1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9384(98)00003-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Repeated Acquisition of a Spatial Navigation Task in Mice: Effects of Spacing of Trials and of Unilateral Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The spacing effect in LTM is observed across a variety of tasks, including spatial reference memory (Bolding and Rudy, 2006), working memory (Klapdor and Van Der Staay, 1998), appetitive associative conditioning (Colomb, Kaiser, Chabaud, and Preat, 2009), aversive associative conditioning (Amano and Maruyama, 2011; Williams, Frame, and LoLordo, 1991; Yin, Wallach, Del Vecchio, Wilder, Zhou, Quinn, and Tully, 1994) and both sensitization and habituation (Carew, Pinsker, and Kandel, 1972; Pinsker, Carew, Hening, and Kandel, 1973; Sutton, Ide, Masters, and Carew, 2002). Effective training intervals appear to be task specific and are controlled by a number of factors, including the retention interval examined (e.g., Beck, Schroeder, & Davis, 2000; Gerber, Wustenberg, Schutz, & Menzel, 1998) and the relationship between trial duration and trial spacing (Gibbon, Baldock, Locurto, Gold, and Terrace, 1977).…”
Section: General Principles Of the Spacing Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The spacing effect in LTM is observed across a variety of tasks, including spatial reference memory (Bolding and Rudy, 2006), working memory (Klapdor and Van Der Staay, 1998), appetitive associative conditioning (Colomb, Kaiser, Chabaud, and Preat, 2009), aversive associative conditioning (Amano and Maruyama, 2011; Williams, Frame, and LoLordo, 1991; Yin, Wallach, Del Vecchio, Wilder, Zhou, Quinn, and Tully, 1994) and both sensitization and habituation (Carew, Pinsker, and Kandel, 1972; Pinsker, Carew, Hening, and Kandel, 1973; Sutton, Ide, Masters, and Carew, 2002). Effective training intervals appear to be task specific and are controlled by a number of factors, including the retention interval examined (e.g., Beck, Schroeder, & Davis, 2000; Gerber, Wustenberg, Schutz, & Menzel, 1998) and the relationship between trial duration and trial spacing (Gibbon, Baldock, Locurto, Gold, and Terrace, 1977).…”
Section: General Principles Of the Spacing Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spacing effect does not appear to regulate the acquisition or development of STM, but strongly regulates the induction of LTM in a variety of learning tasks in a wide range of species, including pigeon (Gibbon et al, 1977), rodent (Bolding and Rudy, 2006; Klapdor and Van Der Staay, 1998; Williams et al, 1991), honeybee (Gerber et al, 1998), Drosophila (Tully et al, 1994), Hermissenda (Rogers, Talk, and Matzel, 1994), Lymnaea (Lukowiak, Cotter, Westly, Ringseis, and Spencer, 1998), and Aplysia (Carew et al, 1972). The effect of training pattern on the formation of ITM is less well studied, but has shown to be of benefit in some cases (Sutton et al, 2002).…”
Section: Cellular and Molecular Correlates Of The Spacing Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The "distribution of practice" (McGaugh 1966) or "the spacing effect" has been demonstrated in a variety of learning models, including word-pair associates in humans (Hser and Wickens 1989), appetitive conditioning in rodents (Lattal 1999), and olfactory avoidance in Drosophila (Yin et al 1995). The effect is observed in one of the most frequently tested animal learning tasks, the Morris water maze (Klapdor and Van Der Staay 1998;Gerlai 2001). In one study, animals trained with spaced trials performed better than animals trained with massed trials, and as expected, had a better memory after training (Commins et al 2003).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even subtle differences in relatedness can have large effects on behavioral responses. For example, variation in rodent strains can impact swimming behavior, visual acuity, and other factors, all of which may impact performance on spatially based tests . When thinking about animals with vastly different umwelt, methodological differences unrelated to cognitive processing ability can contribute to differential performance on cognitive tasks.…”
Section: Integrating Neurobiology and Context‐relevant Behavior Provimentioning
confidence: 99%