MOTOYOSHI and MITANI (3) have reported that exploratory experience on the transparent glass floor above the enclosed-maze was effective on the solution of the maze problem. In their experiment, rats were given successively 12 maze problems (the modified HEBB-WILLIAMS Intelligence Test) on the glass floor for 6 successive days, looking down into the each maze for 4 minutes per day, and 9 days after, rats were tested within each maze. The purpose of the present study was to examine the result of their experiment under slightly different conditions.RABINOVITCH-ROSVOLD Intelligence Test for Rats (6) was used as the apparatus throughout the present experiments. All the barriers (blocks), including the tops of them, were painted black to contrast with the painted white floor and the white fixed walls surrounding the field. Two sheets of transparent glass were used, the one covering the maze and the other the second floor above the maze (Fig. 1). Eighteen albino rats, aged 10 weeks at the beginning of handling, were used as SS. After adaptation to the enclosed-field without barriers and RABINOVITCH-ROSVOLD'S Practice Problems A, B, and C (Fig. 2), SS were divided into two groups. E-Group (Experimental) : The barriers were introduced into the enclosedfield. SS were landed on the glass floor above the maze (No. 4 Test Problem as shown in Fig. 2), and permitted free exploration for 10 minutes per day for 5 consecutive days. C-Group (Control) : Free exploration trials were procedually identical to E-Group except that all the barriers were removed from the enclosedfield. On the next day, testing was conducted. All SS were given 5 trials in the maze (No. 4 Test Problem), and the number of errors committed was recorded. The results are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 1. There is no significant difference between two groups. It seems to be concluded that the visual latent learning was not demonstrated in this experiment. In MOTOYOSHI and MITANI' s study, however, a kind of cumulative effect by giving 12 problems successively may result in statistically significant difference between two groups. To see whether there is the cumulative effect or not, 5 problems (No. 5, 9, 2, 10, and 4 Test Problems) were used in this experiment. Ten rats were used for E-Group, .and 8rats for C-Group. After giving exploratory experience on the glass floor above the enclosed-field (barriers constracted for E-Group and no barriers for C-Group) for 10 minutes twice, S was run in the maze for testing. Three days after, this procedure was replicated using the next problem, and so on. From the results shown in Fig. 4, 5, Table 2, and 3, it is unreasonable to assume that there are any cumulative effects in maze performance. Next experiment III was designed to ascertain whether the effect of exploratory experience on maze performance is increased by giving attention to the maze. To turn the rat's attention to the maze pattern, two naive rats were put into the maze when S was permitted free exploration on the glass floor. For C-Group there were no barriers in the enclosedfield, but for E-Group barriers were introduced, i. e., No. 3 and No. 6 Problems (Fig. 2). Testings were conducted on each problem. The results are presented in Fig. 4, 5, Table 4 and 5. With a single exception (the first trial on No. 6 Problem), there are no significant difference between two groups.To sum up, neither “visual latent learning” nor “cumulative effect” was demonstrated in the present study. But that the variances of the error scores of E-Group are quite smaller than C-Groups' (Table 2-5) might suggest the possibility that E-Group rats had learned something about the maze.
Read full abstract