Cargando…

“Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats

BACKGROUND: We had previously advanced the concept of “Integrative Learning”, that is, “under the role of ‘meta-learning self’, learners actively integrate learning materials to achieve rapid and in-depth understanding of knowledge”, and designed an animal behavioral model to compare the effects of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yin, Bin, Wu, Xiao-Rui, Lian, Rong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10066688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37013143
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15101
_version_ 1785018314861314048
author Yin, Bin
Wu, Xiao-Rui
Lian, Rong
author_facet Yin, Bin
Wu, Xiao-Rui
Lian, Rong
author_sort Yin, Bin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We had previously advanced the concept of “Integrative Learning”, that is, “under the role of ‘meta-learning self’, learners actively integrate learning materials to achieve rapid and in-depth understanding of knowledge”, and designed an animal behavioral model to compare the effects of “Integrative Learning” (IL) vs. “Progressive Learning” (PL) in young rats. It was found that IL is more advantageous than PL. Here, we aim to examine whether the same phenomenon persist in older rats. METHODS: Fifteen 12-month-old male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were selected as subjects and randomly divided into the IL group and the PL group, and a 14-unit integrative T-maze was constructed for the study. Training and testing procedures contained three stages: the learning stage, the memory retention test stage and the Gestalt transfer learning stage. Data on young rats (1-month-old) from the previous study were also drawn here for comparisons on learning performance. RESULTS: (1) The 12-session learning stage can be divided into three sub-stages as each sub-stage represented the new opening of one third of the whole path in the PL group. There were significant interactions in total errors made between groups and sessions: the PL group had significantly fewer errors during Sub-stage One due to a much shorter path to be learned, however, the IL group’s errors made sharply dropped as learning progressed into Sub-stage Two and Three, and were maintained at a significantly lower level than the PL group during Sub-stage Three. (2) When compared with young rats, age had a main effect on the number of errors made—the 1-month-old groups learned overall better and faster than the older groups, whereas the pattern of group differences between the IL and PL learning modes remained consistent across young and older groups. (3) Unlike young rats, during the memory retention test stage and the Gestalt transfer learning stage, the IL group did not perform better than the PL group in older rats. CONCLUSIONS: (1) “Integrative Learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats. (2) Higher-order cognitive abilities that support meta-cognition, long-term retention and knowledge transfer might be deteriorating in older rats.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10066688
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100666882023-04-02 “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats Yin, Bin Wu, Xiao-Rui Lian, Rong PeerJ Animal Behavior BACKGROUND: We had previously advanced the concept of “Integrative Learning”, that is, “under the role of ‘meta-learning self’, learners actively integrate learning materials to achieve rapid and in-depth understanding of knowledge”, and designed an animal behavioral model to compare the effects of “Integrative Learning” (IL) vs. “Progressive Learning” (PL) in young rats. It was found that IL is more advantageous than PL. Here, we aim to examine whether the same phenomenon persist in older rats. METHODS: Fifteen 12-month-old male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were selected as subjects and randomly divided into the IL group and the PL group, and a 14-unit integrative T-maze was constructed for the study. Training and testing procedures contained three stages: the learning stage, the memory retention test stage and the Gestalt transfer learning stage. Data on young rats (1-month-old) from the previous study were also drawn here for comparisons on learning performance. RESULTS: (1) The 12-session learning stage can be divided into three sub-stages as each sub-stage represented the new opening of one third of the whole path in the PL group. There were significant interactions in total errors made between groups and sessions: the PL group had significantly fewer errors during Sub-stage One due to a much shorter path to be learned, however, the IL group’s errors made sharply dropped as learning progressed into Sub-stage Two and Three, and were maintained at a significantly lower level than the PL group during Sub-stage Three. (2) When compared with young rats, age had a main effect on the number of errors made—the 1-month-old groups learned overall better and faster than the older groups, whereas the pattern of group differences between the IL and PL learning modes remained consistent across young and older groups. (3) Unlike young rats, during the memory retention test stage and the Gestalt transfer learning stage, the IL group did not perform better than the PL group in older rats. CONCLUSIONS: (1) “Integrative Learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats. (2) Higher-order cognitive abilities that support meta-cognition, long-term retention and knowledge transfer might be deteriorating in older rats. PeerJ Inc. 2023-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10066688/ /pubmed/37013143 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15101 Text en © 2023 Yin et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Animal Behavior
Yin, Bin
Wu, Xiao-Rui
Lian, Rong
“Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title_full “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title_fullStr “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title_full_unstemmed “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title_short “Integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
title_sort “integrative learning” promotes learning but not memory in older rats
topic Animal Behavior
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10066688/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37013143
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15101
work_keys_str_mv AT yinbin integrativelearningpromoteslearningbutnotmemoryinolderrats
AT wuxiaorui integrativelearningpromoteslearningbutnotmemoryinolderrats
AT lianrong integrativelearningpromoteslearningbutnotmemoryinolderrats