Revaluation of geometric cues reduces landmark discrimination via within-compound associations

The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel memory systems

Some theories of spatial learning predict that associative rules apply under only limited circumstances. For example, learning based on a boundary has been claimed to be immune to cue competition effects because boundary information is the basis for the formation of a cognitive map, whilst landmark learning does not involve cognitive mapping. This is referred to as the cue type hypothesis. However, it has also been claimed that cue stability is a prerequisite for the formation of a cognitive map, meaning that whichever cue type was perceived as stable would enter a cognitive map and thus be immune to cue competition, while unstable cues will be subject to cue competition, regardless of cue type. In experiments 1 and 2 we manipulated the stability of boundary and landmark cues when learning the location of two hidden goals. One goal location was constant with respect to the boundary, and the other constant with respect to the landmark cues. For both cue types, the presence of distal orientation cues provided directional information. For half the participants the landmark cues were unstable relative to the boundary and orientation cues, whereas for the remainder of the participants the boundary was unstable relative to landmarks and orientation cues. In a second stage of training, all cues remained stable so that both goal locations could be learned with respect to both landmark and boundary information. According to the cue type hypothesis, boundary information should block learning about landmarks regardless of cue stability. According to the cue stability hypothesis, however, landmarks should block learning about the boundary when the landmarks appear stable relative to the boundary. Regardless of cue type or stability the results showed reciprocal blocking, contrary to both formulations of incidental cognitive mapping. Experiment 3 established that the results of Experiments 1 and 2 could not be explained in terms of difficulty in learning certain locations with respect to different cue types. In a final experiment, following training in which both landmarks and boundary cues signalled two goal locations, a new goal location was established with respect to the landmark cues, before testing with the boundary, which had never been used to define the new goal location. The results of this novel test of the interaction between boundary and landmark cues indicated that new learning with respect to the landmark had a profound effect on navigation with respect to the boundary, counter to the predictions of incidental cognitive mapping of boundaries.

Distinct and combined responses to environmental geometry and features in a working-memory reorientation task in rats and chicks

The original provocative formulation of the ‘geometric module’ hypothesis was based on a working-memory task in rats which suggested that spontaneous reorientation behavior is based solely on the environmental geometry and is impervious to featural cues. Here, we retested that claim by returning to a spontaneous navigation task with rats and domestic chicks, using a single prominent featural cue (a striped wall) within a rectangular arena. Experiments 1 and 2 tested the influence of geometry and features separately. In Experiment 1, we found that both rats and chicks used environmental geometry to compute locations in a plain rectangular arena. In Experiment 2, while chicks failed to spontaneously use a striped wall in a square arena, rats showed a modest influence of the featural cue as a local marker to the goal. The critical third experiment tested the striped wall inside the rectangular arena. We found that although chicks solely relied on geometry, rats navigated based on both environmental geometry and the featural cue. While our findings with rats are contrary to classic claims of an impervious geometric module, they are consistent with the hypothesis that navigation by boundaries and features may involve distinct underlying cognitive computations. We conclude by discussing the similarities and differences in feature-use across tasks and species.

The response strategy and the place strategy in a plus-maze have different sensitivities to devaluation of expected outcome

Previous studies have suggested that spatial navigation can be achieved with at least two distinct learning processes, involving either cognitive map‐like representations of the local environment, referred to as the “place strategy”, or simple stimulus‐response (S‐R) associations, the “response strategy”. A similar distinction between cognitive/behavioral processes has been made in the context of non‐spatial, instrumental conditioning, with the definition of two processes concerning the sensitivity of a given behavior to the expected value of its outcome as well as to the response‐outcome contingency (“goal‐directed action” and “S‐R habit”). Here we investigated whether these two versions of dichotomist definitions of learned behavior, one spatial and the other non‐spatial, correspond to each other in a formal way. Specifically, we assessed the goal‐directed nature of two navigational strategies, using a combination of an outcome devaluation procedure and a spatial probe trial frequently used to dissociate the two navigational strategies. In Experiment 1, rats trained in a dual‐solution T‐maze task were subjected to an extinction probe trial from the opposite start arm, with or without prefeeding‐induced devaluation of the expected outcome. We found that a non‐significant preference for the place strategy in the non‐devalued condition was completely reversed after devaluation, such that significantly more animals displayed the use of the response strategy. The result suggests that the place strategy is sensitive to the expected value of the outcome, while the response strategy is not. In Experiment 2, rats with hippocampal lesions showed significant reliance on the response strategy, regardless of whether the expected outcome was devalued or not. The result thus offers further evidence that the response strategy conforms to the definition of an outcome‐insensitive, habitual form of instrumental behavior. These results together attest a formal correspondence between two types of dual‐process accounts of animal learning and behavior.