006;35(11):1473-83 [PMID: 17286118]
  6. Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):625-37 [PMID: 17592958]
  7. Hippocampus. 2004;14(2):180-92 [PMID: 15098724]
  8. Anim Cogn. 2008 Jul;11(3):467-74 [PMID: 18256863]
  9. Hippocampus. 1997;7(4):361-70 [PMID: 9287076]
  10. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion 114-85 [PMID: 11515286]
  11. Vision Res. 1997 Jun;37(12):1673-82 [PMID: 9231232]
  12. Behav Processes. 2013 Jul;97:41-52 [PMID: 23602980]
  13. J Exp Biol. 1996 Jan;199(Pt 1):201-9 [PMID: 8576691]
  14. Anim Cogn. 2012 Sep;15(5):771-82 [PMID: 22535490]
  15. Dev Sci. 2004 Feb;7(1):74-87 [PMID: 15323120]
  16. Mem Cognit. 2006 Dec;34(8):1704-19 [PMID: 17489296]
  17. Psychol Rev. 2009 Jul;116(3):540-66 [PMID: 19618986]
  18. Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):106-11 [PMID: 14738517]
  19. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004 Nov;28(7):711-8 [PMID: 15555680]
  20. Nature. 1997 Nov 20;390(6657):279-81 [PMID: 9384378]
  21. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Apr;17(2):243-9 [PMID: 20382927]
  22. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Dec;12(6):1127-33 [PMID: 16615339]
  23. J Comp Psychol. 2006 May;120(2):131-8 [PMID: 16719591]
  24. Curr Biol. 2011 Jun 7;21(11):975-9 [PMID: 21596568]
  25. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986 Jun;115(2):107-17 [PMID: 2940312]
  26. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Mar;131(1):48-64 [PMID: 11900102]
  27. J Comp Psychol. 2007 May;121(2):130-44 [PMID: 17516792]
  28. Learn Behav. 2003 Nov;31(4):349-68 [PMID: 14733483]
  29. Behav Processes. 1995 Dec;35(1-3):113-26 [PMID: 24896024]
  30. Percept Psychophys. 1988 Oct;44(4):369-78 [PMID: 3226885]
  31. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Feb;35(1):94-107 [PMID: 19170473]
  32. Prog Brain Res. 2008;169:323-38 [PMID: 18394484]
  33. J Exp Child Psychol. 2006 Sep;95(1):18-26 [PMID: 16678845]
  34. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998 Sep;10(5):615-22 [PMID: 9802994]
  35. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2003 Jan;29(1):3-13 [PMID: 12561129]
  36. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Oct;71(7):1525-33 [PMID: 19801613]
  37. Nature. 1998 Nov 12;396(6707):161-4 [PMID: 9823894]
  38. Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):583-92 [PMID: 9337578]
  39. Behav Neurosci. 2005 Aug;119(4):946-52 [PMID: 16187822]
  40. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):255-260 [PMID: 12039607]

MeSH Term

Animals
Appetitive Behavior
Cognition
Male
Memory, Short-Term
Rats
Rats, Long-Evans
Spatial Memory
Visual Perception

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0featuresprobetestexperimentrecognitionobjectarrayobject'snon-spatialspatialConfigurationgroupstrialsarraysrotatedfirstmissing-objecttaskvisuospatialmemorystudypairedfeeder'srelativeorientationsecondFixedadverselyaffectedtrialobjects'VariedintegratedExperimentseparateeffectsrats'discussedinformationworkingtrainedfindpreviousmissingwithinfourdifferentobjectsratsreceivedoccasionalrespectivethree-objectanimalsexposedconsistentlydirectionrotationseffecthoweverlesspersistentgroupre-emergedlaterrendereduninformativeAnimalstypesrandomlytrial'simprovedfindingssuggest1one2constructsinglerepresentationeasilycomparemustmaintainrepresentationssolvepreventedexhibitingadverseenhancedflexibleuseretrievalencodedcorrespondshumans'changedetectioncomplextasksalsoforaging-specificfactorsmayinfluencedgroup'sperformanceRatsRattusnorvegicusflexiblyretrievememory:processingObjectRatcognitionWorking

Similar Articles

Cited By