Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

www.elsevier.com/locate/l&m

Human overshadowing in a virtual pool:

Simple guidance is a good competitor
against locale learningq
V.D. Chamizo,* J.A. Aznar-Casanova, and A.A. Artigas
University of Barcelona, Spain

Received 18 November 2002; received in revised form 11 March 2003

Abstract

In four experiments a new virtual preparation for humans of the Morris water task
(VMWT) was used. Psychology students were trained to locate a platform (either visible or
invisible) in the presence of four landmarks (A, B, C, D), spaced at equal intervals around
the edge of the pool. At the end of training one test trial was given in the presence of one
or several landmarks, without the platform, and the time the students spent in the platform
quadrant was registered. Experiment 1 used an invisible platform. It was designed to see
how much the students had learned either of the whole set of four landmarks or of some subset
of it when searching for the platform on test. When tested with four or two landmarks (either
relatively near or far from the platform), the studentsÕ performance was equivalent and signif-
icantly better than that obtained with one landmark only (either relatively near or far from the
platform). In Experiment 2, for Group Experimental, the platform was visible, while for
Group Control, it was invisible. On the test trial, a clear overshadowing effect was found:
the Overshadowing group spent significantly less time in the platform quadrant than the Con-
trol group. A third group, Group Experimental-Slow, was subsequently added to eliminate an
alternative explanation of spatial overshadowing in terms of differential experience with the
landmarks during training. Finally, Experiments 3 and 4 were conducted to control for
generalization decrement. The data are discussed within the growing body of evidence that

q
The software for this study was designed by J.A. Aznar-Casanova. We are very grateful both to T.
Rodrigo for her helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and also to an anonymous
referee for his/her suggestion to run Group Experimental-Slow in Experiment 2. This research was
supported by grants from the Spanish ÔMinisterio de Ciencia y TecnologıaÕ (Refs. No. BSO2001-3264 and
BSO2001-3639).
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +93-4021363.
E-mail address: vdchamizo@psi.ub.es (Victoria D. Chamizo).

0023-9690/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0023-9690(03)00020-1
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 263

suggests that the general laws of learning apply to many species, both in the spatial and tem-
poral domains.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

OÕKeefe and Nadel (1978) argue that the original notion of place learning (Restle,
1957) confounds two different forms of learning instead of one: learning by guidance
and locale learning. Learning by guidance implies approach toward one specific cue
or set of cues (like a particular color, shape, odor or texture in the rewarded goal arm
of a maze, for example, or a particular landmark or configuration of landmarks just
behind the correct arm). On the other hand, a rat solving a problem by locale learn-
ing forms a cognitive map of the environment where the maze is located and of the
specific location of the rewarded goal-arm within that environment. A crucial feature
of their account is that OÕKeefe and Nadel (1978) consider that locale learning is
non-associative; that it happens in an all-or-none way; and that it implies the forma-
tion and readjustment of a complete representation of the environment in response
to novelty. Therefore, basic Pavlovian phenomena in the spatial domain conflict with
such a claim (for recent reviews see Chamizo, 2003; Mackintosh & Chamizo, 2002).
The first data in favour of OÕKeefe and NadelÕs proposal come from Morris
(1981). This author demonstrated that rats could locate an object that they were
not able to see, hear, or touch, whenever it maintained a fixed relationship with re-
spect to distal landmarks. In his work he used a circular pool full of opaque water
from which the animals could escape by climbing to a platform which was a centi-
metre below the level of the water. The platform always maintained a constant rela-
tionship with the landmarks in the room. The rats quickly learned to escape from the
water by swimming directly to the platform from different points in the pool. Morris
interpreted his results as showing that the animals learned how to locate the position
of the platform by the position that it maintained regarding the context in which the
experiment was carried out, the room and the objects that it contained. He consid-
ered that they supported OÕKeefe and NadelÕs (1978) theory of locale learning or
cognitive map. However, Morris (1981) also indicated that his results did not offer
information regarding the mechanism responsible for the acquisition of such a
map. He suggested that one way to address this question would be to see whether
phenomena characteristic of classical and instrumental conditioning, such as block-
ing and latent inhibition, might also be observed in experiments in which rats appar-
ently acquired a spatial map.
Chamizo, Sterio, and Mackintosh (1985) were the first authors to test MorrisÕ
(1981) proposals in a series of experiments on blocking and overshadowing. The pur-
pose of their Experiment 3 was to find out whether intra- and extra-maze cues pre-
sented simultaneously would overshadow each other (i.e., whether locale learning
could be overshadowed by guidance learning, and vice versa). The term overshadow-
ing refers to the finding that the presence of a second relevant cue will cause animals
to learn less about a first than they would have done if trained on the first cue in iso-
lation (Kamin, 1969; Pavlov, 1927). Experiment 3 consisted of four groups of rats,
two trained with intra- and extra-maze cues relevant, and the other two with only
264 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

one of these cues relevant, one intra and the second one extra. It was found that the
extra-maze stimuli (i.e., landmark based learning) could overshadow the intra-maze
ones (i.e., guidance learning), but not vice versa. This failure to find overshadowing
of extra-maze landmarks by intra maze-ones was paralleled by results by Whishaw
and Mittleman (1986) which showed that rats trained to reach a visible platform per-
sisted in visiting such a location even when the visible platform was moved to a dif-
ferent location. However, one experiment in a subsequent study by March, Chamizo,
and Mackintosh (1992, Experiment 3), provided an inequivocal demonstration of re-
ciprocal overshadowing between intra- and extra-maze cues in the radial maze. Ac-
cording to Chamizo et al. (1985) and March et al. (1992), the clear general
implication of these studies was that the mechanism responsible for locale learning
seems to be clearly associative, since it interacts with guidance learning in the same
way as the conditioning of a light interacts with the conditioning of a tone (and using
the Morris pool and rats as subjects, see also Redhead, Roberts, Good, & Pearce,
1997; Roberts & Pearce, 1999).
But guidance learning does not always interact with other forms of learning in this
way. Using the Morris pool and rats as subjects, Pearce, Ward-Robinson, Good, Fus-
sell, and Aydin (2001) have recently shown that guidance learning could neither over-
shadow (although see Experiment 1), nor block shape learning (see also Pearce,
McGregor, Good, & Hayward, 2003; and for a similar result, Brown, Yang, & Di-
Gian, 2003). The aim of the Pearce et al. (2001) study was to see whether a beacon
could overshadow or block learning about the position of a platform with reference
to the shape of a pool. The pool had a distinctive triangular shape, and the question of
interest was whether the presence of the beacon above a hidden platform would de-
tract from learning about the position of the platform with respect to the shape of
the pool. The results showed that the presence of the beacon either had no effect
on such spatial learning or had a beneficial effect. The authors concluded that the re-
sults of this series of experiments favour the proposal by Cheng (1986) and Gallistel
(1990) that spatial learning based on the shape of the test environment is unaffected by
the presence of other landmarks. This claim suggests that the conditions for spatial
learning can be different from those observed when non-spatial tasks are used.
Because of the present uncertainty, it was clearly appropriate to see if the March
et al. (1992, Experiment 3) finding, that guidance learning can overshadow land-
mark-based learning could be replicated. The aim of the present study was to see
whether landmark-based learning could be overshadowed by simple guidance in a
virtual Morris water task with students as subjects. Favourable results not only
would constitute additional support for the March et al. (1992) study but would also
expand the generality of the effect to humans. In the present experiments, we at-
tempted to control, more precisely than in previous studies, the landmarks which
could be used to define the location of the platform. In order to do so, the virtual
pool was surrounded by a black background, and a fixed number of objects, land-
marks, were placed at particular positions relative to the platform. These landmarks
were hung from an invisible ceiling, and a constant relation between them and the
platform was always preserved (as in Rodrigo, Chamizo, McLaren, & Mackintosh,
1997). Virtual rotation of the landmarks and the platform was used.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 265

Experiment 1

By virtual navigation humans can locate a hidden goal using virtual landmarks in
much the same way that rats do (Astur, Ortiz, & Sutherland, 1998). The aim of Ex-
periment 1 was to see if our behavioural preparation, a virtual Morris task, would
work with students. Specifically, we aimed to establish that students could learn to
locate the platform when trained with four landmarks that were rotated with the
platform from trial to trial(the test of such learning being that they would spend
more time in the platform quadrant than expected by chance when tested without
the platform). A second aim was to see how students performed in relation to chance
with different subsets of the four landmarks. For this purpose, tests trials were car-
ried out with the four landmarks, with pairs of them (either two landmarks that had
been relatively near the platform or two landmarks farther away from it), and with
one landmark at a time only (either one relatively near the platform or one farther
away from it). The experiment consisted of five groups of students (Group 4, Group
2-Near, Group 2-Far, Group 1-Near, and Group 1-Far). The five groups differed
only in the amount and position of landmarks presented to them on the test trial.

Method

Subjects
The subjects were 47 psychology students at the University of Barcelona with an
age of 22–24 years. They were assigned at random to one of five groups: Group 4
(with 9 students), Group 2-Near (with 9 students), Group 2-Far (with 9 students),
Group 1-Near (with 11 students), and Group 1-Far (with 9 students). They were na-
ive about the hypothesis of the experiment in which they participated as volunteers
and received course credit for their participation.

Materials
The experiment was conducted in a room which contained four individual sound-
proofed small compartments. Each compartment was equipped with a PC computer
(Pentium III 450 MHz) and a color monitor, placed on a shelf, a set of headphones,
and a chair from which the students could comfortably reach the keyboard of the
computer. Each monitor was 15 in. wide and was equipped with a WinFast 3D
S600 Graphic card (4MB), which allows graphics acceleration and high resolution
configurations. The programme language used to run the experiments was C++/
Open GL (a software interface for 3D graphics, with hardware developed by Silicon
Graphics). Each computer was programmed to control the presentation of the vir-
tual environment, the auditory information (the background sound and the positive
and negative feedback), and to register the time taken to reach the platform. The au-
ditory positive feedback consisted of a brief song (‘‘ThatÕs all folks’’) that lasted 3 s.
The auditory negative feedback consisted of an unpleasant melody (the sound of
mournful bells) that also lasted 3 s. The auditory background sound was slightly un-
pleasant in order to generate some distress in the students and thus to reproduce the
conditions of an escape task. All the auditory information was presented through the
266 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

headphones, and the visual information was presented through the color monitor. In
order to navigate, the students had to use the keyboard arrow keys. The ‘‘up’’
arrow key controlled forward movement; the ‘‘down’’ arrow key, backwards move-
ment; and the ‘‘right’’ and the ‘‘left’’ arrow keys controlled turning right and left,
respectively.
The virtual space was an octagonal swimming pool (radius ¼ 100 units)1 modelled
after that used by Rodrigo et al. (1997). The pool was situated in the middle of the
virtual space (with co-ordinates: 0,0). It was surrounded by a black surface. A num-
ber of objects were hung from an invisible ceiling. These objects or landmarks de-
fined the location of the platform. A circular platform (radius ¼ 8 units) could be
placed in the pool, slightly below the surface of the water (i.e., an invisible platform).
The landmarks used in this experiment (and also in the remaining experiments of this
study) were three-dimensional objects, of similar size (approx. radius ¼ 10 units).
They were as follows: A: a pink circular sphere; B: a green cylinder; C: a blue cone;
and D: a yellow cube. The platform could be either between landmarks A and B, or
C and D as shown in (Fig. 1).

Procedure
The experiment lasted one session and the participants were tested in groups of
three or four, one student per individual compartment. At the beginning of the ex-
periment the students had to read specific instructions,2 presented to them on a sheet
of paper while they were seated, to become familiar with the task. Any question then
was answered by an experimenter. The information they received in Experiment 1
reads as follows:
This experiment will last about 20 min and it will consist of several trials. Imagine that you
have been swimming for a long time in a circular pool from which you are not able to get out
of and that you are very tired. You will only be able to rest if you find a floating platform.
Your task consists of reaching it. On the first trial you will see the platform. Only on this
trial. In the following trials you will not be able to see it, but you can be sure that it will
always be in the same position in relation to four objects (although, occasionally, less than
four could be present).

Following this information, the students were shown a drawing similar to Fig. 1,
with the exception that no platform was indicated (only the shape of the pool and the
four objects). To the right of this drawing, inside a rectangular frame, whose title was
‘‘Being at the helm’’, information about how to navigate was presented to the stu-
dents. It was indicated, with symbols, that the vertical arrow meant ‘‘advance’’;
the inverted arrow, ‘‘backwards’’; the arrow facing right, ‘‘turn to the right’’; and

1
This length, 100 units, implies that one student could cross the diameter of the pool in a minimum
time of 4 s, and perform a complete turn (360°), without any displacement, in approx. 2.5 s. These speeds
(s ¼ space/time) to move ahead and to turn around are equivalent to those used by Hamilton, Driscoll, and
Sutherland (2002).
2
All the experiments had small changes in the instructions (which were in Spanish). The authors will
be pleased to provide the specific instructions used in each experiment to those readers that request them.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 267

Fig. 1. A schematic representation of the pool and four landmarks, A, B, C and D, as well as the visible
platforms.

the arrow facing left, ‘‘turn to the left’’. A new paragraph with the following infor-
mation followed:
To move, please use the navigation keys (see above ÔBeing at the helmÕ). When you find the
platform you will hear the song ÔThatÕs all folksÕ and then a new trial will begin. If you do
not find the platform in the permitted time for each trial, mournful bells will sound and then
a new trial will begin. At the beginning of each trial, you will always find yourself in the mid-
dle of the pool looking in a certain direction: North, South, East, or West. Please try to find
the platform as quickly as you can. When you think you have understood the instructions,
click on OK to begin a trial. If you havenÕt understood, ask the experimenter. Good luck!

To start the experiment, after the students had indicated verbally that they had
understood the instructions, they had to click on OK on a welcome screen. Follow-
ing this, brief instructions were presented on a new screen telling them that they had
to click on OK again, and then, they found themselves in the middle of the pool, fac-
ing a different direction each time (NE, SE, SW, and NW—between the four land-
marks A, B, C, and D in Fig. 1). Trial 1, with a visible platform, was an escape
from the water preliminary trial, the aim of which was to make the students familiar
with the task. Then, there were two types of trial: escape trials (with the hidden plat-
form), and one test trial (without the platform).
Acquisition (escape trials) was identical for all the students. It consisted of placing
the subjects in the middle of the pool with the landmarks and the platform present
(see Fig. 1). The landmarks were A, B, C, and D (a sphere, a cylinder, a cone, and a
cube, respectively), spaced at equal intervals around the edge of the pool. The plat-
form was between landmarks A and B (co-ordinates: 50, 50) for 50% of the students
of each group, and between C and D (co-ordinates: )50, )50) for the remaining
students of each group. The subjects received twenty four consecutive trials, with
an average intertrial interval (ITI) of approx. 10 sec. Each student was given 60 s
268 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

to find the platform. Reaching the platform was rewarded by positive feedback (the
song ‘‘ThatÕs all folks’’) and also ended the trial. When that happened, a few seconds
afterwards some instructions appeared on the screen (a little ‘‘memo’’), and again the
students had to click on OK twice to begin a new trial. If a student did not find the
platform within 60 s, the trial ended and the mournful sound was presented. Then,
the instructions appeared on the screen, and he/she had to click on OK twice to begin
a new trial. The platform was invisible for all the students.
Following acquisition, all the students had a test trial. This trial consisted of plac-
ing the subject in the pool, with one or several landmarks present but without the plat-
form, and leaving it there for 60 s. For Group 4 the landmarks present on the test trial
were the set of four training landmarks. For Group 2-Near, the landmarks were those
near the platform during acquisition (for 50% of the students A and B, and for the
remaining students, C and D). For Group 2-Far, the landmarks were those far from
the platform during acquisition (for 50% of the students A and B, and for the remain-
ing students, C and D). For Group 1-Near, the landmark present on the test trial was
the one near the platform during acquisition (for 25% of the students the landmark
was A; for 25% of the students, B; for 25% of the students, C; and for 25% of the stu-
dents, D). For Group 1-Far, the landmark present was the one far from the platform
during acquisition (for 25% of the students, A; for 25% of the students, B; for 25% of
the students, C; and for 25% of the students, D). Subjects in all groups were placed in
the pool equally often facing in all four starting positions at the beginning of a trial
(between the four landmarks A, B, C, and D in Fig. 1). For purposes of recording
the studentÕs behaviour, on the test trial the pool was divided into four quadrants,
A–B (the platform quadrant for fifty percent of the students), B–C, C–D (the plat-
form quadrant for the other half of the students), and D–A, and the amount of time
the students spent in the correct quadrant (where the platform should have been) was
recorded. A significance level of p < :05 was adopted for the statistical tests reported
in this and the remaining experiments. Only significant results are presented.

Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows the mean escape latencies of the five groups during acquisition. In
this experiment and also in the remaining ones, the trials in this phase were analysed
in blocks of two. An analysis of variance, with groups (Group 4, Group 2-Near,
Group 2-Far, Group 1-Near, and Group 1-Far) and blocks of trials (1-12) as factors
revealed that the only significant effect was blocks of trials, F ð11; 462Þ ¼ 15:86. No
other main effect or interaction was significant (F s < 1:0). All subjects improved
their performance as blocks went by.
Fig. 3 shows the time in the platform quadrant for each of the five groups during
the test trial and also whether each group differed significantly from chance. t tests
were used to compare studentsÕ performance in the different groups with chance
(i.e., 15 s searching in the quadrant where the platform should have been) in order
to evaluate whether the test results reflected significant spatial learning. Four groups
differed from chance: Group 4, tð8Þ ¼ 4:84; Group 2-Near, tð8Þ ¼ 3:52; Group
2-Far, tð8Þ ¼ 3:45; and Group 1-Near, tð10Þ ¼ 3:48.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 269

Fig. 2. Mean escape latencies of the five groups (Group 4, Group 2-Near, Group 2-Far, Group 1-Near,
and Group 1-Far) in Experiment 1 during the acquisition phase.

Fig. 3. Mean time spent in the platform quadrant by the five groups (Group 4, Group 2-Near, Group 2-
Far, Group 1-Near, and Group 1-Far) in Experiment 1 during the test trial. Error bars denote standard
error of means.
270 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

Thus, the performance of these groups reflected significant spatial learning on the
test trial, but the performance of Group 1-Far did not. Then, two analyses of vari-
ance were conducted.
The first one, with groups (Group 4, Group 2-Near, Group 2-Far, Group 1-Near,
and Group 1-Far) and position of the platform (AB versus CD) as factors, confirmed
that the only significant variable was groups, F ð4; 37Þ ¼ 3:078. Subsequent t tests re-
vealed that Group 4, Group 2-Near, and Group 2-Far, which did not differ from one
another, all differed from Group 1-Far. The second one, with number of landmarks
(two versus one), distance from the platform (near versus far), and position of the
platform (AB versus CD) as factors, showed that the only significant variable was
number of landmarks, F ð1; 30Þ ¼ 4:72. Performance was equally good with any sub-
set of two landmarks (Group 2-Near and Group 2-Far) and with the whole set of
four landmarks (Group 4), but it clearly deteriorated in the presence of one land-
mark only (Group 1-Near and Group 1-Far). These results are similar to those ob-
tained by Rodrigo et al. (1997, Experiments 1A & 1B) when working with non-
human subjects. Nevertheless, in view of the performance in the different groups with
chance, future research is needed to understand better the effectiveness of subsets of
one landmark only (Group 1-Near and Group 1-Far).

Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find out whether locale or landmark-based learn-
ing could be overshadowed by simple guidance when using a virtual Morris water
task (VMWT) and students as subjects. This work expands on that of March et
al. (1992, Experiment 3).
The experiment consisted of two groups of students, Group Experimental (with
landmarks and a visible platform) and Group Control (with landmarks and a hidden
platform). On the test trial, in the presence of the landmarks and without the plat-
form, it was expected that Group Experimental, the overshadowing group, would
spend significantly less time in the platform quadrant than Group Control, the
non-overshadowing group. (A third group was subsequently added, Group Experi-
mental-Slow, in order to equate as much as possible the experience with the different
landmarks during training with Group Control, thus eliminating an alternative ex-
planation to spatial overshadowing. For these students,3 during the acquisition
phase, the speed of navigation was reduced 10 times in comparison to the students
in Experiment 1 and in the other two groups in this experiment.)

3
In fact, the students in this group could navigate with a speed (s ¼ 0:2u=t) 10 times less than that in
Experiment 1 and in the other two groups in this experiment. And the turn amplitude, corresponding to
each press of the cursor keys, both for the left and right arrows, was 3°, while in Experiment 1 as well as in
the other two groups of the present experiment, it was 12°. This reduction to the fourth part of the turn
amplitude on each press when rotating, had the consequence that the time a student needed to completely
turn around (i.e., 360°) on himself/herself was 10 s, instead of 2.5 s, as in Experiment 1 and in the other two
groups of Experiment 2.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 271

Method

Subjects and materials

The subjects were 31 psychology students at the University of Barcelona with an
age of 22–24 years. They were assigned at random to one of two groups: Group Ex-
perimental (with 16 students) and Group Control (with 15 students) [the subsequent
group, Group Experimental- Slow, had nine participants with an age of 22–24 years].
All the students were naive about the hypothesis of the experiment in which they par-
ticipated as volunteers and received course credit for their participation. The exper-
iment was conducted in the same room and with the same equipment used in
Experiment 1.

Procedure
The instructions were very similar to those in Experiment 1 with one main excep-
tion concerning Group Experimental. During the acquisition phase, the platform
was always visible for these students and therefore a phrase in their instructions
was: ‘‘During the trials you will be able to see the platform, although occasionally
a raise in the water level will make it difficult to see it well. Do not be discouraged
and look for it!’’. The general procedure was also very similar to that in Experiment
1, although with a few exceptions. During acquisition, the subjects received twelve
consecutive trials (instead of 24 as in Experiment 1). The platform was visible for
Group Experimental only; for Group Control, it was invisible [the final group,
Group Experimental-Slow, had the same instructions as Group Experimental, al-
though with an additional phrase, which was: ‘‘keep very much in mind that, de-
pending on the wind, you will be able to navigate more or less quickly, although
most of the time you will have the wind against you’’]. Following acquisition, all
the students had a test trial, without the platform, in the presence of the four land-
marks, A, B, C, and D. The amount of time the students spent in the correct quad-
rant (where the platform should have been) was recorded.

Results and discussion

Fig. 4 shows the mean escape latencies of the two groups during acquisition. An
analysis of variance, with groups (Exp–Con) and blocks of trials (1–6) as factors, re-
vealed significant effects of groups, F ð1; 29Þ ¼ 36:11, blocks of trials, F ð5; 145Þ ¼
16:00, and the interaction of groups  blocks, F ð5; 145Þ ¼ 3:93. Additional analyses
showed that the two groups differed on each block of trials (p < :01). Although all
subjects improved their performance as blocks went by, experimental students were
faster to find the platform than control students from the beginning and throughout
all blocks of trials. (A subsequent analysis including Group Experimental-Slow
showed that the three groups differed, F ð2; 37Þ ¼ 24:57; blocks of trials was also sig-
nificant, F ð5; 185Þ ¼ 26:22, as well as the interaction of groups  blocks of trials,
F ð10; 185Þ ¼ 2:19. Additional analysis showed that the three groups differed on each
block of trials: Group Control and Group Experimental-Slow, which did not differ,
both differed from Group Experimental. Although all subjects improved their
272 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

Fig. 4. Mean escape latencies of the two groups (Group Experimental and Group Control) in Experiment
2 during the acquisition phase. The figure also shows the mean latencies of Group Experimental-Slow,
which was subsequently added.

performance as blocks went by, experimental students were faster to find the plat-
form than both control and experimental-slow students from the beginning and
throughout all blocks of trials.)
Fig. 5 shows the time spent in the platform quadrant by the two main groups,
Group Experimental and Group Control, and also by Group Experimental-Slow
during the test trial, and whether each groupÕs performance differed significantly
from chance (15 s). Only Group ControlÕs performance differed significantly from
chance on this trial, tð14Þ ¼ 6:15, thus reflecting spatial learning. An analysis of var-
iance confirmed that the two main groups differed, F ð1; 29Þ ¼ 30:41. Control sub-
jects spent significantly more time searching for the platform in the relevant
quadrant than did experimental subjects. (A subsequent analysis including Group
Experimental-Slow showed that the three groups differed, F ð2; 37Þ ¼ 13:43. Addi-
tional Newman–Keuls comparisons showed that Group Experimental and Group
Experimental-Slow, which did not differ, both differed from Group Control.)
In conclusion, locale or landmark-based learning was overshadowed by simple
guidance.

Experiment 3

Experiment 2 has an alternative explanation in terms of generalization decre-

ment. It is arguable that in Experiment 2 the students trained with the visible
platform (Group Experimental) may have performed less accurately on the test
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 273

Fig. 5. Mean time spent in the platform quadrant by the two groups (Group Experimental and Group
Control) in Experiment 2 during the test trial. The figure also shows the mean time spent by Group Ex-
perimental-Slow, which was subsequently added. Error bars denote standard error of means.

trial than the students trained with the invisible platform (Group Control) be-
cause the configuration of landmarks also included the sight of the platform.
Thus, the response learned to the configuration formed by A, B, C, D, and the
platform did not transfer perfectly to a different stimulus on the test trial (formed
by A, B, C, and D only). In order to test this explanation, two visible platforms
(a safe one and a false one) of different colors were simultaneously used for all
subjects during training in Experiment 3. With this manipulation, both groups ex-
perienced the same disruption between the acquisition trials and the test trial (i.e.,
the removal of both visible platforms), and any difference found on the test trial
between the two groups could not be attributed to an explanation in terms of
generalization decrement. For Group Experimental only, one color could be used
to identify the location of the safe platform; but for Group Control the two col-
ors were equally bad predictors of the safe platform. Thus, for Group Experimen-
tal there were two sources of information available in order to find the safe
platform, the color of the safe platform and the landmarks, while for Group Con-
trol, there was only one source of information available to find the safe platform,
the landmarks.
274 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

Method

Subjects and apparatus

The subjects were 37 psychology students at the University of Barcelona with an
age of 22–24 years. They were assigned at random to one of two groups: Group Ex-
perimental (with 18 students) and Group Control (with 19 students). They were na-
ive about the hypothesis of the experiment in which they participated as volunteers
and received course credit for their participation. The experiment was conducted in
the same room and with the same equipment as used in the previous experiments.

Procedure
The general procedure was the same as in Experiment 2, although with several ex-
ceptions. In acquisition, two platforms (a safe one and a false one) of different color
were visible for both groups. The two platforms could be either between landmarks
A and B or between landmarks C and D, with the two colors counterbalanced in re-
lation to these two positions. This phase consisted of 24 trials. For Group Experi-
mental, one specific color could be used as a signal for the safe platform and the
alternate color as a signal for the false platform, while for Group Control the two
colors of the platforms were equally bad predictors for both the safe and the false
platforms (i.e., for Group Experimental both the landmarks and one platform color
indicated the safe platform, while for Group Control only the landmarks indicated
the safe platform). Each student was given 60 s to find the safe platform, and once
he/she had found it, the pleasant melody was played for 3 s, and the trial ended.
Reaching the false platform had no effect. If he/she failed to find the safe platform
in 60 s, the unpleasant melody was played for 3 s, and the trial ended. The students
were placed in the middle of the pool facing in a different direction on each trial, as in
the previous experiments. At the end of training, all subjects received one test trial
without any platform. The general procedure for this trial was exactly the same as
in the previous experiments. The amount of time the students spent in the correct
quadrant was recorded.

Results and discussion

Fig. 6 shows the mean escape latencies of the two groups during acquisition. An
analysis of variance, with groups (E–C) and blocks of trials (1–12) as factors, re-
vealed significant effects of groups, F ð1; 35Þ ¼ 13:56, and blocks, F ð11; 385Þ ¼
10:39, but the interaction of groups  blocks was not significant, F < 1:5. The main
result of subsequent t tests was that block 2 differed from all the other blocks. Nei-
ther of the two groups improved its performance as blocks went by, although from
the beginning of this phase and throughout all blocks of trials, experimental students
were faster than control students.
Fig. 7 shows the time in the platform quadrant of the two groups during the test
trial trial. Neither group differed significantly from chance on the test trial, thus re-
flecting no spatial learning. An analysis of variance showed that the two groups did
not differ.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 275

Fig. 6. Mean escape latencies of the two groups (Group Experimental and Group Control) in Experiment
3 during the acquisition phase.

Experiment 4

In Experiment 3, no overshadowing effect was found and, equally importantly,

the performance of the students in both groups did not reflect significant spatial
learning on the test trial. We questioned the worth of both the acquisition task
and the dependent variable we had used (i.e., time to reach the safe platform
when two platforms are visible, one safe and one false). Therefore, in Experiment
4, the acquisition task used in Experiment 3 was converted into a discrimination
task. In this task, reaching either of the two platforms ended the ongoing trial. If
the platform reached was the safe one, the trial was scored as correct; if it was
the false one, the trial was scored as incorrect (i.e., mistakes were not allowed).
Percent correct choices to find the safe platform was used as the new dependent
variable.

Subjects and apparatus

The subjects were 24 psychology students at the University of Barcelona with an

age of 22–24 years. They were assigned at random to one of two groups: Group
Experimental (with 12 students) and Group Control (with 12 students). They were
naive about the hypothesis of the experiment in which they participated as
volunteers, and received course credit for their participation. The experiment was
conducted in the same room and with the same equipment as in the previous
experiments.
276 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

Fig. 7. Mean time spent in the platform quadrant by the two groups (Group Experimental and Group
Control) in Experiment 3 during the test trial. Error bars denote standard error of means.

Procedure

The general procedure was exactly the same as in Experiment 3, with one main
exception. A discrimination procedure was used in the acquisition phase. Each stu-
dent was given 60 s to reach the safe platform, and once he/she had found it, the
pleasant melody was played for 3 s, and the trial ended. But if he/she first reached
the false platform, then the unpleasant melody was played for three seconds, and
the trial ended. The dependent variable measured was percent correct instead of la-
tency to find the correct platform as in Experiment 3.

Results and discussion

Fig. 8 shows the mean percent of correct choices of the two groups during acqui-
sition. An analysis of variance, with groups (Exp–Con) and blocks of trials (1–12) as
factors, revealed significant effects of groups, F ð1; 22Þ ¼ 13:08, and of blocks of tri-
als, F ð11; 242Þ ¼ 7:16. The students in the overshadowing group learned the discrim-
ination faster than the students in the control group, and both groups improved their
performance as blocks went by, as in Experiment 2.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 277

Fig. 8. Mean percent of correct choices of the two groups in Experiment 3 during the acquisition phase.

Fig. 9 shows the time spent in the platform quadrant by each group during the test
trial, and whether each group differed significantly from chance (15 s). Only the Con-
trol GroupÕs performance differed significantly from chance on this trial,
tð11Þ ¼ 2:59, thus reflecting spatial learning. An analysis of variance confirmed that
the two groups differed, F ð1; 22Þ ¼ 5:41. Thus, the results showed, as in Experiment
2, that a clear overshadowing effect was obtained: Control subjects spent signifi-
cantly more time searching for the platform in the platform quadrant than did exper-
imental subjects. Locale or landmark-based learning was overshadowed by simple
guidance, and this effect could not be explained in terms of generalization decrement.

General discussion

Experiment 1 showed that students trained in a virtual Morris water task with
four landmarks present that, along with the platform, virtually rotated from trial
to trial, learned to locate the platform: they spent more time in the platform quad-
rant than expected by chance on a test trial. The control exerted by different subsets
of these landmarks was different. When tested with four or two landmarks (either
relatively near or far from the platform), the studentsÕ performance was equivalent
and significantly better than that obtained with one landmark only (either relatively
near or far from the platform). Experiment 2 showed landmark-based overshadow-
ing by simple guidance (the visible platform). The aim of Experiment 3 was to
eliminate an alternative explanation of overshadowing in terms of generaliza-
tion decrement. That purpose was finally accomplished in Experiment 4, where a
278 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

Fig. 9. Mean time spent in the platform quadrant by the two groups in Experiment 3 during the test trial.
Error bars denote standard error of means.

discrimination task was used. The clear implication of these experiments is that the
mechanism responsible for locale or landmark-based learning in humans, at least
when using a virtual Morris water task, seems to be clearly associative, since it inter-
acts with guidance learning in the same way as the conditioning of a light interacts
with the conditioning of a tone (Kamin, 1969). Therefore, the present study contrib-
utes to the growing body of evidence that demonstrates that the general laws of
learning apply to many species, both in the spatial and temporal domains (for dem-
onstrations of spatial overshadowing among landmarks with pigeons and humans
using a touch-screen procedure and computer-generated landmarks, see Spetch,
1995; with rats and using a Morris pool, S anchez-Moreno, Rodrigo, Chamizo, &
Mackintosh, 1999; and with humans and using a virtual navigation task, Hamilton,
Driscoll, & Sutherland, submitted)
Another example of the claim that locale or landmark-based learning and simple
guidance do interact in a traditional way, with non-human subjects, comes from a
study by Roberts and Pearce (1998). Roberts and Pearce (1998) carried out a series
of experiments to compare control by a stationary landmark with that by a moving
one on ratsÕ performance. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, rats had to find a hidden plat-
form which was both at a certain distance and specific direction from a moving ob-
ject, a beacon. The platform position varied from one session to the next, although
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 279

the spatial relationship between the landmark and the platform was kept constant.
The results demonstrated that in order to obtain information about both the direc-
tion and the distance of a hidden goal, rats could use the beacon that moved from
session to session as a reference point. In Experiments 4 and 5, different groups of
rats were asked to navigate to a hidden platform by using a reference point, a bea-
con, that could be either stationary or that moved from session to session. According
to Biegler and Morris (1996), the control acquired by a fixed point of reference
should always be higher than that acquired by a moving one. An associative expla-
nation in terms of relative validity predicts exactly the opposite result. The results
showed that the control acquired by a point of reference that moved from one ses-
sion to the next was superior to that obtained by a stationary one (Experiment 4).
When a subsequent experiment, Experiment 5, was carried out in order to eliminate
an alternative explanation in terms of generalization decrement, the same results
were replicated. The results of Roberts and Pearce (1998) can be understood as a
clear demonstration of landmark-based overshadowing by guidance learning: the
presence of a second relevant source of information, the objects or landmarks in
the room (‘‘fixed beacon’’ condition), caused the animals to learn less about the first
source, the beacon, than they did when trained on the first source, the beacon, rele-
vant in isolation (‘‘moving beacon’’ condition). Contrary to the predictions by Bie-
gler and Morris (1993, 1996), Roberts and Pearce concluded that the conditions for
spatial learning are not necessarily different from those observed when non-spatial
tasks are used. But, as we have already seen, that is not always the case (Pearce et
al., 2001; Pearce et al., 2003; and Brown et al., 2003.)
In conditioning experiments, the degree of overshadowing depends on the relative
salience, or relative difficulty, of both the overshadowing and the overshadowed
stimuli. More salient cues or easier discriminations are more likely to overshadow
less salient or more difficult ones, rather than vice versa (for example, Mackintosh,
1976; Miles & Jenkins, 1973). But surprisingly, in the Chamizo et al. (1985, Exper-
iment 3) study, it was the less salient cues or harder extra-maze discrimination that
overshadowed the more salient cues or easier intra-maze discrimination, and not vice
versa. The subsequent study by March et al. (1992) addressed this question. Exper-
iment 1 in the March et al. (1992) study was a replication of Experiment 3 in the
Chamizo et al. study, and again the same result was found: extra-maze cues signif-
icantly overshadowed learning about intra-maze cues, but not vice versa. The au-
thors then asked, why extra-maze discrimination prevented overshadowing by
intra-maze cues. It was suggested that perhaps the reason had to do with differences
in the schedule of reinforcement during training (Wagner, 1969). In fact, Group In-
tra+Extra made more correct choices during discriminative training than did Group
Extra, and perhaps learning occurred mainly on these reinforced trials. Conse-
quently, Experiment 2 of this study tested the hypothesis that the apparent failure
of intra-maze cues to overshadow extra-maze cues in the previous study was an ar-
tefactual consequence of training animals on an extra-maze discrimination with a
single rewarded location and five unrewarded locations (while the intra-maze dis-
crimination had a single rewarded alternative and a single unrewarded alternative).
Experiment 2 reversed the procedure: animals were trained on an extra-maze
280 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281

discrimination with five rewarded locations and one unrewarded location. Although
the results showed an overshadowing effect, this effect could also be an artifact of
differences in the schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 3 was conducted to elimi-
nate differences between the groups in the schedule of reinforcement during acquisi-
tion. For that purpose, placement trials were used to solve that problem. There were
two groups of animals: Intra+Extra and Extra+. Animals were alternately placed on
S+ and rewarded, and then on S) and non-rewarded. The two groups were tested
with free-choice test trials and with extra- maze cues. The results of Experiment 3
showed a clear overshadowing effect which could not be attributed to any difference
between groups in their history of reinforcement.
In conclusion, contrary to some claims by OÕKeefe and Nadel (1978)—that locale
learning occurs non-associatively, in an all-or-none manner, and that animals con-
stantly update their cognitive map of their environment-, the results of the present
study both support the alternative proposal and extend it to humans. The results
are consistent with an error-correcting associative rule (Mackintosh, 1975; Rescorla
& Wagner, 1972) and suggest that knowledge about spatial location is acquired in
the same way as knowledge about other relations between events.

References

Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women
in a virtual Morris water task. Behavioral Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
Biegler, R., & Morris, R. G. M. (1993). Landmark stability is a prerequisite for spatial but not
discrimination learning. Nature, 361, 631–633.
Biegler, R., & Morris, R. G. M. (1996). Landmark stability: Further studies pointing to a role in spatial
learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 307–345.
Brown, M. F., Yang, S. Y., & DiGian, K. A. (2003). No evidence for overshadowing or facilitation of
spatial pattern learning by visual cues. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 363–375.
Chamizo, V. D., Sterio, D., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1985). Blocking and overshadowing between intra-maze
and extra-maze cues: A test of the independence of locale and guidance learning. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 37B, 235–253.
Chamizo, V. D. (2003). Acquisition of knowledge about spatial location: Assessing the generality of the
mechanism of learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 102–113.
Cheng, K. (1986). A purely geometric module in the ratÕs spatial representation. Cognition, 23, 149–178.
Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamilton, D. A., Driscoll, I., & Sutherland, R. J. (2002). Human place learning in a virtual Morris water
task: Some important constrains on the flexibility of place navigation. Behavioural Brain Research, 129,
159–170.
Hamilton, D.A., Driscoll, I., & Sutherland, R.J. (submitted). Overshadowing in human place learning:
Effects of relative stimulus proximity and intensity.
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell, & R. M.
Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Overshadowing and stimulus intensity. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 186–192.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of of stimuli with
reinforcement. Psychological Review, 101, 587–607.
Mackintosh, N. J., & Chamizo, V. D. (Eds.). (2002). Spatial learning and cognition [Special issue].
Psicol ogica, 23.
March, J., Chamizo, V. D., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1992). Reciprocal overshadowing between intra-maze
and extra-maze cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45B, 49–63.
 V.D. Chamizo et al. / Learning and Motivation 34 (2003) 262–281 281

Miles, C. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1973). Overshadowing in operant conditioning as a function of

discriminability. Learning & Motivation, 4, 11–27.
Morris, R. G. M. (1981). Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learning &
Motivation, 12, 239–260.
OÕKeefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J., Ward-Robinson, J., Good, M., Fussell, C., & Aydin, A. (2001). Influence of a beacon on spatial
learning based on the shape of the test environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal
Behavior Processes, 27, 329–344.
Pearce, J. M., McGregor, A., Good, M. A., & Hayward, A. (2003). Absence of overshadowing and
blocking between landmarks and the geometric cues provided by the shape of a test arena. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 114–126.
Redhead, E. S., Roberts, A. D. L., Good, M., & Pearce, J. (1997). Interaction between piloting and beacon
homing by rats in a swimming pool. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,
23, 340–350.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the
efectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black, & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical
conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Restle, F. (1957). Discrimination of cues in mazes: a resolution of the Ôplace-vs-responseÕ question.
Psychological Review, 65, 77–91.
Roberts, A. D. L., & Pearce, J. (1998). Control of spatial behavior by an unstable landmark. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 172–184.
Roberts, A. D. L., & Pearce, J. (1999). Blocking in the Morris swimming pool. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 225–235.
Rodrigo, T., Chamizo, V. D., McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1997). Blocking in the spatial
domain. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 110–118.
Sanchez-Moreno, J., Rodrigo, T., Chamizo, V. D., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1999). Overshadowing in the
spatial domain. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 391–398.
Spetch, M. L. (1995). Overshadowing in landmark learning: Touch-screen studies with pigeons and
humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 166–181.
Wagner, A. R. (1969). Incidental stimuli and discrimination learning. In R. M. Gilbert, & N. S. Sutherland
(Eds.), Animal discrimination learning. London, New York: Academic Press.
Whishaw, I. Q., & Mittleman, G. (1986). Visits to starts, routes, and places by rats (Rattus norvegicus) in
swimming pool navigation tasks. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 422–431.