Blocking and overshadowing between intra-maze and extra-maze cues: A test of the independence of locale and guidance learning

Rats were trained on an elevated maze where the rewarded alternative was defined either in terms of intra-maze cues (rubber or sandpaper flooring on rewarded and unrewarded arms, regardless of their position) or in terms of extra-maze cues (the correct arm always pointed toward a particular corner of the room, and was sometimes covered with rubber and sometimes with sandpaper), or where both sets of cues were simultaneously relevant. In Experiment 1 rats pretrained with either intra-maze or extra-maze cues alone relevant learned less about the other set of cues than non-pretrained control groups, when, in a second phase of the experiment, both sets of cues were simultaneously relevant. Experiment 2 confirmed that intra-maze cues could block extra-maze cues, and ruled out one alternative explanation of the results of Experiment 1. Experiment 3 showed that extra-maze cues overshadowed intra-maze cues, but that there was no reciprocal overshadowing of extra-maze by intra-maze cues. This was despite the fact that animals learned the intra-maze discrimination significantly faster than the extra-maze discrimination. Experiment 3 also suggested that rats did not solve the extra-maze discrimination by learning to approach or avoid specific extra-maze cues, but rather by locating the correct arm by reference to the entire set of extra-maze cues. The results suggest that locale or place learning and cue or guidance learning, in O'Keefe and Nadel's (1978) terminology, interact with one another in much the same way as does learning about any pair of stimuli in a Pavlovian conditioning experiment.