Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The relative influence of place and direction in the Morris water task

By D.A. Hamilton, G.K. Akers, T.E. Johnson, J.P. Rice, F.T. Candelaria, R.J. Sutherland, M.P. Weisend and E.S. Redhead


The present study evaluated the generality of directional responding (Hamilton, Akers, Weisend, & Sutherland, 2007) in the Morris water task and attempted to identify methods that would yield a preference for navigation to the precise spatial location of an escape platform in the room. Four experiments evaluated the effects of training with the pool in a fixed location by repositioning the pool for a no-platform probe trial such that the absolute spatial location of the platform and the relative location of the platform within the pool (to which a directional response would occur) were in opposite quadrants. Two experiments attempted to explicitly train navigation to an absolute location in the room by repositioning the pool during training while keeping the platform at the same location in the room. A preference for directional responding over navigation to the precise location of the platform was observed across a wide range of conditions including when rats were given extensive training (240 trials; Experiment 1), only given platform placement experience in the absence of active swim training (Experiment 2), trained to navigate to multiple platform locations in a moving platform variant of the task (Experiment 3), and when animals were trained to navigate to a particular location regardless of the position of the apparatus in the room (Experiments 4 - 5). A preference for navigation to the absolute spatial location of the platform was observed only when the salience of the pool was reduced by filling it to the top with water (Experiment 6)

Topics: BF
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles


  1. (1987). A computer simulation model of rats’ place navigation in the Morris water maze. doi
  2. (1986). A purely geometric module in the rat’s spatial representation. doi
  3. (2002). A room with a view and a polarizing cue: Individual differences in the stimulus control of place navigation and passive latent learning in the water maze. doi
  4. (2003). An analysis of response, direction, and place learning in an open field and T maze. doi
  5. (1982). Being there: A novel demonstration of latent spatial-learning in the rat. doi
  6. (1997). Blocking in the spatial domain. doi
  7. (1998). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. doi
  8. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. doi
  9. (2001). Cognitive maps not used by humans (homo sapiens) 52 HAMILTON ET AL.during a dynamic navigational task. doi
  10. (1999). Delay-dependent impairment of a matching-to-place task with chronic and intrahippocampal infusion of the NMDA-antagonist D-AP5. doi
  11. (1984). Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial-learning in the rat. doi
  12. (1957). Discrimination of cues in mazes: A resolution of the ‘place-vs.-response’ question. doi
  13. (2002). Do not ask whether they have a cognitive map, but how they find their way about.
  14. (1985). Formation of a place learning-set by the rat: A new paradigm for neurobehavioral studies. doi
  15. (1998). Hippocampal lesions disrupt navigation based on cognitive maps but not heading vectors.
  16. (1979). Hippocampus, space, and memory. doi
  17. (2007). How do room and apparatus cues control navigation in the Morris water task? Evidence for distinct contributions to a movement vector. doi
  18. (1996). Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning. doi
  19. (2003). Intra-hippocampal lidocaine injections impair acquisition of a place task and facilitate acquisition of a response task in rats. doi
  20. (1989). Latent learning does not produce instantaneous transfer of place navigation: A rejoinder to Keith and McVety.
  21. (1988). Latent place learning in a novel environment and the influences of prior training in rats.
  22. (1998). Locating an invisible goal in a water maze requires at least two landmarks.
  23. (1995). Morris water task: Which cues define locations? Society for Neuroscience Abstracts,
  24. (1984). Place navigation by rats in a swimming pool. doi
  25. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. doi
  26. (2007). Revision received September 11,
  27. (2004). Rodent spatial navigation: At the crossroads of cognition and movement. doi
  28. (1993). Severity of spatiallearning impairment in aging-development of a learning index for performance in the Morris water maze. doi
  29. (1987). Some limitations on the use of distal cues in place navigation by rats.
  30. (1949). Spatial learning in the T-maze: The influence of direction, turn, and food location. doi
  31. (1981). Spatial localisation does not require the presence of local cues. doi
  32. (1946). Studies in spatial learning. II. Place learning versus response learning. doi
  33. (1934). The concept of the habit-family hierarchy and maze learning: Part I. doi
  34. (1934). The concept of the habit-family hierarchy and maze learning: Part II. doi
  35. (2005). The effects of hippocampal lesions on response, direction, and place learning in rats. doi
  36. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. doi
  37. (2000). The influence of passive preexposure on escape from a Morris pool. doi
  38. (1990). The organization of learning. doi
  39. (2004). The spatial brain. doi
  40. (1960). The structural basis of behavior. Chicago:
  41. (2007). Where am I? Distal cue use requires sensitivity to start location change in the rat. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.