Abstract
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.
Highlights
In the early half of the twentieth century the major point of dispute in behavioural psychology was what exactly animals learn when they learn
The pattern of results indicated that the probe trial performance was Hippocampus concurrently mediated by two processes, the place strategy and the response strategy, and the former was sensitive while the latter was insensitive to the expected value of the outcome
The result suggests that the response strategy meets the formal definition of instrumental habit, whereas the place strategy is a form of goal-directed action that is sensitive to the expected value of the outcome
Summary
In the early half of the twentieth century the major point of dispute in behavioural psychology was what exactly animals learn when they learn. Hull, 1943; Thorndike, 1911). Theorists viewed animal learning merely as an association between a stimulus (S) and a subsequent response (R), the strength of which is mechanistically modified, or reinforced, by an event that follows the response This simple S-R view was later challenged by a series of findings showing that animals appear to possess detailed expectations about the outcome (O) of an action and act purposively to obtain or avoid that outcome Various behavioural techniques have been developed to dissociate the two types of navigation strategies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
