Cargando…

Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab

Space is continuous. But the communities of researchers that study the cognitive map in non-humans are strangely divided, with debate over its existence found among behaviorists but not neuroscientists. To reconcile this and other debates within the field of navigation, we return to the concept of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jacobs, Lucia F, Menzel, Randolf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25520814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-3
_version_ 1782349163373002752
author Jacobs, Lucia F
Menzel, Randolf
author_facet Jacobs, Lucia F
Menzel, Randolf
author_sort Jacobs, Lucia F
collection PubMed
description Space is continuous. But the communities of researchers that study the cognitive map in non-humans are strangely divided, with debate over its existence found among behaviorists but not neuroscientists. To reconcile this and other debates within the field of navigation, we return to the concept of the parallel map theory, derived from data on hippocampal function in laboratory rodents. Here the cognitive map is redefined as the integrated map, which is a construction of dual mechanisms, one based on directional cues (bearing map) and the other on positional cues (sketch map). We propose that the dual navigational mechanisms of pigeons, the navigational map and the familiar area map, could be homologous to these mammalian parallel maps; this has implications for both research paradigms. Moreover, this has implications for the lab. To create a bearing map (and hence integrated map) from extended cues requires self-movement over a large enough space to sample and model these cues at a high resolution. Thus a navigator must be able to move freely to map extended cues; only then should the weighted hierarchy of available navigation mechanisms shift in favor of the integrated map. Because of the paucity of extended cues in the lab, the flexible solutions allowed by the integrated map should be rare, despite abundant neurophysiological evidence for the existence of the machinery needed to encode and map extended cues through voluntary movement. Not only do animals need to map extended cues but they must also have sufficient information processing capacity. This may require a specific ontogeny, in which the navigator’s nervous system is exposed to naturally complex spatial contingencies, a circumstance that occurs rarely, if ever, in the lab. For example, free-ranging, flying animals must process more extended cues than walking animals and for this reason alone, the integrated map strategy may be found more reliably in some species. By taking concepts from ethology and the parallel map theory, we propose a path to directly integrating the three great experimental paradigms of navigation: the honeybee, the homing pigeon and the laboratory rodent, towards the goal of a robust, unified theory of animal navigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4267593
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42675932014-12-17 Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab Jacobs, Lucia F Menzel, Randolf Mov Ecol Review Space is continuous. But the communities of researchers that study the cognitive map in non-humans are strangely divided, with debate over its existence found among behaviorists but not neuroscientists. To reconcile this and other debates within the field of navigation, we return to the concept of the parallel map theory, derived from data on hippocampal function in laboratory rodents. Here the cognitive map is redefined as the integrated map, which is a construction of dual mechanisms, one based on directional cues (bearing map) and the other on positional cues (sketch map). We propose that the dual navigational mechanisms of pigeons, the navigational map and the familiar area map, could be homologous to these mammalian parallel maps; this has implications for both research paradigms. Moreover, this has implications for the lab. To create a bearing map (and hence integrated map) from extended cues requires self-movement over a large enough space to sample and model these cues at a high resolution. Thus a navigator must be able to move freely to map extended cues; only then should the weighted hierarchy of available navigation mechanisms shift in favor of the integrated map. Because of the paucity of extended cues in the lab, the flexible solutions allowed by the integrated map should be rare, despite abundant neurophysiological evidence for the existence of the machinery needed to encode and map extended cues through voluntary movement. Not only do animals need to map extended cues but they must also have sufficient information processing capacity. This may require a specific ontogeny, in which the navigator’s nervous system is exposed to naturally complex spatial contingencies, a circumstance that occurs rarely, if ever, in the lab. For example, free-ranging, flying animals must process more extended cues than walking animals and for this reason alone, the integrated map strategy may be found more reliably in some species. By taking concepts from ethology and the parallel map theory, we propose a path to directly integrating the three great experimental paradigms of navigation: the honeybee, the homing pigeon and the laboratory rodent, towards the goal of a robust, unified theory of animal navigation. BioMed Central 2014-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4267593/ /pubmed/25520814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-3 Text en © Jacobs and Menzel; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Jacobs, Lucia F
Menzel, Randolf
Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title_full Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title_fullStr Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title_full_unstemmed Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title_short Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
title_sort navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25520814
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-3
work_keys_str_mv AT jacobsluciaf navigationoutsideoftheboxwhatthelabcanlearnfromthefieldandwhatthefieldcanlearnfromthelab
AT menzelrandolf navigationoutsideoftheboxwhatthelabcanlearnfromthefieldandwhatthefieldcanlearnfromthelab