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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Animal cognition 2022-10, Vol.25 (5), p.1259-1270
Hauptverfasser: Wagner, Thomas J., Bruce, Katherine, Galizio, Mark
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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