Source Paper
Hippocampal representation in place learning
H Eichenbaum, C Stewart, RG Morris
Journal of Neuroscience • 1990
Morris Water Maze
Objective: To test hippocampal representation in place learning by examining whether subjects can form associations between escape locations and navigational routes using distal cues in an open-field water maze, and to assess the flexibility of learned spatial representations
This is a Morris Water Maze protocol using rat as the model organism. The procedure involves 3 procedural steps, 1 equipment items. Extracted from a 1990 paper published in Journal of Neuroscience.
Model and subjects
rat • Not specified • unknown • Not specified • Not specified
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Task acquisition training • Post-criterion testing • Probe tests with cue alterations
Primary readouts
- Escape latency (time to reach escape location)
- Escape performance consistency
- Presence of near misses during post-criterion testing
- Flexibility of spatial representation when cues are altered
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
- Verify the animal model, intervention setup, and collection timepoints against the source paper.
- Check that every direct vendor link matches the exact specification your lab plans to run.
Use the page like this
- Work through the protocol steps in order and use the inline vendor chips only when you need to source or verify an item.
- Jump to Experimental Context for readouts, data shape, and analysis flow before planning downstream analysis.
Protocol Steps
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Task acquisition training
Subjects trained to rapidly acquire the task of associating a place of escape with a particular navigational route using distal cues
Note: Both normal rats and FX rats acquired this task rapidly, although FX rats were slightly slower in achieving minimum escape latencies
View evidence from paper
“Both normal rats and rats with fornix lesions (FX rats) acquired this task rapidly, although FX rats were slightly slower in achieving minimum escape latencies”
Post-criterion testing
Testing conducted after subjects reached criterion performance to assess escape performance consistency
Note: FX rats occasionally made near misses but more often their escape performance was indistinguishable from normal rats
View evidence from paper
“In postcriterion testing, FX rats occasionally made near misses but, more often, their escape performance was indistinguishable from that of intact rats”
Probe tests with cue alterations
Variety of probe tests conducted to assess whether performance was based on representation of multiple distal cues and whether this representation was flexible when cues or starting position were altered
Note: FX rats based performance on multiple distal cues but representation was inflexible and could not guide performance when cues or starting position were altered, unlike normal rats
View evidence from paper
“Results from a variety of probe tests indicated that FX rats, like normal rats, had based their performance on a representation of multiple distal cues but their representation, unlike that of normal rats, was inflexible in that it could not be used to guide performance when the cues or starting position were altered”