RESPONSE LEARNING VERSUS PLACE LEARNING

1956 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 401
Author(s):  
ANTHONY DAVIDS
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarid Goodman

The present article provides a historical review of the place and response learning plus-maze tasks with a focus on the behavioral and neurobiological findings. The article begins by reviewing the conflict between Edward C. Tolman’s cognitive view and Clark L. Hull’s stimulus-response (S-R) view of learning and how the place and response learning plus-maze tasks were designed to resolve this debate. Cognitive learning theorists predicted that place learning would be acquired faster than response learning, indicating the dominance of cognitive learning, whereas S-R learning theorists predicted that response learning would be acquired faster, indicating the dominance of S-R learning. Here, the evidence is reviewed demonstrating that either place or response learning may be dominant in a given learning situation and that the relative dominance of place and response learning depends on various parametric factors (i.e., amount of training, visual aspects of the learning environment, emotional arousal, et cetera). Next, the neurobiology underlying place and response learning is reviewed, providing strong evidence for the existence of multiple memory systems in the mammalian brain. Research has indicated that place learning is principally mediated by the hippocampus, whereas response learning is mediated by the dorsolateral striatum. Other brain regions implicated in place and response learning are also discussed in this section, including the dorsomedial striatum, amygdala, and medial prefrontal cortex. An exhaustive review of the neurotransmitter systems underlying place and response learning is subsequently provided, indicating important roles for glutamate, dopamine, acetylcholine, cannabinoids, and estrogen. Closing remarks are made emphasizing the historical importance of the place and response learning tasks in resolving problems in learning theory, as well as for examining the behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms of multiple memory systems. How the place and response learning tasks may be employed in the future for examining extinction, neural circuits of memory, and human psychopathology is also briefly considered.


2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (49) ◽  
pp. 31427-31437
Author(s):  
Jesse P. Geerts ◽  
Fabian Chersi ◽  
Kimberly L. Stachenfeld ◽  
Neil Burgess

Humans and other animals use multiple strategies for making decisions. Reinforcement-learning theory distinguishes between stimulus–response (model-free; MF) learning and deliberative (model-based; MB) planning. The spatial-navigation literature presents a parallel dichotomy between navigation strategies. In “response learning,” associated with the dorsolateral striatum (DLS), decisions are anchored to an egocentric reference frame. In “place learning,” associated with the hippocampus, decisions are anchored to an allocentric reference frame. Emerging evidence suggests that the contribution of hippocampus to place learning may also underlie its contribution to MB learning by representing relational structure in a cognitive map. Here, we introduce a computational model in which hippocampus subserves place and MB learning by learning a “successor representation” of relational structure between states; DLS implements model-free response learning by learning associations between actions and egocentric representations of landmarks; and action values from either system are weighted by the reliability of its predictions. We show that this model reproduces a range of seemingly disparate behavioral findings in spatial and nonspatial decision tasks and explains the effects of lesions to DLS and hippocampus on these tasks. Furthermore, modeling place cells as driven by boundaries explains the observation that, unlike navigation guided by landmarks, navigation guided by boundaries is robust to “blocking” by prior state–reward associations due to learned associations between place cells. Our model, originally shaped by detailed constraints in the spatial literature, successfully characterizes the hippocampal–striatal system as a general system for decision making via adaptive combination of stimulus–response learning and the use of a cognitive map.


2012 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha L. Pisani ◽  
Steven L. Neese ◽  
Daniel R. Doerge ◽  
William G. Helferich ◽  
Susan L. Schantz ◽  
...  

1946 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. C. Tolman ◽  
B. F. Ritchie ◽  
D. Kalish

2001 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-36
Author(s):  
Melissa Burns ◽  
Michael Domjan

In the dynamic field model, parametric variations of the same general processes predict how infants reach for a goal. Animal learning investigators argue that locating a goal is the product of qualitatively different mechanisms (response learning and place learning) Response versus place learning experiments suggest limitations to the dynamic field model hut where those limitations begin or end is unclear.


1956 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Davids

The purpose of this study, modified from an earlier experiment by Tolman, Ritchie, and Kalish, was to test Hull's theory of response learning and Tolman's theory of place learning. 10 female albino rats were trained to run an elevated T-maze. Preliminary training consisted of 6 trials per day for 4 days, emphasizing the alternation of left and right turns on successive trials. The experiment proper commenced on the fifth day and continued until each rat had reached the criterion of 11 out of 12 successive errorless trials of turning to the right, with food serving as the reinforcement. After reaching the criterion, each rat was given a test trial which consisted of a run from a new starting point, located exactly 180° from the original starting point, to either the previously rewarded goal box now located to the animal's left or to the previously unrewarded goal box now located to the animal's right. It was found that on the test trials 8 of the rats ran to the previously rewarded place and only 2 made the previously rewarded response of turning to the right. This proportion is different from chance at the .055 level. It was concluded that in situations in which there are marked intra-maze cues and marked extra-maze cues there is some evidence that place learning is probably simpler than response learning. The evidence points consistently, however, to the interpretation that the animals learned something more than merely the place where the food was to be found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document