Malleability in the development of spatial reorientation.

After becoming disoriented, organisms must re-establish their position in space. The core knowledge position argues that reorientation relies only on extended 3D surfaces, and that this sensitivity operates automatically and is innately present. In contrast, the adaptive combination perspective argues that reorientation is experience-expectant and malleable, and depends on both extended 3D surfaces and 2D feature cues. We test these divergent views by comparing young (Experiment 1) and mature (Experiment 2) C57BL/6 mice (Mus musculus) that have been housed in circular or rectangular environments. Malleability of feature cues was found for young mice. Malleability of incidental geometry coding was found for both age groups. The relative dependence on geometric and feature cues changed with age. Young mice weighted the feature cue more heavily than adult mice. In summary, as predicted by the adaptive combination approach, rearing environments influenced the relative use of feature and geometric cues in a reorientation task.

[1]  Daniel C. Hyde,et al.  Spatial and numerical abilities without a complete natural language , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Alexandra D. Twyman,et al.  Of mice (Mus musculus) and toddlers (Homo sapiens): evidence for species-general spatial reorientation. , 2009, Journal of comparative psychology.

[3]  Michela Ponticorvo,et al.  Encoding geometric and non-geometric information: a study with evolved agents , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[4]  Marcia L. Spetch,et al.  Comparing black-capped (Poecile atricapillus) and mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli): use of geometric and featural information in a spatial orientation task , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[5]  Marcia L Spetch,et al.  Reorientation in a two-dimensional environment: II. Do pigeons (Columba livia) encode the featural and geometric properties of a two-dimensional schematic of a room? , 2004, Journal of comparative psychology.

[6]  Peter L. Hurd,et al.  Growing in Circles , 2007 .

[7]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Doing Socrates experiment right: controlled rearing studies of geometrical knowledge in animals , 2009, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[8]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Young Children Reorient by Computing Layout Geometry, Not by Matching Images of the Environment , 2010 .

[9]  Sara J Shettleworth,et al.  The geometric module in the rat: independence of shape and feature learning in a food finding task , 2004, Learning & behavior.

[10]  Alinda Friedman,et al.  Penetrating the geometric module: catalyzing children's use of landmarks. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[11]  Giorgio Vallortigara,et al.  Origins of spatial, temporal and numerical cognition: Insights from comparative psychology , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[13]  E. Spelke,et al.  Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation , 1996, Cognition.

[14]  M. Schachner,et al.  Adult but not aged C57BL/6 male mice are capable of using geometry for orientation. , 2006, Learning & memory.

[15]  Zachariah Jonasson,et al.  Meta-analysis of sex differences in rodent models of learning and memory: a review of behavioral and biological data , 2005, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[16]  Jennifer E Sutton,et al.  Spinning in the scanner: neural correlates of virtual reorientation. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Giorgio Vallortigara,et al.  Is there an innate geometric module? Effects of experience with angular geometric cues on spatial re-orientation based on the shape of the environment , 2007, Animal Cognition.

[18]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Two systems of spatial representation underlying navigation , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Giorgio Vallortigara,et al.  Experience and geometry: controlled-rearing studies with chicks , 2010, Animal Cognition.

[20]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Five Reasons to Doubt the Existence of a Geometric Module , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Laurie L Bloomfield,et al.  Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees: features overshadow geometry , 2005, Biology Letters.

[22]  Stella F. Lourenco,et al.  Early sex differences in weighting geometric cues. , 2011, Developmental science.

[23]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Use of local and global geometry from object arrays by adult humans , 2011, Behavioural Processes.

[24]  D. Nardi,et al.  The world is not flat: can people reorient using slope? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? squaring theory and evidence , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  L. Hermer-Vazquez,et al.  Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: the case of two spatial memory tasks , 2001, Cognition.

[27]  K. Cheng A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation , 1986, Cognition.

[28]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children , 1994, Nature.

[29]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Modularity as a fish (Xenotoca eiseni) views it: conjoining geometric and nongeometric information for spatial reorientation. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[30]  Nora S Newcombe,et al.  Reorienting When Cues Conflict , 2008, Psychological science.

[31]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Explaining the Development of Spatial Reorientation , 2007 .