| Title |
Rats (Rattus norvegicus) flexibly retrieve objects’ non-spatial and spatial information from their visuospatial working memory: effects of integrated and separate processing of these features in a missing-object recognition task
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0915-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corrine Keshen, Jerome Cohen |
| Abstract |
After being trained to find a previous missing object within an array of four different objects, rats received occasional probe trials with such test arrays rotated from that of their respective three-object study arrays. Only animals exposed to each object's non-spatial features consistently paired with both its spatial features (feeder's relative orientation and direction) in the first experiment or with only feeder's relative orientation in the second experiment (Fixed Configuration groups) were adversely affected by probe trial test array rotations. This effect, however, was less persistent for this group in the second experiment but re-emerged when objects' non-spatial features were later rendered uninformative. Animals that had both types of each object's features randomly paired over trials but not between a trial's study and test array (Varied Configuration groups) were not adversely affected on probe trials but improved their missing-object recognition in the first experiment. These findings suggest that the Fixed Configuration groups had integrated each object's non-spatial with both (in Experiment 1) or one (in Experiment 2) of its spatial features to construct a single representation that they could not easily compare to any object in a rotated probe test array. The Varied Configuration groups must maintain separate representations of each object's features to solve this task. This prevented them from exhibiting such adverse effects on rotated probe trial test arrays but enhanced the rats' missing-object recognition in the first experiment. We discussed how rats' flexible use (retrieval) of encoded information from their visuospatial working memory corresponds to that of humans' visuospatial memory in object change detection and complex object recognition tasks. We also discussed how foraging-specific factors may have influenced each group's performance in this task. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 33% |
| Psychology | 5 | 33% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,337
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,987
of 267,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#28
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.