The goal of this optimized ‘everyday memory’ protocol in an event arena was to employ a stable home-base that encourages the use of allocentric spatial representations. This animal model provides an effective test-bed for future research into the formation and retention of event memories using behavioral and physiological techniques.
The event arena provides an optimal platform to investigate learning and memory. The appetitive everyday memory task described in this paper provides a robust protocol for the investigation of episodic and spatial memory in rodents, which specifically fosters allocentric memory representation. Rats are trained to find and dig for food during the encoding phase and, after a time delay, rats are given a choice to find the reward food pellet in the correct location. There are two key elements that promote the use of an allocentric strategy in this protocol: 1) rats start from different start locations within and between sessions, 2) a stable home-base is deployed where rats have to carry their food to eat. By means of these modifications, we effectively encourage the rodents to use allocentric spatial representations to perform the task. In addition, the task provides a good paradigm for within-subject experimental design and allows experimenters to manipulate different conditions to reduce variability. Used in conjunction with behavioral and physiological techniques, the resulting rodent model provides an effective test-bed for future research into memory formation and retention.
To investigate the neurobiology of learning and memory, invasive techniques are required, which are not generally feasible in humans. Thus, for over a century, behavioural protocols have been designed for laboratory animals to model various forms of human memory. The design and choice of both task and apparatus are central to the success of effective models of human memory. Numerous paradigms have been developed with diverse complexity, ranging from simple classical and instrumental conditioning protocols1,2,3 to mazes such as the T-maze4, radial arm maze5, Barnes maze6, watermaze7, and the cheese-board maze8. Yet, while these tasks capture facets of associative learning and spatial navigation, they cannot be used unambiguously to study the memory representation of momentary events (i.e., episodic-like memory). And, although novel object recognition9 and permutations of this spontaneous memory task, such as object-place memory10, have provided valuable insights into recognition memory, they do not test explicit recall of events. To address this demand, the event arena was specifically developed, and its use has enabled research into long-term, paired-associate memory encoding and recall11,12,13 as well as the encoding and recall of discrete events happening in a familiar space14,15,16,17,18. The latter theme is the focus of this manuscript.
The event arena is a large, square, open-field area where events occur for rodents. The size of the arena can be scaled to accommodate either rats or mice, and rodents are encouraged to enter and explore. A typical example of an event that takes place within the arena is the finding and retrieval of food from a sandwell at a specific location. The event arena is designed for such appetitive tasks, in which rats or mice are trained to search for, find, and dig up food. It capitalizes on their natural tendency to carry food back to a dark environment, which in this case is located adjacent to the arena, where they then eat it. After minimal training to dig for food, rodents take to this task naturally and perform well in the encoding trial, and in the recall choice trial, which follows the encoding trials after a short, 30-min delay. In a choice trial, several sandwells (i.e., locations for digging) are available, but only one is rewarded.
Different tasks can be performed within the event arena (e.g., spatial memory, episodic-like memory, and paired-associate learning). Given the interest in developing effective models of episodic-like memory, the following protocol was developed, in which the location where food can be found is altered daily. In this task, rodents are required to remember where the event of digging for, and successfully retrieving, a food reward happened most recently within the event arena. The protocol outlined below entails an encoding trial in which rats search for a sandwell in a new place each day followed, after a delay, by a recall choice trial, where the recently encoded sandwell location is rewarded, while the other, alternative sandwells in different locations do not contain accessible food. Remembering where the food was on a previous day is not helpful: the correct location has to be encoded and remembered, at least for a while, each day. Accordingly, we have introduced the term 'everyday memory' to capture the form of memory modeled in this task, which we, as humans, use on a daily basis. A human example of everyday memory is remembering where one has parked one's car at the shopping mall (Figure 1A) or has put one's glasses down around the house. In this protocol, all intra- and extra-arena cues are all stable, just as they are in the settings of our everyday lives (i.e., homes, offices, car parks, etc.). Thus, rodents must remember where something happened most recently within a familiar environment (Figure 1B). The task is analogous to, but an improvement on, the delayed-matching-to-place (DMP) task in the watermaze19. Being an appetitive task, it exploits rodents' natural behavior to forage for food20, instead of their desire to escape from the water. However, as in the watermaze7, there are no local cues differentiating correct from incorrect locations; animals must use recall rather than recognition to locate the correct sandwell location after varying memory delay durations.
Figure 1: Everyday memory. (A) Human everyday memory. Schematic showing a green car parked in a car park. After a delay, the driver attempts to remember exactly where she parked her car. (B) Animal everyday memory. Schematic showing a rat digging and retrieving a pellet from a sandwell at a location within the event arena. After a delay, the rat is given a choice trial with multiple incorrect sandwells (gray) and one correct sandwell (green). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
The event arena has already been successfully utilized in investigations of 'everyday memory'. These are memories that are automatically encoded each day, retained in long-term memory, but often forgotten after relatively short time periods. Bast et al.14 showed monotonic delay-dependent event memory, which varies from excellent memory after short intervals to chance level after 24 h. The retention of memory can, however, be successfully enhanced by post-encoding novelty or, with multiple encoding trials, with extended trial spacing15,17.
The event arena is versatile and relatively non-stressful; no aversive stimuli are used. The size of the arena, and the tasks it accommodates, can be adapted for both rats14,15 and mice16. Also, as a land-based task, it is amenable to physiological recording and calcium imaging studies, unlike the watermaze21. Moreover, in accordance with the principles of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement), studies employing the event arena require fewer animals to obtain statistical power, as within-subject experimental designs are feasible (in which each animal serves as its own control for pharmacological interventions, optogenetic stimulations, etc.) and no aversive stimulation is required for motivation. Although initial training demands more time and occurs over more sessions than in, for example, novelty recognition tasks, once animals achieve a stable, asymptotic level of task performance, manipulations such as drug, vehicle-control, or optogenetic stimulation may be interspersed with a relatively small number of additional training sessions17. In addition, distinct facets of representation come under direct experimental control in the event arena, such as the nature of the spatial representation employed when solving the task.
The issue of representation concerns the mental framework employed by rats when remembering where recent events happen18. Do they remember where the food is located, or do they only remember how to get to the food? Rats can use allocentric (map-like) or egocentric (body-centered) spatial representations to solve an appetitive task within the arena18. However, to control and identify the spatial strategy employed by each experimental subject when performing the task, there are distinct training protocols that are able to selectively promote the use of only one spatial representation. Usually, an egocentric-based representation is employed when rats take their food reward back to the same location from which they started the day's trial, which allows several opportunities to remember the reward location during runs back and forth. This spatial strategy can be employed regardless of whether the start location is changed from day to day or kept constant. In contrast, an allocentric representation is favored when rats are required to carry food reward to a fixed home-base location at the side of the arena, which is different from the changing starting locations. There are numerous advantages of allocentric representations with respect to the brain's storage capacity.
In this paper, we have outlined the home-base protocol, which encourages the employment of only an allocentric representation. We have provided representative results for this task, which clearly illustrate the advantages of using this rodent model of 'everyday memory' in the investigation of learning and memory and highlights how allocentric representations of episodic-like spatial memory can be promoted.
The methods described in this paper have been approved by the University of Edinburgh Ethical Review Committee; they are compliant with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the European Communities Council Directive of 24 November 1986 (86/609/EEC) legislation governing the maintenance of laboratory animals and their use in scientific experiments.
NOTE: The experimental subject of the protocol outlined below is Lister-hooded rats, but it can be adapted for other rodent strains.
1. Animal handling, housing, and food control
2. Setting up the apparatus
Figure 2: The event arena and cues. (A) Schematic showing the event arena (Abbreviations: N= North, E= East, S= South, W= West). (B) The event arena with intra- and extra-arena cues. (C) The two 3D intra-arena cues (left to right): golf ball stack and cylindrical black bottle. (D) Several 3D extra-arena cues (from left to right): patterned spherical lantern; red star lantern; blue lantern. (E) One of four black boxes is positioned midway along each event arena wall. Three of these black boxes serve as start-boxes, which provide a starting position for the rats at the start of each trial. The fourth black box is a home-base where rats consume the food reward that they retrieve from the arena. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Sandwells. (A) Schematic showing an empty sandwell with the accessible and inaccessible sections labeled. (B) An empty sandwell with an accessible section and inaccessible section. (C) Schematic illustrating the pellet arrangement in a rewarded (left) and non-rewarded (right) sandwell. Both the rewarded and non-rewarded sandwells contain a total of 12 pellets and are filled with specially prepared sand, which conceals the pellets in the sandwells'. (D) Series of photographs showing the preparation of a rewarded sandwell, including the correct placement of the pellets in the accessible section (step 1-4). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: The experimental setup of the event arena. (A) Schematic showing the experimental setup of the experimental and control rooms. (B) Screenshot showing a live feed of the experimental room viewed through the custom computer software. The custom computer software allows the experimenters to control the startbox doors remotely and provides other measurements. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
3. Habituation protocol
NOTE: During habituation, the rats are trained to search for sandwells, dig for a food reward, and explore the event arena.
Figure 5: The design of habituation sessions. From left column to right column: the habituation session (H1-H7); the startbox used for each session (e.g., H1: South startbox (SB)); the location where rats are required to eat their food reward (i.e., North home-base); the position of the accessible pellets in the rewarded sandwell (in both written and illustrated form; p = pellet), which will be placed in each session's designated sandwell location; the position of the pellets in the flat-based sandwell in the single cage (in both written and illustrated form), which aims to promote digging behavior and strengthen the rats' association between digging in a sandwell and receiving a food reward. The last two columns refer to sandwells in the single cages (outside the arena). Abbreviation: N/A= not applicable Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
4. Main training protocol
NOTE: Each main training session consists of two memory encoding trials (E1, E2) followed, after a short time delay (~30 min), by one recall choice trial (C1). During all trials, rats are required to successively retrieve two pellets from the rewarded sandwell. After locating each pellet, the rats should locate and enter the home-base to eat this food reward. The location of the correct (i.e., rewarded) sandwell is counterbalanced across sessions for all rats (Figure 5).
Figure 6: Representative counterbalancing. (A) Schematic illustrating how the sandwell location map and correct sandwell location encountered by the rats (e.g., Rat 1) changes across the sessions. (B) Example of a counterbalance table for one session (e.g., Session 1). A different startbox is used for each trial within a single session (i.e., encoding trial 1 (E1) started from the South startbox (SB)), but their order of use was the same for each animal (e.g., Rat 1-3). The sandwells used for the correct location (e.g., location 2, 4, 3) and their associated sets, used in full during the recall choice trial, were counterbalanced across each session's trials (e.g., encoding 1, encoding 2, recall choice) and the animals performing the task (e.g., Rat 1-3). (C) Table outlining the sandwell sets counterbalanced within and across sessions. There are 15 sandwells in total and three sets (set 1-3) of sandwells, each containing five wells (A-E). Each rat uses different wells in each encoding and recall choice trial. For example, as mentioned in Figure 6B, Rat 1 will use Sandwell 1A in encoding trial 1, Sandwell 1B in encoding trial 2, and Sandwell 2C in the recall choice trial. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
5. Recall probe test
6. Non-encoding control test
NOTE: A non-encoding trial is a control measure used to determine whether the rats are using olfactory artifacts, rather than their memory of the correct sandwell location, to perform the task. As the name suggests, the 'non-encoding control test' means that there are no encoding trials performed prior to the recall choice trial; only the recall choice trial is conducted. The expectation is that without being permitted to encode the location of the everyday memory event, the rats' performance in the choice trial will be at chance level. If this is not the case, and the rats perform well in the non-encoding control test, a re-design of the sandwells, and their accessible and inaccessible compartments may be required.
7. Performance measurement
NOTE: Several parameters are measured and Supplementary Figure 1 shows an example datasheet.
8. Avoidance of unintended bias
NOTE: The following control measures are implemented throughout the protocol to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of this everyday memory task.
This stable home-base protocol has been used to successfully train rats to learn this everyday memory task using allocentric representations. There are two important elements in this protocol. First, animals start from different black boxes (e.g., East, South, and West) within and between sessions (Figure 7A). There are two encoding trials and one recall choice trial per session (or probe trial instead of the choice trial in some cases), all starting from an alternate startbox. This encourages the animals to attend to both the intra- and extra-arena cues upon entering the arena. It is not possible to solely rely on idiothetic path integration to perform the task, as different paths are required from each startbox to reach the correct sandwell location. Second, the animals readily learn to eat the food reward pellets in the North-located, stable home-base. During both the encoding trials and recall choice trials, the rats dig and collect their food reward, and then, very naturally, run back to the North home-base to eat the first pellet (Figure 7A). After they finish the first pellet, they come out from the North box and look for the second pellet. This is a different path to that of the first pellet and the rats have to re-orient themselves to successfully relocate the correct sandwell. Again, this encourages the animals to consider the intra- and extra-arena cues and promotes the use of allocentric representations.
Memory formation: We first examined whether rats could achieve a stable performance using this home-base protocol. We found that the rats acquired a good, above-chance performance in this everyday memory task within 16 sessions (Figure 7B). The performance index for recall choice trials peaked at around 80%: a level of performance comparable to previous everyday memory protocols, which did not use a stable home-base14,15,17. While 80% may not seem as good as the 90% and above reached in two-alternative forced-choice tasks11, bear in mind that this is a five-alternative choice task. The stability of performance across sessions was also impressive (typically <7%). We also took steps to ensure that this level of performance was based on the rats' memory of the everyday event encoded during the two encoding trials through the use of two non-encoding control tests. If the animals were artifactually relying on cryptic olfactory cues, their performance would be above chance level (50%); however, if the animals were instead relying on their memory of the everyday event, encountered during the two encoding trials, their performance would be poor and fall to chance level (50%). When we conducted these non-encoding control tests, the rats' task performance fell to chance level (Figure 7B). From this result, we conclude that the rats were relying on their memory of the everyday event to successfully perform the task.
Figure 7: Main training protocol and performance index. (A) Schematic outlining the experimental protocol for the everyday memory task's main training. During each main training session, two encoding trials (encoding trial 1 and encoding trial 2) were first performed. During each encoding trial, the rats were trained to retrieve two pellets successively (one pellet by one pellet) from the single, correct (i.e., rewarded, green) sandwell located within the event arena. Each encoding trial began from a different startbox (orange). To retrieve the food reward, the rats left the startbox (e.g., South) and located the correct sandwell (green). Once the rats retrieved the food reward from the correct sandwell, they located and entered the home-base (North, blue) to eat the food pellet. After the rats retrieved the second pellet in encoding trial 2, they experienced a short 30 min delay, followed by a recall choice trial. Starting at a different startbox during encoding trials, the rats encountered an arena where multiple incorrect sandwells (gray) and one correct sandwell (green) were now present. (B) Graph showing the rats' (n = 17) acquisition data for this stable home-base task. The rats achieved a consistently good task performance by session 16 (ANOVA), which was maintained until session 70 (above chance, t-test, p < 0.05 or better). Two non-encoding control trials were performed at the start (session 18) and end (session 68) of the main training program (pink arrows). In the absence of the encoding trials, the rats performed poorly: their average performance index (%) fell to chance level (50%, t-test, p > 0.05). Data are mean ± SEM. This figure has been modified from Broadbent et al18. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Limited retention over time: After establishing that the rats could successfully remember spatially located events in this allocentric protocol, we tested whether they displayed overnight forgetting, which is characteristic of episodic-like everyday memory (Figure 8A). We tested the rats with two retention delays of 24 min and 24 h – and used a within-subject paradigm, in which every animal experiences every condition. The rats spent significantly more time digging at the correct location after the 24 min delay than the 24 h delay (t(7) = 2.85, p < 0.05) (Figure 8B). This delay-dependent forgetting – an essential feature of everyday memory – ratifies the effectiveness of our task: everyday memory can be effectively modeled by this protocol, as memory decays over the course of 24 h.
Allocentric encoding: Next, we examined whether the rats rely on the intra- and extra-arena cues to successfully perform this memory recall task. After the two encoding trials and before the recall probe trial, a curtain was placed around the arena to remove sight of all intra- and extra-arena cues, followed by the anticlockwise rotation of the arena by 45°. In the probe trial, where all cues (intra- and extra-arena) were hidden or removed, the rats' task performance significantly declined to chance level (t(7) = 3.37, p < 0.05) (Figure 8C,D). This result strongly suggests that use of a home-base effectively encourages the rats to employ an allocentric spatial strategy. Furthermore, in the original study, we also performed inter-experimenter correlations to confirm that all the experimenters involved with running this behavioral task recorded the rats' performance similarly18.
Figure 8: Recall probe test protocols and results. (A) Schematic illustrating the experimental protocol for a recall probe test session. Rats were trained in two encoding trials, and after a delay of either 24 min or 24 h, were presented with five sandwells. (B) Graph showing the characteristic delay-dependent decay of everyday memory. After a delay of 24 min, the rats' memory for the encoded event was significantly above chance level (t (7) = 2.92, p < 0.05) and significantly different from 24 h (t (7) = 2.85, p < 0.05); *p < 0.05. Data are mean ± SEM. Individual data points are also shown. (C) Schematic showing the protocol for the probe test used to assess spatial strategy, where all intra- and extra-arena cues were hidden behind curtains or removed, and the arena was rotated by 45°. The encoding trials were run identically to those performed in a normal probe test (Figure 8A, i.e., all environmental cues are present). The delay between encoding trial 2 and the recall probe trial was 24 min, and all environment cues were removed for the recall probe trial. (D) Graph showing the results of probe test with and without the event arena's environmental cues. When the intra- and extra-arena cues were removed, the rats performed poorly, digging in the correct sandwell for a significantly lower proportion of the 120 s probe trial than observed when all environment cues were present (t (7) = 3.70, p < 0.05). *p < 0.05. Data are mean ± SEM. Individual data points are also shown. This figure has been modified from Broadbent et al18. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Figure 1: Example of a recording sheet used to record a single rat's performance during encoding trial 1, encoding trial 2, and the recall choice/probe trial of a single session. Please click here to download this File.
Humans automatically encode single events in everyday life. We readily recall some events and forget others. The episodic-like everyday memory protocol described above provides a robust method for researchers wishing to investigate this type of memory (episodic memory) in rodents. Because the task involves the daily act of finding and retrieving food pellets from a defined location, the natural instinct of rodents to forage for food is exploited. The task rests on the reasonable assumption that the act of finding and digging up food at a particular but changing place each day is an event for the rat.
Episodic memory is considered to be an integrated memory for an event in time and place. Following the introduction of spontaneous novel object recognition as a method for studying recognition memory9, an important sophistication was added in the work of Dix and Aggleton23, which added in location and context as additional associative attributes. There have thence been further developments, including the Langston and Wood24 studies of object-place-context as a triple association. These are important approaches, but they all rely on recognition memory. The event arena represents a conceptually distinct development as it is a recall task rather than one reliant only on recognition memory. In remembering where an event (digging up food) recently occurred in a specific context, different from where it happened the day before, the animal must approach today's location from its starting position at the edge of the arena without there being any local cues which mark out that sandwell from any other-they all look alike. Consolidated long-term memory is of no value, only a rapidly shifting recency effect. We judge this protocol to be much more analogous to episodic recall such as remembering where one has recently put down one's glasses than would be to choose between a set of objects or images depicting where the glasses might have been placed. We recognize, however, that there are limitations, for example, the lack of any test of context-specificity in the manner of the Dix and Aggleton23 innovation. However, in still unpublished work, we have shown that rats can perform the event arena task in two separate arenas with distinct extra-maze cues, and will successfully search for the sandwell in the correct position in each context.
Our allocentric-centred episodic-like protocol for everyday memory is reliable and reproducible18. As evinced by the representative results above, this protocol effectively precludes any ambiguity regarding the spatial strategy employed by the rats to perform the task, by effectively encouraging the use of only an allocentric spatial representation (Figure 8C,D). This is achieved by the use of a stationary home-base which rats learn is a safe and accessible place to eat their reward pellets retrieved from the arena. They are, therefore, motivated to learn its position within the event arena using an allocentric representation of this space so that, regardless of the animal's location within the arena, the home-base can be easily found. By having a designated home-base, there is a goal location in the arena that is allocentrically constant across sessions. The rats learn the location of this home-base, and, carrying their food reward, they navigate the open-field environment of the arena using the allocentric cues (intra-arena and extra-arena) and locate the home-base: a dark, safe environment, where they will eat the food reward retrieved from the correct sandwell. Previously, the implementation of a stable home-base has been shown to successfully encourage the use of an allocentric spatial strategy18. In contrast, the place where the daily event happens-the finding and digging up of food pellets from the correct sandwell-varies daily. The rats are encouraged to encode a memory of the sample trial that exploits an allocentric representation of the stable arena, and the recall trial is where the effectiveness of this memory encoding is tested.
The rats naturally carry the food reward they retrieve from the correct sandwell to this learned location. Another feature of this everyday memory protocol that encourages the use of an allocentric strategy, is the employment of a different startbox location for each trial (e.g., East, South, West) so they cannot memorize a specific path and use it on further trials to successfully locate the correct sandwell. Instead, the animals use an allocentric spatial reference frame to navigate the arena, locate the correct sandwell (from a startbox or the home-base) and remember where the everyday event of finding food is happening that day.
Poor performance at an early stage of training is indicative of a mixed or purely egocentric spatial strategy. However, animals that employ this strategy adapt to the protocol's requirements and soon begin employing an allocentric frame of reference. It is the use of the fixed home-base that refines this rodent model of everyday memory and makes it more reliable than its predecessors.
To ensure that the integrity of this home-base measure, and the effective encouragement of an allocentric spatial strategy, was achieved and maintained, several mandatory control measures and critical steps were incorporated into this protocol. First, to limit the rats' use of olfactory cues to successfully perform the task and accurately identify the correct sandwell in the choice trial, the sand used to fill the sandwells containing the accessible and inaccessible pellets within the arena was re-weighed at the start of each session and a set amount of garam masala powder was routinely added. Additionally, to prevent the correct sandwell and incorrect sandwells from being distinguishable by smell, all sandwells in the arena, including the correct sandwell, held the same total number of pellets, whether accessible or not. And between each trial, the arena floor was cleaned with 70% ethanol solution to prevent any visual or odor trails affecting future task performance. Second, to ensure that everyday memory was effectively modeled by this protocol, the sandwell map, which details the location of the five sandwells, was modified each session and the correct sandwell location for each rat was altered across sessions (Figure 6). This careful counterbalancing is essential for the success of this everyday memory model.
Although the long-term training procedure is a major strength of this behavioral protocol, the time it takes can cause procedural limitations. Generally, rats require around 16 sessions of main training before achieving a good, stable level of performance. However, in order to achieve and maintain this level, several other factors, which all have the potential to influence and disrupt a consistent task performance, must be controlled. These include: (1) maintaining a suitable level of food deprivation (85%-90% of normal body weight); (2) ensuring that the rodents' living conditions are consistent for the entire duration of the experiment; and (3) sustaining a structured training schedule, whereby training occurs every day, with minimal breaks or disturbances to the schedule. As mentioned in the protocol, experiment replicability is extremely important. Throughout this paper, we have emphasized the careful design of this everyday memory protocol, including the various counterbalancing measures that determine the sequence of trials and the sandwell maps used, the prevention of olfactory artifacts throughout, and the addition of several distinct control experiments. It is important to note that different experimenters are able to perform the experiment with the same rats and achieve a similar level of performance. In a previous study employing this everyday memory model, inter-experimenter comparison data showed a high correlation in the scoring of the rats' dig times at each sandwell during the same probe trials18. A further limitation is that we have not yet explored having two or more different events during a day (e.g., finding food vs. finding water). Event discrimination in recall would add sophistication to the protocol, but is the subject of future work.
Another highlight of this protocol is the fact that different rat strains can be used. While in the study we report in the representative results that we used Lister-hooded rats to perform the task, another experiment (data not shown) used other rat strains (e.g., tyrosine hydroxylase transgenic rats) and still achieved a good, stable performance index (%). This protocol has also been deliberately developed to accommodate a within-subjects experimental design, making an animal model that is compatible with the values of the 3Rs (reduction, refinement, and replacement). This provides a framework for the important ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in experiments and is responsive to different experimental interventions. For example, we have used this protocol in conjunction with drug manipulations, optogenetics, and calcium imaging to successfully investigate memory encoding and recall (data not shown).
This protocol has been conducted in our laboratory during the animals' light phase. In a previous study12 using a similar task in the event arena, we conducted an experiment in the rats' night/dark phase, partly because the study likely involved overnight consolidation. However, since this time, we have conducted multiple event arena tasks during the light phase, and no behavioral differences were found between light and dark phases13,15,16,17. The light phase is more practical, in many respects, and training during the animals' night phase nonetheless involves having lights on in the training room so that the animals can see cues relevant for allocentric coding. This creates an ambiguity that is avoided by simply training in the light phase.
Furthermore, weak and strong encoding trials can be applied to this everyday memory protocol to investigate episodic and spatial memories of different strengths. In the current protocol, we have used two encoding trials but the number of encoding trials can be adjusted by researchers to suit different memory manipulations.
To conclude, our stable home-base protocol provides a powerful rodent model for episodic-like everyday memory, which promotes the use of only an allocentric representation and avoids the spatial strategy ambiguity present in its predecessors. We are confident that this protocol provides a reliable and reproducible test-bed for future investigations into the neurobiology of everyday memory.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This work was supported by Medical Research Council Programme Grants, the European Research Council (ERC-2010-AdG-268800-NEUROSCHEMA), Wellcome Trust Advanced Investigator Grant (207481/Z/17/Z).
Camera | CCTVFirst | N/A | |
Event Arena | University of Edinburgh (designed and built in house) | University of Edinburgh (designed and built in house) | Event arena for everyday memory task |
Lister-hooded rats | Charles River UK | 603 | |
Multitimer Labview | University of Edinburgh (designed and built in house) | University of Edinburgh (designed and built in house) | |
Pneumatics, frames, screws of event arena | RS Components Ltd. | University of Edinburgh (P. Spooner) | Tools for building event arena |
Sandwells | Adam Plastics (http://www.adamplastics.co.uk) | University of Edinburgh (P. Spooner) | Sandwells for arena |
Startboxes | Adam Plastics (http://www.adamplastics.co.uk) | University of Edinburgh (P. Spooner) | |
Video recording | Windows 10 computers with OBS software, Blackmagic Decklink Mini Recorder cards | N/A |
.