Cited by 5Memory and Neural MechanismsSpatial Cognition and NavigationMemory Processes and Influences

Changing within-trial array location and target object position enhances rats’ (Rattus norvegicus) missing object recognition accuracy

Arain, Marium, Parameswaran, Varakini, Cohen, Jerome·2012·Animal Cognition

Abstract

Six rats were trained to find a previously missing target or 'jackpot' object in a square array of four identical or different objects (the test segment of a trial) after first visiting and collecting sunflower seeds from under the other three objects (the study segment of a trial). During training, objects' local positions within the array and their global positions within the larger foraging array were varied over trials but were not changed between segments within a trial. Following this training, rats were tested on their accuracy for finding the target object when a trial's test array was sometimes moved to a different location in the foraging arena or when the position of the target object within the test array had been changed. Either of these manipulations initially slightly reduced rats' accuracy for finding the missing object but then enhanced it. Relocating test arrays of identical objects enhanced rats' performance only after 10-min inter-segment intervals (ISIs). Relocating test arrays of different objects enhanced rats' performance only after 2-min ISIs. Rats also improved their performance when they encountered the target object in a new position in test arrays of different objects. This enhancement effect occurred after either 2- or 30-min ISIs. These findings suggest that rats separately retrieved a missing (target) object's spatial and non-spatial information when they were relevant but not when they were irrelevant in a trial. The enhancement effects provide evidence for rats' limited retrieval capacity in their visuo-spatial working memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10071-012-0501-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 5

Authors
Arain, M., Parameswaran, V., & Cohen, J.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Corresponding author
Cohen, Jerome
Venue
Animal Cognition
Published
2012-04-26
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
771-782
ISSN
  • 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-9456
OpenAlex
W2101800237
Cited by
5
References
44
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Animal Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
visuospatial working memory, rats, spatial memory, object location, memory retrieval, foraging behavior
MeSH terms
Animals, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Exploratory Behavior, Male, Space Perception, Rats, Long-Evans, Recognition, Psychology, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review