Studies in spatial learning. II. Place learning versus response learning.

Abstract

A, INTRODUCTION Consider the case in which normal rats (i.e., those deprived of no sense capacities) have been trained to find food on a simple T-maze. After several days of such training we observe that whenever the rats are put at the starting place, they run quickly to the choice point and without hesitation turn down the path which leads to the food box. We then say that the rats have learned. But what is it that they have learned ? There are at least three different answers which have been given to this question. . I. Such training may have produced a disposition in the rats to run on a path which has certain specific characteristics (e.g., knotholes of such and such a pattern, or the like) and to avoid running on all paths which have certain other specific characteristics. 2. Such training may have produced a disposition to turn right whenever they come to the choice point. 3. Finally, such training may have produced a disposition to orient towards the place where the food is located (e.g., under the window, to the left.of the radiator, etc.).Each of these answers has at one time or another been defended by some psychologist as the only way in which rats learn mazes. Today, however, the first hypothesis has few supporters. The experiments of Honzik (i, and others on the sensory control of maze learning have demonstrated clearly that learning in terms of intra-maze cues alone (i.e., when extra-maze stimuli are changed from trial to trial) is extremely difficult for the rat. Thus we must conclude that the rapid learning exhibited by rats in most maze problems is probably based on other cues than intra-maze ones.. There is, however, no direct evidence which enables us to choose between the last two hypotheses. So far no experiment has been performed which has separated these two dispositions. In all Tmazes, as they have usually been constructed, running to a given place in the environment is always accomplished by a certain response (e.g., a right turn at the choice point) or set of responses. From such behavior it is obviously impossible to determine whether the training

An assessment of response, direction and place learning by rats in a water T-maze

“…Two early hypotheses included learning the location relative to cues in the environment, or place learning, (O'Keefe & Nadel, 1978;Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946), and learning the specific motor sequence(s) to arrive at the location, or response learning (Blodgett & McCutchan, 1948;Hull, 1943). Much of the early research in the field of spatial navigation suggested that in environments with an abundance of cues, place learning was the dominant strategy (Restle, 1957;Tolman et al, 1946). …”

“…In one landmark study Tolman et al (1946) trained rats on aT-maze to use a response strategy (i.e., always turn right) from two different start points, or a place strategy, in which the goal location did not change but the rat started from two different start arms, located 180° from each other (See Figure 1). In both groups, rats were trained to a criterion of 10 successive errorless trials.…”

Performance of goldfish trained in allocentric and egocentric maze procedures suggests the presence of a cognitive mapping system in fishes

“…Similar results have been described in mammals. For example, rodents trained to turn in one direction in a maze in which the environmental and intramaze cues were irrelevant were slower to learn the task than those trained in a task in which a particular place was rewarded (Hill & Thune, 1952;Scharlock, 1955;Tolman, Ritchie, & Kalish, 1946). These results have been explained by the disturbing effect of extramaze cues in the response group (Blodgett & McCutchan, 1947) or by assuming that rats use a place strategy during initial learning and only shift to a response strategy with continued training (Hicks, 1964;Means & Douglas, 1970;O'Keefe & Nadel, 1978, 1979; N. S. Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971).…”

The relative influence of place and direction in the Morris water task.

“…Tolman, Ritchie, and Kalish (1946) contrasted place and response learning in the simple T-maze by training animals to either perform a particular response (e.g., always enter the arm to the right) or to navigate to a specific spatial location in the room regardless of the particular arm where reinforcement occurred. The ability of rats to learn where to navigate independently of specific motor responses represents what Tolman et al (1946) termed a place disposition, a concept that became a central feature of Tolman's cognitive mapping theory (Tolman, 1948) and subsequently the influential mapping theory of O' Keefe and Nadel (1978). During the early years of this debate place learning and the place disposition were contrasted not only with the response disposition, but several alternative behavioral processes including approach/avoidance tendencies (Hull, 1943(Hull, , 1934a(Hull, , 1934b, simple and complex guidance (Deutsch, 1960), and directional responding (Blodgett, McCutchan, & Mathews, 1949).…”