| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Center for Memory and Brain, Program in Neuroscience, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT RESULTSDISCUSSIONMATERIALS AND METHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
)
characterized episodic memory as the capacity to recollect where and when past
events occurred. Tulving and colleagues have since refined their definition of
episodic memory, emphasizing qualities of the subjective consciousness and a
sense of time in retrieving past experiences
(Tulving and Markowitsch 1998;
Tulving 2002). Whether
nonhuman animals are able to consciously recollect past experiences and
whether they have a sense of time are subjects of ongoing debate
(Roberts 2002;
Clayton et al. 2003a;
Suddendorf and Busby
2003a,b).
Although there is no way to directly assess the subjective attributes of
episodic memory in animals, Clayton and Dickinson
(1998) suggested that the
capacity to remember where and when specific events occurred constitutes
evidence of "episodic-like" memory which can be tested in animals.
A series of experiments on food-caching in scrub jays showed that jays could
indeed remember the integrated "what," "where," and
"when" information from specific past events
(Clayton and Dickinson 1998;
Clayton et al. 2001). The
definition of episodic-like memory has been refined, now also emphasizing the
capacity for flexible expression of memory
(Clayton et al. 2003b). Those
authors argue that the food-caching behavior in scrub jays meets their
criteria for episodic-like memory (Clayton
et al. 2003b). However, these studies did not identify the brain
structures that are critical for this capacity.
Previous studies with rodents suggest that the hippocampus is involved in
memory for the "what" and "when" information in
remembering a sequence of odors (Fortin et
al. 2002; Kesner et al.
2002), for the "where" and "when"
information in remembering a sequence of rewarded places
(Kesner and Novak 1982;
Chiba et al. 1994), and for the
"what" and "where" information in remembering a flavor
found in a particular place (Day et al.
2003). In the present study, we developed a novel memory task to
assess memory for events from single episodes involving a combination of odors
("what") presented in unique places ("where") in a
specific order ("when"; Fig.
1). The results indicate that rats can remember the order of
events in unique experiences and that they depend on a combination of odor and
place information to make accurate judgments about when these events occurred.
Additionally, memory expression is flexible in that animals reveal their
memory about specific items through a variety of comparison tests that differ
in format from the initial learning experience. Furthermore, the hippocampus
plays a critical role in this form of "what-where-when" memory for
single experiences.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTRESULTSDISCUSSIONMATERIALS AND METHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
Fourteen rats were trained on the "what-where-when" task (standard choice tests), using 24 spices as odors and 24 positions at the periphery of a platform as places (Fig. 1). On each trial, the rat sequentially sampled a unique series of four rewarded odors, each presented in a different place on the periphery (A through D). Subsequently, memory was tested in a single choice between an arbitrarily selected pair of the sample odors in their original locations (B vs. D, A vs. C, etc.). The rat was rewarded for the selection of the stimulus that occurred earlier in the sequence.
In five stages of training, rats were initially tested with subsets of the stimulus pairings, and then gradually shifted to a random mixture of all possible choice pairings. In the initial stage, rats reached a criterion of 80% correct over two consecutive sessions on individual types of choice tests in 33.4 ± 2.1 (mean ± SE) trials (A vs. D), 15.0 ± 1.4 trials (B vs. D), and 18.0 ± 2.1 trials (C vs. D). Next, rats reached at least 75% correct over two sessions on mixed presentations of A versus C, A versus D, B versus D, and C versus D tests in 29.6 ± 2.7 trials. In subsequent training on all types of choice tests, rats performed at 71.7% correct (performance vs. chance: t(13) = 10.804, P < 0.0001). Then, in additional training on a mixture of A versus B, B versus C, and C versus D tests, rats performed at 68.8% correct (performance vs. chance: t(13) = 8.232, P < 0.0001). In the final stage of training on all types of choice tests, rats performed at 67.9%, 61.9%, 75%, 76.2%, 75%, and 72.6% correct for six consecutive sessions.
In the last four of these sessions and in a subsequent testing session that accompanied the probe tests, rats performed well above chance on all types of standard choice tests, indicating that normal rats could remember the order of unique sequences of odors and places (t(13) = 11.725, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2A).
|
We additionally examined performance on choice tests that differed in the
separation or lag between initially presented stimuli. Performance was above
chance at all lags (all P-values 
0.0001;
Table 1), and performance on
Lag 2 tests (A vs. D) was superior to that on Lag 0 (A vs. B, B vs. C, C vs.
D) and Lag 1 (A vs. C, B vs. D) tests (paired t-tests:
t(13) = 5.491, P = 0.0001 and
t(13) = 4.387, P = 0.0007,
respectively). Performance on Lag 0 and Lag 1 tests did not differ
significantly (t(13) = 0.118, P =
0.9079). These findings are consistent with those of previous studies showing
that rats and humans have greater difficulty judging the sequential ordering
of temporally adjacent items than temporally distant items of studied
sequences (Chiba et al. 1994;
Madsen and Kesner 1995;
Fortin et al. 2002;
Kesner et al. 2002).
|
Distinguishing the Use of Spatial and Olfactory Cues in the Standard Choice Tests
In the "what-where-when" task described above, odor and place cues were intentionally confounded, such that accurate judgments about the order of items could be based on only the place cues, the odor cues, or a combination of place and odor cues. We examined which cues were employed by rats, using the following two strategies.
1. First Approach Compared to Final Choice
One possibility is that rats initially use the spatial cues that can easily
be seen from anywhere on the maze to approach the earlier visited place. Then
they might or might not confirm the initially spatially guided choice by
smelling the odor at that location. A comparison of performance on the initial
visit and on the final response choice would provide measures of the extent to
which overall performance depended on place and odor cues. To the extent that
rats use only the spatial cues, one would expect all first visits lead to the
same final choice. Alternatively, to the extent that rats use only odor cues,
one would expect random selections on the first visit and considerably better
performance on the final choice. If, however, rats use a combination of the
spatial and odor cues, one would expect better than chance performance on the
first choice and a significant improvement above that on the final
response.
Odor Detection Tests
The preceding rationale depends crucially on the assumption that rats use
exclusively spatial cues on the initial visit and do not detect the odor of a
stimulus before arriving at a stimulus cup. To test this assumption, we
performed a separate control experiment that determined the distance from
which rats could detect the odor stimuli. A different group of rats was
trained to discriminate a scented stimulus from an unscented stimulus, with
the two stimuli placed at separate random locations on the periphery of the
platform just as in the standard choice tests. Rats learned to choose the
scented stimulus within the first day of training
(Fig. 3A). If rats could detect
the odors at a substantial distance across the platform, then they should be
able to directly approach the scented cup first on every trial. However, the
incidence of initial visits to the scented cup was not different than chance
on any of the test days. Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated a significant
interaction between choice performance and initial visit across days
(F(7,42) = 6.795, P < 0.0001;
Fig. 3A). On Day 1, rats
approached both test locations equally often (initial visits vs. chance:
t(3) = -0.775, P = 0.495), and the
accuracy of choice responses was also not different than chance
(t(3) = 0.778, P = 0.4934). From Day 2
through Day 8, however, rats chose accurately everyday (performance vs.
chance: all t-values 
7.982, all P-values 0.0041).
In contrast, the incidence of correct initial visits was at chance each day
(performance vs. chance: all t-values 1.732, all
P-values 0.1817), indicating that rats could not detect the
odors during the initial approach. Furthermore, rats investigated the first
visited stimulus at or beyond a 0-cm-line on 95% of all 192 trials and, on the
remaining 5% of the trials, the visit was within 3 cm of the cup
(Fig. 3B). Investigation at a
distance greater than 3 cm was not observed on any trial. These findings
strongly indicate that rats cannot detect the stimulus odors until they
approach the cups within 3 cm. Therefore, in standard choice tests, first
approach within 3 cm was used as a measure of initial guidance by spatial cues
alone.
|
First Approach in the "What-Where-When" Task
The findings from the control experiment validated our assumption that rats
use exclusively spatial cues to guide the initial visit. Therefore, we
compared the contribution of place and odor cues by examining the performance
of rats on the initial visits and final choices in the
"what-where-when" task. Rats first approached the correct choice
at well above chance level (t(13) = 7.056,
P < 0.0001; Fig.
2A), indicating that they could use their memory for places where
the cups were presented to guide the initial visit. However, performance on
choice behavior was significantly greater than on initial visits (paired
t-test: t(13) = 5.025, P =
0.0002; Fig. 2A), indicating
that rats additionally used the scents of the stimuli to make their final
choice response.
2. Spatial and Odor Probe Tests
Another way to examine the use of place and odor cues is to eliminate the
information from one source of cues and then determine the extent to which
rats can use the remaining source of information to make the response choice.
Therefore, in an additional series of probe tests, we presented sequences of
odor-place cues as in the standard version task, but then on some test trials
we provided only the appropriate place cues (spatial probe tests) or only the
appropriate odor cues (odor probe tests). Based on the findings from the
initial approach analysis, we reasoned that rats would rely on the odor cues
obtained following an initial spatially guided approach, and would therefore
perform poorly when the confirming odor cues were absent. To the extent that
rats could use odor cues alone when spatial cues were absent, one would expect
accurate performance on the odor probe tests.
Spatial Probe Tests
We assessed rats' ability to perceive and use spatial cues by examining
choice behavior on spatial probe trials when the scents were absent at the
test phase (Fig. 1). Standard
choice tests, where both the odor and spatial cues were present, were
intermixed with the probe trials for comparison of performance. Rats continued
to perform significantly above chance on choice tests
(t(13) = 6.734, P < 0.0001;
Fig. 2B), whereas they chose
correctly no more often than predicted by chance on spatial probe tests
(t(13) = 0.563, P = 0.5828;
Fig. 2B).
Odor Probe Tests
We assessed the ability to perceive and use the odors by examining choice
behavior on odor probe trials when the initial spatial cues were absent at the
test phase (Fig. 1). Rats
performed well above chance on odor probe tests
(t(13) = 6.097, P < 0.0001;
Fig. 2B), and this performance
did not differ significantly from that on standard choice tests (paired
t-test: t(13) = -1.075, P =
0.3019; Fig. 2B).
The combination of initial approach and probe test data indicates that rats use the full combination of "what," "where," and "when" information in memory for the order of odor-place events. In the standard trials, normal rats initially used exclusively spatial cues to approach the correct place on 69% of the trials, then selected the correct choice on 76% of the trials (Fig. 2A). Thus, it appears that place information alone contributed to an increment of 19% correct responses above the level expected by chance (50%). Olfactory information was used to confirm or disconfirm the initial approach and consequently increased the final choice an additional 7%. Whereas the incremental advantage from the odor cue appears to be relatively small compared to the initial contribution of spatial cues, confirmation by the odor was critical. This conclusion is supported by the observation that removal of the odor cues in the spatial probes severely disrupted performance in normal rats, and indeed rats could use the odor cues alone when the relevant spatial cues were absent. Our interpretation of these findings is that normal rats expected to confirm the initial spatial choice with the earlier sampled odor. When that odor was not found at either place on the spatial probes, rats could not make the critical confirmation. These considerations support the conclusion that rats normally use the combination of "where" and "what" information to make the critical "when" judgment on standard trials, and therefore demonstrate the capacity for integrating these elements of memory for single experiences.
Is the Hippocampus Essential for "What-Where-When" Memory?
Following the testing described above, the same subjects were divided into two equal and matched groups, one group that received bilateral hippocampal lesions (H group) and a sham operated control group. Performance prior to surgery was well matched between the groups on standard choice tests prior to probe testing (unpaired t-test: t(12) = 0.206, P = 0.8406), standard choice tests at each lag (Lag 0: t(12) = -0.408, P = 0.6901, Lag 1: t(12) = 0.866, P = 0.4035, Lag 2: t(12) = 0), first approach (t(12) = -0.595, P = 0.5632), standard choice tests accompanying the probes (t(12) = 0.24, P = 0.8142), spatial probes (t(12) = 1.139, P = 0.277), and odor probes (t(12) = -0.783, P = 0.4487).
The volume of tissue damage in animals with H lesions was measured at three AP levels: -3.90 mm, -5.25 mm, and -6.06 mm (see examples in Fig. 4). Total volume of the bilateral lesions of the hippocampus proper and dentate gyrus was 35.9%-93.2% (mean ± SE: 71.2% ± 7.8%). The ventral subiculum was partially damaged in all subjects (mean volume damaged ± SE: 26.2% ± 9.9%, range: 3.0%-66.7%). This damage was mostly present at AP -6.06 mm. Minimal damage in the dorsal subiculum was observed in only one subject. Damage to the parahippocampal cortical areas was not observed. In most subjects, unilateral partial damage to the lateral posterior thalamic nucleus and dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus was observed at AP -3.90 mm. In one subject, there was a partial unilateral damage to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus and the optic tract at AP -5.25 mm and medial geniculate nucleus (ventral and medial) at AP -6.06 mm. In another subject, the lateral terminal nucleus of accessory optic tract and cerebral peduncle were unilaterally and partially damaged at AP -5.25 mm. Some damage to the cortex overlying the hippocampus was observed in all H subjects as well as sham-operated subjects.
|
Following surgery, sham-operated control subjects continued to perform well
above chance on standard choice tests (t(6) =
6.443, P = 0.0007; Fig.
5A). In contrast, H rats did not
(t(6) = 0.787, P = 0.4613;
Fig. 5A). The deficit following
hippocampal damage was confirmed by a repeated-measures ANOVA indicating a
significant group difference in performance between pre- and postoperative
testing (group vs. phase interaction: F(1,12) =
8.475, P = 0.0131). Additional repeated-measures ANOVA on
postoperative performance did not reveal a significant group difference across
lags, but showed a significant group effect
(F(1,12) = 24.789, P = 0.0003;
Table 1). The loss of a lag
effect in postsurgical testing was associated with decreased performance of
both groups at Lag 2, and may reflect the effect of increased interference
with extended testing. Further post hoc analyses investigated the main effects
of group at different lags. In these analyses, a pooled error term was
determined depending on the variability of groups across all lags. Because
there were three lags to compare, results were considered at 
' =
/3 = 0.017 (Kirk 1982;
Girden 1992). These tests
indicated that performance between groups differed significantly after surgery
at ' only at Lag 0 (FLag 0 (1,35) =
13.25; P < 0.01). Groups did not differ significantly at Lag 1
(FLag 1 (1,35) = 3.31; P > 0.05) or
Lag 2 (FLag 2 (1,35) = 4.51; P <
0.05) at '. Additionally, separate t-tests showed that
the performance of H rats did not differ from chance at any lag (Lag 0:
t(6) = -1.034, P = 0.3409, Lag 1:
t(6) = 1.109, P = 0.31, Lag 2:
t(6) = 1.987, P = 0.0941). In contrast,
sham control subjects continued to perform well above chance at all lags (Lag
0: t(6) = 5.739, P = 0.0012, Lag 1:
t(6) = 3.545, P = 0.0121, Lag 2:
t(6) = 4.076, P = 0.0065), and
performance did not differ significantly among lags (paired t-tests:
all P-values 0.343). The mixture of these findings suggests that
rats with hippocampal damage were impaired on standard choice tests across all
lags, with a stronger impairment at Lag 0 and a milder impairment at Lag 1 and
2.
|
How Rats With Hippocampal Damage Use the Place and Odor Cues
The above described findings clearly show that rats with hippocampal damage fail on the "what-where-when" task. It is possible that they fail because they cannot perceive or remember the place cues, or the odors cues, or both. To explore whether and how rats with hippocampal damage use the available cues, we explored the initial approach strategies on the "what-where-when" tests after surgery and then re-examined performance on the spatial and odor probe tests.
First Approach on "What-Where-When" Tests
Whereas sham control subjects performed well on the initial approach during
the standard choice tests, performance of the H group was abnormal
(repeated-measures ANOVA: F(1,12) = 11.072,
P = 0.006; Fig. 5A).
Sham controls initially approached the correct stimulus well over chance level
(t(6) = 6.542, P = 0.0006). In contrast,
and surprisingly, H rats approached the correct choice less often
than expected by chance (t(6) = -3.769,
P = 0.0093). This observation indicates some form of intact spatial
perception and memory in H rats. However, contrary to the strategy of normal
rats and to the reinforcement contingency of the standard choice test, H rats
were inclined to visit the more recently presented and rewarded place rather
than the earlier visited locus.
Spatial and Odor Probe Tests
Sham control subjects also performed well above chance on the standard
choice tests that accompanied the spatial and odor probes
(t(6) = 3.268, P = 0.0171), whereas H
rats did not (t(6) = 0;
Fig. 5B). Performance of sham
controls was superior to that of H rats (unpaired t-test:
t(12) = 2.185, P = 0.0494). Neither
group performed better than expected by chance on the spatial probe tests
(sham group: t(6) = 1.866, P = 0.1112; H
group: t(6) = -0.548, P = 0.6037;
Fig. 5B), and performance of
the two groups did not differ significantly on these probes (unpaired
t-test: t(12) = 1.644, P =
0.126). Performance of both groups was greater than chance on odor probes
(sham group: t(6) = 6.975, P = 0.0004; H
group: t(6) = 4.768, P = 0.0031;
Fig. 5B), and the groups did
not differ significantly in performance on these probes (unpaired
t-test: t(12) = -1.06, P =
0.3098).
The findings from the initial approach and probe tests indicate that
different kinds of memory processing are employed by normal rats and rats with
hippocampal damage. As observed prior to surgery, normal rats used the spatial
cues available at the outset of the test, then confirmed or disconfirmed their
memory of the odor at that place to guide the final choice. Such an
interpretation is consistent with a recent observation that rats can
conversely use the flavor of a food to remember the location where it was
found (Day et al. 2003).
Without hippocampal function, other strategies led to misuse of the spatial
memory, leading to the initial below-chance approach to the correct place. In
rats with hippocampal damage, a "habit" representation mediated by
the neostriatum may have guided repetition of the most recently reinforced
approach response (Packard et al.
1989). Alternatively, an "emotional" memory mediated
by the amygdala may have favored attraction to the most recently rewarded
locus (McDonald and White
1993; Eichenbaum and Cohen
2001).
Rats with hippocampal damage succeeded on the odor probes, indicating that
they could perceive the odor cues and use them to solve the odor probe tests.
Yet they could not use the same available odor cues to solve the standard
choice tests. These findings strongly suggest that rats with hippocampal
damage use different strategies on these two types of tests. In the odor
probes, presentation of the odor cues in close proximity with only a brief
memory delay following the initial sampling may have encouraged the comparison
of the relative strengths of the memory traces of the two odors. Thus, rats
may have simply selected the less familiar of two recently experienced scents,
a kind of memory processing that can be accomplished without critical
hippocampal function (Dudchenko et al.
2000). On the standard trials and on the spatial probes,
presentation of the odors in widely separated places may have made the
comparison of relative memory strengths difficult and precluded successful use
of this strategy. The findings on the initial approach and probe tests
indicate that rats with hippocampal damage could perceive and remember the
spatial and odor cues in some way, but could not appropriately apply these
cues to solve the "what-where-when" problem.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTRESULTSDISCUSSIONMATERIALS AND METHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
The Hippocampus and Memory for "What," "Where," and "When"
Previous studies have demonstrated a critical role for medial temporal lobe
structures in memory for "what" object was presented in a single
event. Most prominent of these are studies on delayed matching or nonmatching
to sample for once-presented objects
(Gaffan 1974;
Mishkin and Delacour 1975; for
review, see Murray 1996;
Eichenbaum et al. 2000;
Mumby 2001). Damage to the
entire medial temporal lobe region, or to the parahippocampal cortical areas
surrounding the hippocampus, produces a severe delay-dependent impairment in
memory for objects (Suzuki et al.
1993; Mumby and Pinel
1994; Zola-Morgan et al.
1994) and odors (Otto and
Eichenbaum 1992). However, selective damage to or disconnection of
the hippocampus results in modest or no deficit on delayed performance on
objects (Mumby et al. 1992;
Murray and Mishkin 1998;
Zola et al. 2000;
Clark et al. 2001) and odors
(Otto and Eichenbaum 1992),
even when the memory load is very high (objects:
Murray and Mishkin 1998;
odors: Dudchenko et al. 2000),
suggesting that parahippocampal cortical areas can support the capacity to
remember "what" without critical hippocampal involvement. On the
other hand, different results have emerged from studies on another form of
recognition for novel objects where monkeys or rats are simply exposed to a
novel stimulus and then, following a delay, are tested for time spent
investigating that stimulus versus a novel stimulus. In this test, selective
damage to the hippocampus produces a severe delay-dependent impairment in both
species (Zola et al. 2000;
Clark et al. 2001). The mixture
of findings in these studies has led to the suggestion that multiple
mechanisms can support memory for the prior occurrence of stimuli
(Eichenbaum et al. 1994;
Brown and Aggleton 2001;
Yonelinas et al. 2002).
According to this view, the hippocampus supports the capacity for memory of
the episode on which the object was experienced, whereas the parahippocampal
region supports responses based on stimulus familiarity alone.
Previous studies have also examined the role of the hippocampus in memory
for single events based on combinations of "what-where,"
"what-when," and "where-when" information. Blockade of
NMDA or AMPA receptors in the hippocampus prevents acquisition of unique
flavor-place paired associates, and AMPA receptor blockade also impairs the
recall of these "what-where" associations
(Day et al. 2003). Also,
following fornix transection, monkeys are impaired in rapid acquisition of
scene-specific memory for objects (Gaffan
1994). However, monkeys with hippocampal lesions are not impaired
in one-trial memory for object-place associations
(Malkova and Mishkin 2003),
suggesting that different strategies may be used in memory for
"what-where" events.
Other studies have indicated that the hippocampus is critical in memory for
"where" a recent event occurred. Rats with selective hippocampal
damage are severely impaired in finding a location in the Morris water maze
following a single exposure to a new locus of escape in a familiar environment
(Steele and Morris 1999). In
addition, the hippocampus plays a critical role in performance on the radial
maze test in which rats must remember which of eight or more locations was
visited once in the current testing session
(Olton et al. 1979). Also,
rats with hippocampal lesions are impaired in remembering the order of
once-presented odor sequences (Fortin et
al. 2002; Kesner et al.
2002), disambiguation of overlapping odor sequences
(Agster et al. 2002), and the
order of once-presented place sequences
(Kesner and Novak 1982;
Chiba et al. 1994). These
studies suggest that the hippocampus may be critical in memory for
"when" particular "what" or "where"
experiences occurred. However, in the present study, rats with hippocampal
damage failed on one test of memory for when odors occurred (in the standard
choice tests) but succeeded on another test (the odor probe tests), supporting
the view that multiple mechanisms may underlie memory for "what"
and "when" combinations, just as appears to be the case for
"what" and "where" combinations.
Episodic-Like Memory in Rats
What are the implications of the present findings for animal models of
episodic memory? Clayton and Dickinson's description of
"episodic-like" memory emphasizes the capacity to remember the
integrated what-where-when representations from unique past experiences and
the flexible use of newly acquired information
(Clayton et al. 2003b). Scrub
jays displayed this capacity in their food caching behavior
(Clayton and Dickinson 1998;
Clayton et al. 2003b). In these
studies, jays could use the amount of time passed since caching two foods to
discriminate which to choose, and they could use the relative time of caching
to distinguish between them in a later test (similar to the current protocol).
Clayton and colleagues (2003b)
expressed concern about whether those animals might have used a sense of time
passed (see also Roberts 2002)
or relative familiarity of the items, rather than explicit memory for
"when" events occurred, to solve these problems. The present
findings suggest that under some conditions, such as when two items are
closely juxtaposed, spatial cues are eliminated, and little time has passed,
even rats with hippocampal damage can use relative recency or differences in
familiarity to distinguish the order of two items. However, when spatial cues
are provided in addition and more time has passed, those animals could not
distinguish the order of the same kinds of items, suggesting that a different
strategy is required and used successfully only by normal animals. Fortin et
al. (2002) showed that normal
rats could remember the order of a series of odors presented without
concomitant spatial cues. In that study, both normal rats and rats with
hippocampal damage could use familiarity with initially presented items to
subsequently recognize individual cues, but only normal rats could judge the
order of those items after a substantial delay. These findings suggest that
familiarity and relative recency cannot support memory for a sequence of
odors. In the present study, where only a very brief delay was interposed
between sample presentation and testing, animals with hippocampal damage could
judge the order of odors closely juxtaposed in the odor probe tests. We
suggest that relative recency may have been sufficient to support this
judgment, but memory for the order of events was required when the odors were
separated and combined with spatial cues.
The present findings indicate that, like jays, normal rats use a combination of "where" and "what" cues to remember "when" items were presented in a single experience. When probed with special tests, rats with hippocampal lesions demonstrated perception and some form of memory for the odor and place information in isolation. They could use "what" information to make odor judgments, albeit only in a test that facilitates immediate comparisons between odors without interfering spatial cues. They could also use "where" information, albeit inappropriately to approach the most recently rewarded place. The combination of these observations supports the notion that the hippocampus is critical to the integration of "what-where-when" information, and reveals alternative memory strategies that control behavior in the absence of hippocampal processing.
The present findings also indicate that normal rats are capable of flexible
expression of the acquired information. On each trial of the what-where-when
task, rats acquired the information in a single trial by successively sampling
each of four stimuli in a particular order. Then normal rats could flexibly
express the acquired sequential information to solve a variety of tests that
assessed memory by a choice judgment between any two of the items. Combining
these characteristics of memory performance in normal animals, rats show
robust memory for a combination of "what-where-when" information
and can express these memories flexibly in a variety of tests that are
distinct in format from repetition of the learning event. These
characteristics satisfy the behavioral criteria for episodic-like memory in
animals as defined by Clayton and colleagues
(2003b).
The finding that rats can remember the order of events and places is
consistent with current characterizations of human episodic memory as the
capacity to "replay" memories as a sequence of events and where
they occurred in a previous experience
(Tulving 2002). The present
findings do not inform us about whether rats have a consequent subjective
experience of "mental time travel," characteristic of episodic
memory in humans. However, the present observations do suggest that rats have
the rudimental capacity to remember the flow of events in single experiences,
and that the hippocampus plays a critical role in this form of memory
representation.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTRESULTSDISCUSSIONMATERIALS AND METHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
The odor detection study employed four 2-mo-old male Long-Evans rats weighing 200-250 g prior to training. The subjects for the other studies were 15 male Long-Evans rats of the same age. During training and testing, rats were food-deprived to 80%-90% free-feeding weight and had ad libitum access to water. They were kept on a 12h:12h illumination cycle and tested at the light phase. One rat ceased performing the task after the surgery and was excluded.
Odors
The scents were spices mixed with unscented playground sand up to a final weight of 100 g. Twenty-four different commercially available odorous spices were used: cumin (0.5 g), nutmeg (1 g), orange (1 g), thyme (1 g), lemon (0.7 g), cinnamon (0.3 g), paprika (1 g), anise (1 g), oregano (1 g), garlic (0.75 g), parsley (1 g), white pepper (1 g), marjoram (1 g), ginger (0.5 g), fennel (1 g), garden mint (0.7g), coffee (1 g), dill (1 g), allspice (1 g), sage (1 g), rosemary (1 g), cloves (0.3 g), celery (1 g), cocoa (1 g). Each stimulus was presented in a clear Nalgene cup (7 cm-diameter, 6.3 cm-height) with Velcro strips attached at the bottom. Three duplicate sets of these odors were used.
Locations
Rats were trained and tested on a 0.91-meter-square Plexiglas platform with 2.54-cm-tall borders at the periphery. Twenty-four 3-cm square Velcro strips were attached along the perimeter of the platform to affix the cups and constituted the 24 locations used in the task. There were six strips of Velcro on each side at equal center spacing (7.62 cm), leaving a 15.24-cm Velcro-free space on both ends of each side of the platform.
The platform was located in a dimly illuminated behavioral testing room. One wall of the room contained a rectangular white poster, another wall contained shelving. The third wall had a door and the other wall was blank. The experimenter stood along the wall with the door, and her position was the same throughout training and testing.
Shaping
Initially the rats were handled for 5 min a day for 5 d. Then, they were shaped to dig in cups filled with unscented sand (100 g) to recover buried half Froot Loop rewards (Kellogg's). On day 1, rats were introduced to the reward. Multiple rewards were dropped in the rat's home cage. On day 2, one cup with multiple visible and buried rewards was placed at one end of the cage. The rat was allowed to recover the rewards for 1 h. On day 3, the rat was presented with one cup containing multiple buried rewards for 1 h. On day 4, a cup with a buried reward was placed in the cage until the animal retrieved the reward. This step was repeated three times. On day 5, the rat was placed on the platform and allowed to investigate for 10 min. Multiple rewards were dropped on the platform. On day 6, a cup with a buried reward was placed along a side of the platform, the rat was allowed to recover the reward, and then was returned to its home cage. This procedure was repeated four times with the baited cup presented on different sides of the platform. On day 7, the protocol of day 6 was repeated. Then two cups, only one baited, were presented simultaneously on two different sides. The rat was left on the platform until it retrieved the reward.
The Odor Detection Task
A preliminary experiment was performed to determine the minimum distance away from an odor cup at which rats can detect odors. To facilitate measurement of distances, thin lines were drawn on the platform at 0 cm, 3 cm, and 6 cm from the edge of where the cups would be positioned.
After the rat was shaped as described above, it was presented with two cups placed at different locations on each odor detection trial. One cup contained one of the 24 odors used in the standard task and was rewarded. The other cup contained unscented sand and did not contain a reward. At the beginning of each trial, the rat was placed at the starting point as described below; then it was allowed to choose between the two test stimuli and retrieve the reward. The experimenter noted the cup first approached such that the rat's nose was within 6 cm of the edge of a cup, also noting the minimum distance from the cup during the approach, and scored the first approach as within 6 cm, 3 cm, or 0 cm. In addition, the experimenter scored the choice response as the first cup in which the rat dug. Once the rat ate the reward, it was returned in the home cage. During this time, the cups were removed from the platform and two other cups were placed at different locations for the following trial.
Each rat was tested on 24 trials a day. The stimuli and their locations, and the determination of the starting point, were identical to those employed on the standard trials as described below. The rewarded cup was presented on the right- and left-hand side of the starting point equally often within a day. Testing of each unique odor/place configuration from 28 standard sessions was completed in the first 7 d. Rats were tested for 8 d, such that they received approximately the same number of trials given prior to surgery in the experiment described below.
To confirm that the rat did not smell the reward itself, occasionally no reward was placed in the scented cup until after the rat started digging in. Performance on these trials did not differ from that on other trials.
The What-Where-When Task
Each trial was composed of a sample phase followed by a test phase (see
Fig. 1). At the outset of the
sample presentation, a randomly selected rewarded odor (A+) was placed in a
randomly selected location along one wall of the platform. Then the rat was
placed at the starting point on the platform (see below). The rat was allowed
to walk to the cup, sample the odor, and dig in the sand to retrieve a buried
1/2 Froot Loop reward. After consumption of the reward, the rat was returned
to its home cage for 
7 sec. During this time, the first odor was removed
from the platform, and a second randomly chosen rewarded odor (B+) was placed
in a different randomly selected location on a different side of the platform.
The rat was then re-placed at the starting point and allowed to sample the
second stimulus. After the rat ate the reward, it was again returned to its
cage for 7 sec. This cycle was repeated with four different rewarded
odors placed at four different locations on different sides of the platform
(A+ 
B+ C+ D+). After a final 7-sec delay, two of the
sampled odors were randomly chosen (e.g., B and C) and placed in the locations
where they had initially been presented, and a reward was buried only in the
cup that contained the earlier presented stimulus (B+ vs. C). In the standard
choice test, the rat was placed at the starting point and allowed to choose
between the two stimuli. Two different scores were observed and noted by the
experimenter. The initial visit was scored as the cup initially
approached such that the rat's nose was within 3 cm of the edge of a cup.
The choice response was scored as the first cup in which the rat
began to dig, indicated by touching the sand with its paw.
The Starting Point
The rat began each run towards a cup from the same location on all five
runs (four during the sample phase and once during the test) on each trial
(see Fig. 1). The starting
point was determined as a locus on the periphery at the end of an imaginary
line perpendicular to another imaginary line drawn between the two choice test
locations. The starting point was always equally distant from both test
locations, and was selected to be on the right- and left-hand side of the
correct choice equally often. The rat was placed at the starting point facing
the midpoint of the line between the cups.
Each session was composed of six trials, presented at a rate of 2-3 trials
a day, with an 1 h interval between trials within a day. Each of the 24
odors and 24 locations was used only once per session and was assigned
pseudorandomly to a position in the sequence (A-D). Each odor and location was
associated with a reward in the choice test once over four sequential
sessions. Each unique sample sequence was repeated every 28 sessions.
Odor and Spatial Probe Tests
The presentation of sample odors in all probe tests was identical to that for standard trials (see Fig. 1).
Spatial Probes
Cups filled with unscented sand were presented at two of the sampled
locations at the test phase. The location presented earlier in the sample
series was rewarded. The rewarded location was on the right- and left-hand
side of the starting point in pseudorandom order within a session.
Odor Probes
Two of the sampled odors were presented in adjacent locations in the middle
of the platform on a 20-cm square Plexiglas plate at the test phase. The odor
that was presented earlier in the sample series was rewarded. The rewarded cup
was presented on the right- and left-hand side of the starting point in
pseudorandom order in a session.
Training and Testing
The sample presentation of each trial always consisted of a unique sequence of four odors (A-D) and the six possible types of test pairings (A vs. D, B vs. D, C vs. D, A vs. C, B vs. C, and A vs. B) were phased in over five stages. Stage 1: The test was always composed of A versus D, and training continued until the rat performed at >80% correct for two consecutive sessions. This protocol was repeated with B versus D and C versus D tests. Stage 2: A versus C tests were used in pseudorandom order among A versus D, B versus D, and C versus D pairs. Each session involved four A versus C tests and two of the other three types of tests. The rat was trained until it performed at >75% correct for two consecutive sessions. Stage 3: Trials with all six types of tests were presented in pseudorandom order for four sessions. Stage 4: Tests with A versus B, B versus C, and C versus D pairs were presented in pseudorandom order for 4-5 sessions to improve performance. Stage 5: Trials with all types of tests were presented in pseudorandom order for six sessions. The data from the last four of these sessions plus the six standard tests that accompanied the odor and place probes (as explained below) were combined to determine the level of performance on standard tests prior to surgery.
Subsequent to training on standard trials, the individual contributions of odor and space in guiding performance were examined in a probe test series. Each session involved two of the standard choice tests, two odor probe tests, and two spatial probe tests, presented in pseudorandom order. All six types of pairings were presented for each type of probe and the standard choice tests over three sessions.
Two weeks following recovery from the surgery, rats were food-deprived and re-shaped as required. Then they were trained with the standard choice tests for six sessions. During postsurgical testing, the observer was blind to the group assignment of the rat. Mean performance of groups was analyzed for each session. Performance of both control rats and rats with hippocampal damage was at chance for the first session and therefore not considered for analysis. The data for the other five sessions and the six standard tests that later accompanied the probes constituted the data for standard task performance after surgery. Subsequently, the contributions of odor and space were examined in a probe test series. To confirm that animals did not smell the reward itself, occasionally no reward was placed in the correct cup until after the rat started digging. Performance on these catch trials did not differ from that on standard choice tests.
Hippocampal Lesions
After presurgery testing, rats were separated into two groups each with seven rats matched for presurgery performance in the standard tests. Each rat was anesthetized with halothane (2%) and nitrous oxide/oxygen (7:3) throughout the surgery. After the rat's head was shaved, it was placed in a stereotaxic instrument (Kopf). A 37°C heating pad was placed under the body to maintain the body temperature. Atropine sulfate (0.081 mg) was intraperitoneally injected to prevent respiratory complications. The skin covering the skull was incised along the midline, and then the skull was exposed and leveled. A section of skull overlying the hippocampus was removed bilaterally. In the surgery of the hippocampal lesion (H) group, a 100-µm nichrome-wire electrode (0.7-mm uninsulated tip) was successively lowered at 12 different locations per hemisphere, and radiofrequency lesions were made within the dentate gyrus and the Ammon's horn. Prior to each lesion, the electrode was allowed to settle for 30 sec, then 8-11 mA radiofrequency current (Radionics RFG-4A) was applied to each location for 1 min. The following coordinates and current levels were used on each side: anteroposterior (AP) -2.2 (from bregma), mediolateral (ML) ±1.0, dorsoventral (DV) -3.5 (from dura measured at AP -4.8, ML ±4.1 ipsilaterally) (8 mA)/ AP -3.2, ML ±1.4, DV -3.3 (8 mA)/ AP -3.2, ML ±3.0, DV -3.3 (8 mA)/ AP -4.0, ML ±2.5, DV -3.3 (8 mA)/ AP -4.0, ML ±3.7, DV -3.3 (8 mA)/ AP -4.8, ML ±4.9, (DV -6.6 (9 mA)/ -5.4 (8 mA))/ AP -4.8, ML ±4.3, (DV -6.9 (9 mA)/ -3.5 (9 mA))/ AP -5.4, ML ±4.2, DV -3.6 (9 mA)/ AP -5.4, ML ±5.0, (DV -6.6 (9 mA)/ -5.5 (11 mA)). Subsequently, the electrode was raised from each spot after a waiting period of 1 min. In the surgery of sham-operated controls, the electrode was lowered to DV -1.6 mm for all nine AP and ML coordinates in each hemisphere, which was above the hippocampal structure. The electrode was left in each location for 2.5 min without passing any radiofrequency current. Then, the wound was sutured and covered with topical antiseptic (Betadine solution, Purdue Frederick) followed by a topical antibiotic (Panolog Cream). The animals then received a subcutaneous injection of 5 mL of saline/dextrose solution to prevent dehydration. Animals were given acetaminophen (suspension liquid, CVS) mixed with drinking water for 5 d to reduce the postsurgery pain and had ad libitum access to food and water for 2 wks after surgery. Rats also received antibiotic (40 mg/kg per day; Cephalexin for oral suspension, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals) absorbed in food for 10 d to prevent postsurgery complications.
Histology
After postsurgery testing, animals were injected with an overdose of sodium pentobarbital and perfused with saline, followed by 10% formalin solution. Brains were removed and saturated with 20% sucrose solution overnight. Fifty-µm coronal sections were taken with a microtome. The sections were stained with cresyl violet.
Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed with statistical software (StatView, SAS Institute). Comparisons of group performance were initially performed using a repeated-measures ANOVA. Additional comparisons were done as follows: Paired t-tests were used to compare group performance at different phases of training. Group performance versus chance level was shown with one-sample t-tests (hypothesized mean: 50). Performance between groups for particular tests and probes was compared with unpaired t-tests.
Lesions of the H and subiculum were determined at AP -3.90 mm, -5.25 mm, and -6.06 mm and reconstructed with the software Canvas 7.0 (Deneba Systems) for each animal. The extent of damage measured as the numerical value of the lesioned area at each of the three AP coordinates was compared with the numerical value of the area of the intact counterpart. The estimated total lesion size was calculated as the sum of the bilateral damage at the three AP coordinates divided by the sum for the bilateral intact structure x 100%.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 USC section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 E-MAIL hbe{at}bu.edu; FAX (617) 353-1414.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTRESULTSDISCUSSIONMATERIALS AND METHODSREFERENCES |
|---|
Brown, M.W. and Aggleton, J.P. 2001. Recognition memory: What are the roles of the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2:51 -61.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chiba, A.A., Kesner, R.P., and Reynolds, A.M. 1994. Memory for spatial location as a function of temporal lag in rats: Role of hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex. Behav. Neural Biol. 61:123 -131.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clark, R.E., Zola, S.M., and Squire, L.R. 2001. Impaired recognition memory in rats after damage to the hippocampus. J. Neurosci. 20:8853 -8860.
Clayton, N.S. and Dickinson, A. 1998. Episodic memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature 395:272 -274.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clayton, N.S., Griffiths, D.P., Emery, N.J., and Dickinson, A.2001 . Elements of episodic-like memory in animals. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 356:1483 -1491.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clayton, N.S., Bussey, T.J., Emery, N.J., and Dickinson, A.2003a . Prometheus to Proust: The case for behavioural criteria for "mental time travel". Trends Cog. Sci. 7: 436-437.[CrossRef][Medline]
Clayton, N.S., Bussey, T.J., and Dickinson, A. 2003b. Can animals recall the past and plan for the future? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4:685 -691.[CrossRef][Medline]
Day, M., Langston, R., and Morris, R.G.M. 2003. Glutamate-receptor-mediated encoding and retrieval of paired-associate learning. Nature 424:205 -209.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dudchenko, P.A., Wood, E.R., and Eichenbaum, H. 2000.
Neurotoxic hippocampal lesions have no effect on odor span and little effect
on odor recognition memory, but produce significant impairments on spatial
span, recognition and alternation. J. Neurosci.
20:2964
-2977.
Eichenbaum, H. and Cohen, N.J. 2001. In From conditioning to conscious recollection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Eichenbaum, H., Otto, T., and Cohen, N.J. 1994. Two functional components of the hippocampal memory system. Behav. Brain Sci. 17:449 -518.
Eichenbaum, H., Alvarez, P., and Ramus, S. 2000. Animal models of amnesia. In Handbook of neuropsychology, 2nd ed. (ed. L. Cermak), Vol.4 ., pp. 1-24. Elsevier Sciences, New York.
Fortin, N.J., Agster, K.L., and Eichenbaum, H.B. 2002. Critical role of the hippocampus in memory for sequences of events. Nat. Neurosci. 5:458 -462.[Medline]
Gaffan, D. 1974. Recognition impaired and association intact in the memory of monkeys after transection of the fornix. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 86:1100 -1109.[CrossRef][Medline]
____. 1994. Scene-specific memory for objects: A model of episodic memory impairment in monkeys with fornix transection. J. Cog. Neurosci. 6:305 -320.
Girden, E.R. 1992. ANOVA: Repeated measures. In Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07-084. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Kesner, R.P. and Novak, J.M. 1982. Serial position
curve in rats: Role of the dorsal hippocampus. Science
218:173
-175.
Kesner, R.P., Gilbert, P.E., and Barua, L.A. 2002. The role of the hippocampus in memory for the temporal order of a sequence of odors. Behav. Neurosci. 116:286 -290.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kirk, R.E. 1982. Multiple comparison tests. In Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed., pp. 90-133. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
Madsen, J. and Kesner, R.P. 1995. The temporal-distance effect in subjects with dementia of the Alzheimer type. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 9: 94-100.[Medline]
Malkova, L. and Mishkin, M. 2003. One-trial memory for
object-place associations after separate lesions of hippocampus and posterior
parahippocampal region in the monkey. J. Neurosci.
23:1956
-1965.
McDonald, R.J. and White, N.M. 1993. A triple dissociation of memory systems: Hippocampus, amygdala and dorsal striatum. Behav. Neurosci. 107:3 -22.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mishkin, M. and Delacour, J. 1975. An analysis of short-term visual memory in the monkey. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Proces. 1:326 -334.[CrossRef]
Mumby, D.G. 2001. Perspectives on object-recognition memory following hippocampal damage: Lessons from studies in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 127:159 -181.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mumby, D.G. and Pinel, J.P.J. 1994. Rhinal cortex lesions and object recognition in rats. Behav. Neurosci. 108:1 -8.
Mumby, D.G., Wood, E.R., and Pinel, J.P. 1992. Object recognition memory is only mildly impaired in rats with lesions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Psychobiol. 20: 18-27.
Murray, E.A. 1996. What have ablation studies told us about the neural substrates of stimulus memory? Semin. Neurosci. 8:13 -22.
Murray, E.A. and Mishkin, M. 1998. Object recognition
and location memory in monkeys with excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala and
hippocampus. J. Neurosci.
18:6568
-6582.
Olton, D.S., Becker, J.T., and Handelmann, G.E. 1979. Hippocampus, space and memory. Brain Behav. Sci. 2: 313-365.
Otto, T. and Eichenbaum, H. 1992. Complementary roles of the orbital prefrontal cortex and the perirhinal-entorhinal cortices in an odor-guided delayed-nonmatching-to-sample task. Behav. Neurosci. 106:762 -775.[CrossRef][Medline]
Packard, M.G., Hirsh, R., and White, N.M. 1989. Differential effects of fornix and caudate nucleus lesions on two radial maze tasks: Evidence for multiple memory systems. J. Neurosci. 9:1465 -1472.[Abstract]
Roberts, W.A. 2002. Are animals stuck in time? Psychol. Bull. 128:473 -489.[CrossRef][Medline]
Steele, R.J. and Morris, R.G.M. 1999. Delay-dependent impairment of a matching-to-place task with chronic intrahippocampal infusion of the NMDA-antagonist D-AP5. Hippocampus 9: 118-136.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suddendorf, T. and Busby, J. 2003a. Mental time travel in animals? Trends Cog. Sci. 7: 391-396.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suddendorf, T. and Busby, J. 2003b. Like it or not? The mental time travel debate: Reply to Clayton et al. Trends Cog. Sci. 7:437 -438.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suzuki, W.A., Zola-Morgan, S., Squire, L.R., and Amaral, D.G.1993 . Lesions of the perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices in the monkey produce long lasting memory impairment in the visual and tactile modalities. J. Neurosci. 13:2430 -2451.[Abstract]
Swanson, L.W. 1992. Brain maps: Structure of the rat brain. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Tulving, E. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. In Organization of memory (eds. E. Tulving and W. Donaldson), pp. 381-403. Academic Press, New York.
____. 2002. Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:1 -25.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tulving, E. and Markowitsch, H.J. 1998. Episodic and declarative memory: Role of the hippocampus. Hippocampus 8:198 -204.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yonelinas, A.P., Kroll, N.E., Quamme, J.R., Lazzara, M.M., Sauve, M.J., Widaman, K.F., and Knight, R.T. 2002. Effects of extensive temporal lobe damage or mild hypoxia on recollection and familiarity. Nat. Neurosci. 5:1236 -1241.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zola, S.M., Squire, L.R., Teng, E., Stefanacci, L., Buffalo, E.A.,
and Clark, R.E. 2000. Impaired recognition memory in monkeys
after damage limited to the hippocampal region. J.
Neurosci. 20:451
-463.
Zola-Morgan, S., Squire, L.R., and Ramus, S.J. 1994. Severity of memory impairment in monkeys as a function of locus and extent of damage within the medial temporal lobe memory system. Hippocampus 4:483 -495.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Ergorul and H. Eichenbaum Essential Role of the Hippocampal Formation in Rapid Learning of Higher-Order Sequential Associations J. Neurosci., April 12, 2006; 26(15): 4111 - 4117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Brandt, F. Schautzer, D. A. Hamilton, R. Bruning, H. J. Markowitsch, R. Kalla, C. Darlington, P. Smith, and M. Strupp Vestibular loss causes hippocampal atrophy and impaired spatial memory in humans Brain, November 1, 2005; 128(11): 2732 - 2741. |
) and choice (
) responses (mean ± SE). Dashed
line: chance. (B) Proximity to cups in the first approach (mean
± SE). 0 cm, rat's nose is over the cup; 3 cm, rat's nose is within 3
cm; 6 cm, rat's nose is within 6 cm.
