Blocking in the spatial domain with arrays of discrete landmarks.

Biegler, Robert; Morris, Richard

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.25.3.334

Cited by 63 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Learning relative to a local landmark has been shown to follow the predictions of associative reinforcement learning (10). By contrast, we predicted that boundary-related learning would be incidental, for two reasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…However, spatial learning, a crucial aspect of daily life, has long been proposed to exemplify a qualitatively different type of learning (6,7), whereby ''incidental'' and ''latent'' learning occur independent of reinforcement. Perhaps surprisingly, formal demonstration that spatial learning deviates from the predictions of associative reinforcement, given the additional assumption that exploration can be rewarding in itself, has not been forthcoming (8)(9)(10)(11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries

Doeller

Burgess

2008

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

262

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associative reinforcement provides a powerful explanation of learned behavior. However, an unproven but long-held conjecture holds that spatial learning can occur incidentally rather than by reinforcement. Using a carefully controlled virtual-reality objectlocation memory task, we formally demonstrate that locations are concurrently learned relative to both local landmarks and local boundaries but that landmark-learning obeys associative reinforcement (showing ''overshadowing'' and ''blocking'' or ''learned irrelevance''), whereas boundary-learning is incidental, showing neither overshadowing nor blocking nor learned irrelevance. Crucially, both types of learning occur at similar rates and do not reflect differences in levels of performance, cue salience, or instructions. These distinct types of learning likely reflect the distinct neural systems implicated in processing of landmarks and boundaries: the striatum and hippocampus, respectively [Doeller CF, King JA, Burgess N (2008) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:5915-5920]. In turn, our results suggest the use of fundamentally different learning rules by these two systems, potentially explaining their differential roles in procedural and declarative memory more generally. Our results suggest a privileged role for surface geometry in determining spatial context and support the idea of a ''geometric module,'' albeit for location rather than orientation. Finally, the demonstration that reinforcement learning applies selectively to formally equivalent aspects of task-performance supports broader consideration of two-system models in analyses of learning and decision making.associative learning ͉ blocking ͉ hippocampus ͉ overshadowing ͉ striatum

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 64%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries

Doeller

Burgess

2008

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

262

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was true regardless of whether the location of the cues was fixed or variable and despite the fact that the location of the reinforcer was predictable from the position of a single cue under every condition. In a follow-up experiment using similar methods, Biegler and Morris (1999) demonstrated that the spatial arrangement of the cues was more important to finding the reinforcer than the physical features of the cues themselves. Performance was unimpaired when some of the cues were rearranged, as long as the spatial arrangement remained intact and continued to predict the location of the reinforcer.…”

Section: Org Downloaded Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial and nonspatial escape strategies in the Barnes maze

Harrison¹,

Reiserer²,

Tomarken³

et al. 2006

Learn. Mem.

196

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Barnes maze is a spatial memory task that requires subjects to learn the position of a hole that can be used to escape the brightly lit, open surface of the maze. Two experiments assessed the relative importance of spatial (extra-maze) versus proximal visible cues in solving the maze. In Experiment 1, four groups of mice were trained either with or without a discrete visible cue marking the location of the escape hole, which was either in a fixed or variable location across trials. In Experiment 2, all mice were trained with the discrete visible cue marking the target hole location. Two groups were identical to the cued-target groups from Experiment 1, with either fixed or variable escape locations. For these mice, the discrete cue either was the sole predictor of the target location or was perfectly confounded with the spatial extra-maze cues. The third group also used a cued variable target, but a curtain was drawn around the maze to prevent the use of spatial cues to guide navigation. Probe trials with all escape holes blocked were conducted to dissociate the use of spatial and discrete proximal cues. We conclude that the Barnes maze can be solved efficiently using spatial, visual cue, or serial-search strategies. However, mice showed a strong preference for using the distal room cues, even when a discrete visible cue clearly marked the escape location. Importantly, these data show that the cued-target control version of the Barnes maze as typically conducted does not dissociate spatial from nonspatial abilities.

show abstract

“…distal cues) and responses (e.g. approach behaviors) and it is assumed that place learning follows similar rules of acquisition to those operating in classical and instrumental conditioning [5,14]. Associative explanations of novel, or flexible, spatial behaviors are typically limited to those based upon stimulus generalization and do not involve appeals to representations such as a cognitive map, although spatial behaviors may come under the control of potentially complex stimulus relationships or configurations [30,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human place learning in a virtual Morris water task: some important constraints on the flexibility of place navigation

Hamilton

Driscoll

Sutherland

2002

Behavioural Brain Research

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated human place learning in a computerized version of the Morris water task (VMWT) under comparable conditions to those employed by Sutherland et al. (Sutherland et al. Psychobiology, 1987;15:48-57) with rats. Participants viewed a computer-generated environment and were trained to locate a hidden goal in one half of a circular pool (region 1). The opportunity to navigate in and view cues from region 2 was systematically varied during training. Participants were then started from region 2 to assess transfer. Accurate transfer performance was dependent upon prior experience viewing distal cues from region 2 while on a trajectory to the goal, a finding we interpret as inconsistent with the automatic formation and modification of a cognitive map (O'Keefe J, Nadel L. The Hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1978). Additionally, the transfer data reported here closely match the data obtained by Sutherland et al. with rats suggesting some generality in the principles involved in place learning.

show abstract

Blocking in the spatial domain with arrays of discrete landmarks.

Cited by 63 publications

References 40 publications

Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries

Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries

Spatial and nonspatial escape strategies in the Barnes maze

Human place learning in a virtual Morris water task: some important constraints on the flexibility of place navigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About