OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Learning & behavior
03, 2023;51 (1): 88-107.

Generalized, cross-modal, and incrementing non-matching-to-sample in rats.

Katherine Bruce, River Eure, Victoria O'Connor, Mark Galizio
Author Information
  1. Katherine Bruce: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA. bruce@uncw.edu. ORCID
  2. River Eure: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA.
  3. Victoria O'Connor: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA.
  4. Mark Galizio: Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA.
PMID: 36697934 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-023-00571-7

Abstract

Same/different concept learning has been demonstrated in previous research in rats using matching- and non-matching-to-sample procedures with olfactory stimuli. In Experiment 1, rats were trained on the non-matching-to-sample procedure with either three-dimensional (3D plastic objects; n = 3) or olfactory (household spices, n = 5) stimuli, then tested for transfer to novel stimuli of the same, and then the alternate, modality. While all three rats trained with olfactory stimuli showed generalized non-matching to novel odors, only one rat learned the 3D relation and showed generalized transfer to novel objects. Importantly, in this rat the 3D non-matching relation then immediately transferred to odors. In contrast, rats trained with scents did not show transfer to novel 3D stimuli until after training with one or two 3D stimulus sets. In Experiment 2, four rats were trained on an incrementing non-matching-to-sample task featuring 3D plastic objects as stimuli (3D Span Task). Responses to session-novel stimuli resulted in reinforcement. Only two rats learned the 3D Span Task; one rat performed with high accuracy even with up to 17 session-novel objects in a session. While these findings emphasize the exceptional olfactory discrimination of rats relative to that with 3D/tactile/visual cues, they also show that relational learning can be demonstrated in another modality in this species. Further, the present study provides some evidence of cross-modal transfer of relational responding in rats.

Keywords

Concept learning Cross-modal Non-match-to-sample Olfaction Rats Span Three-dimensional objects

References

  1. April, L. B., Bruce, K., & Galizio, M. (2011). Matching- and nonmatching-to-sample concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-139 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2011.96-139]
  2. April, L. B., Bruce, K., & Galizio, M. (2013). The magic number 70 (plus or minus 20): Variables determining performance in the rodent odor span task. Learning and Motivation, 44(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2013.03.001 [DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2013.03.001]
  3. Berryman, R., Cumming, W. W., Cohen, L. R., & Johnson, D. F. (1965). Acquisition and transfer of simultaneous oddity. Psychological Reports, 17, 767–775. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.17.3.767 [DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1965.17.3.767]
  4. Bodily, K. D., Katz, J. S., & Wright, A. A. (2008). Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.178 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.178]
  5. Boysen, S. T. (1996). Individual differences in the cognitive abilities of chimpanzees. In R. W. Wrangham, W. C. McGrew, F. B. M. de Waal, & P. G. Heltne (Eds.), Chimpanzee cultures (pp. 335–346). Harvard University Press.
  6. Boysen, S. T., Berntson, G. G., Hannan, M. B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Quantity-based interference and symbolic representations in chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.22.1.76 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.22.1.76]
  7. Bratch, A., Kann, S., Cain, J. A., Wu, J. E., Rivera-Reyes, N., Dalecki, S., Arman, S., Dunn, A., Cooper, S., Corbin, H., Doyle, A. R., Pizzo, M. J., Smith, A. E., & Crystal, J. D. (2016). Working memory systems in the rat. Current Biology, 26(3), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.068 [DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.068]
  8. Brino, A. L. F., Galvão, O. F., Picanço, C. R. F., Barros, R. S., Souza, C. B. A., Goulart, P. R. K., & McIlvane, W. J. (2014). Generalized identity matching-to-sample after multiple-exemplar training in capuchin monkeys. Psychological Record, 64, 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0035-x [DOI: 10.1007/s40732-014-0035-x]
  9. Brown, M. F., & Austin, B. P. (2021). Bees and abstract concepts. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 37, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.12.002 [DOI: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.12.002]
  10. Bruce, K., Dyer, K., Mathews, M., Nealley, C., Phasukkan, T., Prichard, A., & Galizio, M. (2018). Successive odor matching-and non-matching-to-sample in rats: A reversal design. Behavioural Processes, 155, 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.07.003 [DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.07.003]
  11. Carter, D. E., & Werner, T. J. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29(3), 565–601. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1978.29-565 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-565]
  12. D'amato, M. R., Salmon, D. P., & Colombo, M. (1985). Extent and limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.11.1.35 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.11.1.35]
  13. Daniel, T. A., Wright, A. A., & Katz, J. S. (2015). Abstract-concept learning of difference in pigeons. Animal Cognition, 18, 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035970 [DOI: 10.1037/h0035970]
  14. Denny, M., Clos, C., & Rilling, M. (1989). Delayed matching-to-sample in rats in a Y-maze: Instances of facilitation and immediate cross-modal transfer. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(2), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329923 [DOI: 10.3758/BF03329923]
  15. Dube, W. V., Callahan, T. D., & McIlvane, W. J. (1993). Serial reversals of concurrent auditory discrimination in rats. The Psychological Record, 43(3), 429–440.
  16. Dudchenko, P. A., Talpos, J., Young, J., & Baxter, M. G. (2013). Animal models of working memory: A review of tasks that might be used in screening drug treatments for the memory impairments found in schizophrenia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9), 2111–2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.03.003 [DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.03.003]
  17. Dudchenko, P. A., Wood, E. R., & Eichenbaum, H. (2000). Neurotoxic hippocampal lesions have no effect on odor span and little effect on odor recognition memory but produce significant impairments on spatial span, recognition, and alternation. Journal of Neuroscience, 20(8), 2964–2977. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-08-02964.2000 [DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-08-02964.2000]
  18. Ettlinger, G., & Wilson, W. A. (1990). Cross-modal performance: Behavioural processes, phylogenetic considerations and neural mechanisms. Behavioural Brain Research, 40(3), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(90)90075-P [DOI: 10.1016/0166-4328(90)90075-P]
  19. Galizio, M., April, B., Deal, M., Hawkey, A., Panoz-Brown, D., Prichard, A., & Bruce, K. (2016). Behavioral pharmacology of the odor span task: Effects of flunitrazepam, ketamine, methamphetamine and methylphenidate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 106(3), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.224 [DOI: 10.1002/jeab.224]
  20. Galizio, M., Deal, M., Hawkey, A., & April, B. (2013). Working memory in the odor span task: Effects of chlordiazepoxide, dizocilpine (MK801), morphine, and scopolamine. Psychopharmacology, 225(2), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2825-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2825-7]
  21. Galizio, M., Mathews, M., Prichard, A., & Bruce, K. E. (2018). Generalized identity in a successive matching-to-sample procedure in rats: Effects of number of exemplars and a masking stimulus. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 110(3), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.483 [DOI: 10.1002/jeab.483]
  22. Giurfa, M., Zhang, S., & Jenett, A. (2001). The concepts of 'sameness' and 'difference' in an insect. Nature, 410, 930–933. https://doi.org/10.1038/35073582 [DOI: 10.1038/35073582]
  23. Harrison, J. M., Iversen, S. D., & Pratt, S. R. (1977). Control of responding by location of auditory stimuli: Adjacency of sound and response. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1977.28-243 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-243]
  24. Herman, L. M., Hovancik, J. R., Gory, J. D., & Bradshaw, G. L. (1989). Generalization of visual matching by a bottle nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates): Evidence for invariance of cognitive performance with visual and auditory materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.15.2.124 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.15.2.124]
  25. Iversen, I. (1993). Acquisition of matching-to-sample performance in rats using visual stimuli on nose keys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1993.59-471 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-471]
  26. Iversen, I. (1997). Matching-to-sample performance in rats: A case of mistaken identity? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-27 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-27]
  27. Kastak, D., & Schusterman, R. (1994). Transfer of visual identity matching-to-sample in two California Sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 427–435. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209162 [DOI: 10.3758/BF03209162]
  28. Katz, J. S., & Wright, A. A. (2006). Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.28.4.358 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.28.4.358]
  29. Katz, J. S., Bodily, K. D., & Wright, A. A. (2008). Learning strategies in matching to sample: If-then and configural learning by pigeons. Behavioral Processes, 77, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.10.011 [DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2007.10.011]
  30. Katz, J. S., Wright, A. A., & Bachevalier, J. (2002). Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.28.4.358 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.28.4.358]
  31. Katz, J. S., Wright, A. A., & Bodily, K. D. (2007). Issues in the comparative cognition of abstract-concept learning. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 2, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2008.20005 [DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2008.20005]
  32. Keller, F., & Schoenfeld, W. (1950). Generalization and discrimination. Principles of psychology: A systematic text in the science of behavior (pp. 115–163). Appleton Century-Crofts.
  33. Lazareva, O. F., & Wasserman, E. A. (2008). Categories and concepts in animals. In R. Menzel et al. (Eds.), Learning and memory-a comprehensive reference. Vol. II: Behavioral approaches (p. (197226).). Elsevier.
  34. Lazarowski, L., Davila, A., Krichbaum, S., Cox, E., Smith, J. G., Waggoner, L. P., & Katz, J. S. (2021). Matching-to-sample abstract-concept learning by dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000281
  35. Lazarowski, L., Goodman, A., Galizio, M., & Bruce, K. (2019). Effects of set size on identity and oddity abstract-concept learning in rats. Animal Cognition, 22(5), 733–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01270-5 [DOI: 10.1007/s10071-019-01270-5]
  36. Lu, X. M., Slotnick, B. M., & Silberberg, A. M. (1993). Odor matching and odor memory in the rat. Physiology and Behavior, 53, 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(93)90191-H [DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(93)90191-H]
  37. Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). Abstraction and discrimination. In C. Heyes & L. Huber (Eds.), The evolution of cognition (pp. 123–141). The MIT Press.
  38. MacQueen, D. A., Bullard, L., & Galizio, M. (2011). Effects of dizocilpine (MK801) on olfactory span in rats. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 95(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2010.11.004 [DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2010.11.004]
  39. Magnotti, J. F., Katz, J. S., Wright, A. A., & Kelly, D. M. (2015). Superior abstract-concept learning by Clark's nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). Biology Letters, 11(5), 20150148. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0148 [DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0148]
  40. McIlvane, W. J. (2013). Simple and complex discrimination learning. In G. J. Madden et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis: Translating principles into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 129–163). American Psychological Association. [DOI: 10.1037/13938-006]
  41. Mumby, D. G., Pinel, P. J., & Wood, E. R. (1990). Nonrecurring-items delayed non-matching-to-sample in rats: A new paradigm for testing nonspatial working memory. Psychobiology, 18(3), 321–326. [DOI: 10.3758/BF03327250]
  42. Nakagawa, E. (1993). Relational rule learning in the rat. Psychobiology, 21(4), 293–298. [DOI: 10.3758/BF03327148]
  43. Nigrosh, B. J., Slotnick, B. M., & Nevin, J. A. (1975). Olfactory discrimination, reversal learning, and stimulus control in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(4), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076821 [DOI: 10.1037/h0076821]
  44. Oden, D. L., Thompson, R. K. R., & Premack, D. (1988). Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.14.2.140 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.14.2.140]
  45. Pena, T., Pitts, R. C., & Galizio, M. (2006). Identity matching-to-sample with olfactory stimuli in rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2006.111-04 [DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2006.111-04]
  46. Prichard, A., Panoz-Brown, D., Bruce, K., & Galizio, M. (2015). Emergent identity but not symmetry following successive olfactory discrimination training in rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.169 [DOI: 10.1002/jeab.169]
  47. Rothblat, L. A., & Hayes, L. L. (1987). Short-term object recognition memory in the rat: Non-matching with trial-unique junk stimuli. Behavioral Neuroscience, 101, 587–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.101.4.587 [DOI: 10.1037/0735-7044.101.4.587]
  48. Russell, F., & Burke, D. (2016). Conditional same/different concept learning in the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105, 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.185 [DOI: 10.1002/jeab.185]
  49. Scholtyssek, C., Kelber, A., Hanke, F. D., & Dehnhardt, G. (2013). A harbor seal can transfer the same/different concept to new stimulus dimensions. Animal Cognition, 16, 915–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0624-0 [DOI: 10.1007/s10071-013-0624-0]
  50. Slotnick, B. (2001). Animal cognition and the rat olfactory system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(5), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01625-9 [DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01625-9]
  51. Taniuchi, T., Miyazaki, R., & Siddik, M. A. B. (2017). Concurrent learning of multiple oddity discrimination in rats. Behavioural Processes, 140, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.008 [DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.008]
  52. Thomas, R. K., & Noble, L. M. (1988). Visual and olfactory learning in rats: What evidence is necessary to show conceptual behavior? Animal Learning and Behavior, 16, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209059 [DOI: 10.3758/BF03209059]
  53. Thompson, R. K. R., Oden, D. L., & Boysen, S. T. (1997). Language-naive chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 31–43. [PMID: 9008861]
  54. Tran, T. D., Adducci, L. C., DeBartolo, L. D., Bower, B. A., & Delay, E. R. (1994). Transfer of visual and haptic maze learning in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22(4), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209161 [DOI: 10.3758/BF03209161]
  55. Truppa, V., Garofoli, D., Castorina, G., Mortari, E. P., Natale, F., & Visalberghi, E. (2010). Identity concept learning in matching-to-sample tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Animal Cognition, 13, 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0332-y [DOI: 10.1007/s10071-010-0332-y]
  56. Vonk, J. (2003). Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and orangutan (pongo abelii) understanding of first-and second-order relations. Animal Cognition, 6, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0159-x [DOI: 10.1007/s10071-003-0159-x]
  57. Wilson, B., Mackintosh, N. J., & Boakes, R. A. (1985). Transfer of relational rules in matching and oddity learning in pigeons and corvids. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508401173 [DOI: 10.1080/14640748508401173]
  58. Wright, A. A., Cook, R. G., Rivera, J. J., Sands, S. F., & Delius, J. D. (1988). Concept learning by pigeons: Matching to sample with trial-unique video picture stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior, 16, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209384 [DOI: 10.3758/BF03209384]
  59. Wright, A. A., Magnotti, J. F., Katz, J. S., Leonard, K., & Kelly, D. M. (2016). Concept learning set-size functions for Clark's nutcrackers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.174 [DOI: 10.1002/jeab.174]
  60. Wright, A. A., & Katz, J. S. (2007). Generalization hypothesis of abstract-concept learning: Learning strategies and related issues in Macaca mulatta, Cebus paella, and Columbia livia. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(4), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.387 [DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.387]
  61. Wright, A. A., Rivera, J. J., Katz, J. S., & Bachevalier, J. (2003). Abstract-concept learning and list memory processing by capuchin and rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.29.3.184 [DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.29.3.184]

MeSH Term

Rats
Animals
Discrimination Learning
Learning
Smell
Odorants
Concept Formation
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 1

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ratsstimuli3Dobjectsnon-matching-to-sampleolfactorytrainedtransferlearningnoveloneratSpandemonstratedExperimentplasticn=modalityshowedgeneralizednon-matchingodorslearnedrelationshowtwoincrementingTasksession-novelrelationalcross-modalSame/differentconceptpreviousresearchusingmatching-procedures1procedureeitherthree-dimensional3householdspices5testedalternatethreeImportantlyimmediatelytransferredcontrastscentsnovel 3Dafter trainingstimulussets2fourtaskfeaturingResponsesresultedreinforcementperformedhighaccuracyeven17sessionfindingsemphasizeexceptionaldiscriminationrelative3D/tactile/visualcuesalsocananotherspeciespresentstudyprovidesevidencerespondingGeneralizedConceptCross-modalNon-match-to-sampleOlfactionRatsThree-dimensional

Similar Articles

Cited By