Author
Listed:
- Robin J Keeley
- Amanda V Tyndall
- Gavin A Scott
- Deborah M Saucier
Abstract
Background: Sex differences in spatial memory function have been reported with mixed results in the literature, with some studies showing male advantages and others showing no differences. When considering estrus cycle in females, results are mixed at to whether high or low circulating estradiol results in an advantage in spatial navigation tasks. Research involving humans and rodents has demonstrated males preferentially employ Euclidean strategies and utilize geometric cues in order to spatially navigate, whereas females employ landmark strategies and cues in order to spatially navigate. Methodology/Principal Findings: This study used the water-based snowcone maze in order to assess male and female preference for landmark or geometric cues, with specific emphasis placed on the effects of estrus cycle phase for female rat. Performance and preference for the geometric cue was examined in relation to total hippocampal and hippocampal subregions (CA1&2, CA3 and dentate gyrus) volumes and entorhinal cortex thickness in order to determine the relation between strategy and spatial performance and brain area size. The study revealed that males outperformed females overall during training trials, relied on the geometric cue when the platform was moved and showed significant correlations between entorhinal cortex thickness and spatial memory performance. No gross differences in behavioural performance was observed within females when accounting for cyclicity, and only total hippocampal volume was correlated with performance during the learning trials. Conclusions/Significance: This study demonstrates the sex-specific use of cues and brain areas in a spatial learning task.
Suggested Citation
Robin J Keeley & Amanda V Tyndall & Gavin A Scott & Deborah M Saucier, 2013.
"Sex Difference in Cue Strategy in a Modified Version of the Morris Water Task: Correlations between Brain and Behaviour,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0069727
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069727
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0069727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.