Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task
The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new sti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Animal cognition 2022-10, Vol.25 (5), p.1259-1270 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1270 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1259 |
container_title | Animal cognition |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Wagner, Thomas J. Bruce, Katherine Galizio, Mark |
description | The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2633902753</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2633902753</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bdc8a5f7f3e20deb0bd3a60dfacc0a61f0098da08d07176d7faec24dc17e98cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFvFiEQhonR2Fr9Ax4MiRcv6AC7sHs0TdUmTbzombAwtFt3YQW2Sf-91K9-Jh5MyMAMz7xMeAl5zeE9B9AfykPkDIRgwBUMTD0hp7yTPRu7Xj09nrvhhLwo5RYAhm7kz8mJ7AXXoxpOyd1ldBlXjHWO1zSmyFZb3U1LGJ322iqVHis1sWLXbUE6F5rtNvvlni5oc0RP50htW3tNjW_5HeYyp0hToPUGafIp07I1pNry4yV5FuxS8NXjfka-f7r4dv6FXX39fHn-8Yo5qfvKJu8G2wcdJArwOMHkpVXgg3UOrOIBYBy8hcG3j9DK62DRic47rnEcXJBn5N1Bd8vp546lmnUuDpfFRkx7MUJJOYLQvWzo23_Q27Tn2KYzQotxHJXu-0aJA-VyKiVjMFueV5vvDQfz4Ic5uGKaK-a3K0a1pjeP0vu0oj-2_LGhAfIAlHYVrzH_ffs_sr8AE2GZxw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2729996755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task</title><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Wagner, Thomas J. ; Bruce, Katherine ; Galizio, Mark</creator><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Thomas J. ; Bruce, Katherine ; Galizio, Mark</creatorcontrib><description>The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1435-9448</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-9456</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35217968</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Animal cognition ; Automation ; Behavioral Sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Contingency ; Laboratory animals ; Life Sciences ; Matching ; Matching-to-sample ; Memory ; Odors ; Olfactory discrimination ; Olfactory discrimination learning ; Operant conditioning ; Original Paper ; Psychology Research ; Rats ; Reinforcement ; Stimuli ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Animal cognition, 2022-10, Vol.25 (5), p.1259-1270</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bdc8a5f7f3e20deb0bd3a60dfacc0a61f0098da08d07176d7faec24dc17e98cf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bdc8a5f7f3e20deb0bd3a60dfacc0a61f0098da08d07176d7faec24dc17e98cf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35217968$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruce, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galizio, Mark</creatorcontrib><title>Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task</title><title>Animal cognition</title><addtitle>Anim Cogn</addtitle><addtitle>Anim Cogn</addtitle><description>The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Animal cognition</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Contingency</subject><subject>Laboratory animals</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Matching</subject><subject>Matching-to-sample</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Odors</subject><subject>Olfactory discrimination</subject><subject>Olfactory discrimination learning</subject><subject>Operant conditioning</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Psychology Research</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Stimuli</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>1435-9448</issn><issn>1435-9456</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFvFiEQhonR2Fr9Ax4MiRcv6AC7sHs0TdUmTbzombAwtFt3YQW2Sf-91K9-Jh5MyMAMz7xMeAl5zeE9B9AfykPkDIRgwBUMTD0hp7yTPRu7Xj09nrvhhLwo5RYAhm7kz8mJ7AXXoxpOyd1ldBlXjHWO1zSmyFZb3U1LGJ322iqVHis1sWLXbUE6F5rtNvvlni5oc0RP50htW3tNjW_5HeYyp0hToPUGafIp07I1pNry4yV5FuxS8NXjfka-f7r4dv6FXX39fHn-8Yo5qfvKJu8G2wcdJArwOMHkpVXgg3UOrOIBYBy8hcG3j9DK62DRic47rnEcXJBn5N1Bd8vp546lmnUuDpfFRkx7MUJJOYLQvWzo23_Q27Tn2KYzQotxHJXu-0aJA-VyKiVjMFueV5vvDQfz4Ic5uGKaK-a3K0a1pjeP0vu0oj-2_LGhAfIAlHYVrzH_ffs_sr8AE2GZxw</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Wagner, Thomas J.</creator><creator>Bruce, Katherine</creator><creator>Galizio, Mark</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task</title><author>Wagner, Thomas J. ; Bruce, Katherine ; Galizio, Mark</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-bdc8a5f7f3e20deb0bd3a60dfacc0a61f0098da08d07176d7faec24dc17e98cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Animal cognition</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Contingency</topic><topic>Laboratory animals</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Matching</topic><topic>Matching-to-sample</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Odors</topic><topic>Olfactory discrimination</topic><topic>Olfactory discrimination learning</topic><topic>Operant conditioning</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Psychology Research</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Stimuli</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Thomas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruce, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galizio, Mark</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Proquest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Animal cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wagner, Thomas J.</au><au>Bruce, Katherine</au><au>Galizio, Mark</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task</atitle><jtitle>Animal cognition</jtitle><stitle>Anim Cogn</stitle><addtitle>Anim Cogn</addtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1259</spage><epage>1270</epage><pages>1259-1270</pages><issn>1435-9448</issn><eissn>1435-9456</eissn><abstract>The odor span task (OST) is frequently used to assess memory capacity in rodents. Odor stimuli are presented in a large arena and choices of session-novel odors produce food reward. The procedure can be described as an incrementing non-matching-to-sample contingency because on each trial one new stimulus is presented along with one or more previously presented (non-reinforced) comparison odors. An automated version of this task has recently been developed in which odors are presented with an olfactometer in an operant chamber using a successive conditional discrimination procedure. The present study compared the acquisition of matching- vs. non-matching-to-sample versions of the task with six rats tested under each procedure. All six rats trained on the non-matching variation showed rapid acquisition of the discrimination with high rates of responding to odor stimuli when they were session-novel and low rates of responding to subsequent presentations of those odors. However, only three of the six rats trained on the matching variation met acquisition criteria, and two of the three that did acquire the task required extensive training to do so. These results support findings from the OST that rats can differentiate between stimuli that are session-novel and those previously encountered, but also that a matching contingency is more difficult to learn than a non-matching arrangement. These findings parallel differences observed between acquisition of simple matching- and non-matching-to-sample tasks, but accounts such as novelty preference or the oddity preference effect may not be sufficient to explain the present results.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>35217968</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1435-9448 |
ispartof | Animal cognition, 2022-10, Vol.25 (5), p.1259-1270 |
issn | 1435-9448 1435-9456 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2633902753 |
source | SpringerLink (Online service) |
subjects | Accuracy Animal cognition Automation Behavioral Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Contingency Laboratory animals Life Sciences Matching Matching-to-sample Memory Odors Olfactory discrimination Olfactory discrimination learning Operant conditioning Original Paper Psychology Research Rats Reinforcement Stimuli Zoology |
title | Incrementing non-matching- but not matching-to-sample is rapidly learned in an automated version of the odor span task |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T06%3A58%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incrementing%20non-matching-%20but%20not%20matching-to-sample%20is%20rapidly%20learned%20in%20an%20automated%20version%20of%20the%20odor%20span%20task&rft.jtitle=Animal%20cognition&rft.au=Wagner,%20Thomas%20J.&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1259&rft.epage=1270&rft.pages=1259-1270&rft.issn=1435-9448&rft.eissn=1435-9456&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10071-022-01608-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2633902753%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2729996755&rft_id=info:pmid/35217968&rfr_iscdi=true |