Abstract
Cognitive map theory assumes that novel environmental information is automatically incorporated into existing cognitive maps as a function of exploration. Reports of blocking in place learning cast doubt on this claim. In these studies, subjects were first trained to find a place, using a set of landmarks (Set A). Then novel landmarks (Set B) were added for additional trials. Subsequent removal of the Set A landmarks showed that the novel landmarks alone were insufficient for successful navigation. We investigated whether instructing human subjects to explore the environment can moderate blocking. First, we demonstrated that blocking is absent in a computer implementation of the Morris water maze (MWM) in which subjects are instructed to explore. We then studied why others found blocking in a different MWM implementation, in which the task instructions did not suggest exploration. In experiments that faithfully replicated this MWM variant, we found that subjects did not acquire cognitive maps and that blocking was attenuated when instructions were provided that encouraged exploration. Together, these findings indicate that blocking in human place learning may reflect a performance deficit, not a learning deficit, and that instructions can moderate blocking. Our results thus support the automatic update assumption of cognitive map theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
Astur, R. S., Tropp, J., Sava, S., Constable, R. T., & Markus, E. J. (2004). Sex differences and correlations in a virtual Morris water task, a virtual radial arm maze, and mental rotation. Behavioural Brain Research, 151, 103–115.
Biegler, R., & Morris, R. G. M. (1999). Blocking in the spatial domain with arrays of discrete landmarks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 334–351.
Blaisdell, A. P., & Cook, R. G. (2005). Integration of spatial maps in pigeons. Animal Cognition, 8, 7–16.
Bohbot, V. D., Iaria, G., & Petrides, M. (2004). Hippocampal function and spatial memory: Evidence from functional neuroimaging in normal healthy subjects and patients with medial temporal lobe resections. Neuropsychology, 18, 418–425.
Brown, M. F., Yang, S. Y., & DiGian, K. A. (2002). No evidence for overshadowing or facilitation of spatial pattern learning by visual cues. Learning & Behavior, 30, 363–375.
Caplan, P. J., MacPherson, G. M., & Tobin, P. (1985). Do sex- related differences in spatial ability exist? American Psychologist, 40, 786–799.
Chamizo, V. D., Rodrigo, T., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2006). Spatial integration with rats. Leaning & Behavior, 34, 348–354.
Chamizo, V. D., Sterio, D., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1985). Blocking and overshadowing between intra-maze and extra-maze cues: A test of the independence of locale and guidance learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 235–253.
Cheng, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1–23.
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doeller, C. F., & Burgess, N. (2008). Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 5909–5914.
Eichenbaum, H., Stewart, C., & Morris, R. G. M. (1990). Hippocampal representation in place learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 3531–3542.
Graham, M., Good, M. A., McGregor, A., & Pearce, J. M. (2006). Spatial learning based on the shape of the environment is influenced by properties of the objects forming the shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 44–59.
Gray, E. R., Bloomfield, L. L., Ferrey, A., Spetch, M. L., & Sturdy, C. B. (2005). Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees: Features overshadow geometry. Biology Letters, 1, 314–317.
Hamilton, D. A., & Sutherland, R. J. (1999). Blocking in human place learning: Evidence from virtual navigation. Psychobiology, 27, 453–461.
Harvey, D. R., McGauran, A.-M. T., Murphy, J., Burns, L., Mc-Monagle, E., & Commins, S. (2008). Emergence of an egocentric cue guiding and allocentric inferring strategy that mirrors hippocampal brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) expression in the Morris water maze. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 89, 462–479.
Hayward, A., Good, M. A., & Pearce, J. M. (2004). Failure of a landmark to restrict spatial learning based on the shape of the environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57B, 289–314.
Hayward, A., McGregor, A., Good, M. A., & Pearce, J. M. (2003). Absence of overshadowing and blocking between landmarks and the geometric cues provided by the shape of the test arena. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 114–126.
Iaria, G., Petrides, M., Dagher, A., Pike, B., & Bohbot, V. D. (2003). Cognitive strategies dependent on the hippocampus and caudate nucleus in human navigation: Variability and change with practice. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 5945–5952.
Jacobs, W. J., Laurance, H. E., & Thomas, K. G. F. (1997). Place learning in virtual space I: Acquisition, overshadowing, and transfer. Learning & Motivation, 28, 521–541.
Jacobs, W. J., Thomas, K. G. F., Laurance, H. E., & Nadel, L. (1998). Place learning in virtual space: II. Topographical relations as one dimension of stimulus control. Learning & Motivation, 29, 288–308.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.
McGregor, A., Hayward, A. J., Pearce, J. M., & Good, M. A. (2004). Hippocampal lesions disrupt navigation based on the shape of the environment. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 1011–1021.
McHugh, T. J., & Tonegawa, S. (2007). Spatial exploration is required for the formation of contextual fear memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 335–339.
Miller, N. Y., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2007). Learning about environmental geometry: An associative model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 191–212.
Morris, R. G. M. (1981). Spatial localisation does not require the presence of local cues. Learning & Motivation, 12, 239–260.
Nadel, L., & Hardt, O. (2004). The spatial brain. Neuropsychology, 18, 473–476.
Nadel, L., & O’Keefe, J. (1974). The hippocampus in pieces and patches: An essay on modes of explanation on physiological psychology. In R. Bellairs & E. G. Gray (Eds.), Essays on the nervous system: A festschrift for J. Z. Young (pp. 367–390). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Nadel, L., & Willner, J. (1980). Context and conditioning: A place for space. Physiological Psychology, 8, 218–228.
O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Packard, M. G., & McGaugh, J. L. (1996). Inactivation of the hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression or place response learning. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 65, 65–72.
Pearce, J. M., Good, M. A., Jones, P. M., & McGregor, A. (2004). Transfer of spatial behavior between different environments: Implications for theories of spatial learning and for the role of the hippocampus in spatial learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 135–147.
Pearce, J. M., Ward-Robinson, J., Good, M., Fussell, C., & Aydin, A. (2001). Influence of a beacon on spatial learning based on the shape of the test environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 329–344.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rodrigo, T., Chamizo, V. D., McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1997). Blocking in the spatial domain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 110–118.
Sanchez-Moreno, J., Rodrigo, T., Chamizo, V. D., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1999). Overshadowing in the spatial domain. Learning & Behavior, 27, 391–398.
Sandstrom, N. L., Kaufman, J., & Huettel, S. A. (1998). Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 351–360.
Sawa, K., Leising, K. J., & Blaisdell, A. P. (2005). Sensory preconditioning in spatial learning using a touch screen task in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 368–375.
Schulz, D., Kouri, C., & Huston, J. P. (2007). Behavior on the water maze platform: Relationship to learning and open field exploration in aged and adult rats. Brain Research Bulletin, 74, 206–215.
Sherry, D. F., & Schacter, D. L. (1987). The evolution of multiple memory systems. Psychological Review, 94, 439–454.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring rec-ognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R., & Brandon, S. E. (1989). Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 149–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wall, P. L., Botly, L. C. P., Black, C. K., & Shettleworth, S. J. (2004). The geometric module in the rat: Independence of shape and feature learning in a food finding task. Learning & Behavior, 32, 289–298.
White, N. M., & McDonald, R. J. (2002). Multiple parallel memory systems in the brain of the rat. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 77, 125–184.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was part of the first author’s dissertation at the University of Arizona and was supported by grants to the Cognitive Neuroscience Center from the Flinn Foundation and the McDonnell-Pew Program. We thank W. Jake Jacobs, Alfred Kaszniak, Elizabeth Glisky, and Lee Ryan for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hardt, O., Hupbach, A. & Nadel, L. Factors moderating blocking in human place learning: The role of task instructions. Learning & Behavior 37, 42–59 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.42
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.1.42