本研究以神經毒素ibotenic acid破壞不同尾核區域以及鋰鹽去價值程序為操弄變項，觀測此兩種實驗操弄對於大鼠之迷津行為之影響，進而探討標誌系統之行為內涵及神經機制。實驗所採用的作業為線索學習作業以及自我中心作業，分別代表標誌系統下的線索導引策略及體位導向策略。實驗一及實驗二在於檢驗尾核功能缺損對於大鼠迷津行為之影響，從探測嘗試發現大鼠在線索學習的行為表現需依賴砂紙線索的導引，而在自我中心作業之行為則不以環境刺激為依據（實驗一A、二A），顯示大鼠在各迷津作業的行為符合標誌系統的運作原則。神經機制之操弄結果顯示在記憶習得階段，尾核破壞之受試在線索學習作業上的表現並沒有顯著變差，尾核功能缺損並未導致學習的延宕或阻斷，其進步的速度仍與控制組相同（實驗一B）。相較於線索學習作業，尾核破壞之受試在自我中心作業上的表現則明顯變差，幾乎沒有進步的趨勢（實驗二B）。而在記憶保持階段，不管是線索學習作業或自我中心作業之表現皆會因尾核破壞而顯著變差（實驗一C、二C）。實驗三及實驗四則利用鋰鹽去價值程序降低食餌之誘因價值，觀測大鼠行為有無相對應改變。結果發現去價值程序的操弄只會影響到大鼠在自我中心作業的行為表現（實驗四），而不影響其在線索學習作業之行為（實驗三）。由此可知，兩種迷津作業所形成的記憶表徵是不同的，自我中心學習歷程會將增強物表徵在聯結單位中，而線索學習之習得歷程則不會。綜合上述實驗結果，標誌系統下確實有兩個不同空間行為機制，一個為線索導引策略，另一個為體位導向策略，雖皆受到尾核的調節，但調節的程度是不同的。不管是記憶習得或保持階段，尾核在體位導向策略的運作中皆扮演重要的角色，而在線索導引策略只參與了記憶保持歷程的運作。另外，兩個空間行為機制在學習內涵上也不盡相同，以線索導引策略為依據之空間行為會形成刺激反應(S-R)的聯結型態，而以體位導向策略為依據之空間行為則會形成反應及增強物(R-S*)聯結。 / This study investigated the neurobehavioral mechanisms of taxon system of spatial memory through manipulating lesions of subareas in the caudate nucleus by ibotenic acid and lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced reward devaluation. With respect to behavioral measurement in an eight-arm radial maze, a cue learning task and an egocentric task were used for testing the guidance and orientation hypotheses of taxon system, respectively. Data from probing procedures showed that the performance of rats in the cue learning task was impaired when the cue was removed, but the performance in the egocentric task was not affected by changing the context (Experiments 1A and 2A). These results indicate that behavior reactions in two tasks are corresponding to those two operational principles of taxon system. In terms of the acquisition, deficits were significantly produced by the lesion of the dorsomedial caudate on egocentric task, while the ibotenate lesions did not affect cue learning task (Experiments 1B and 2B). For retention test, the performances in both cue learning and egocentric tasks were impaired by dorsomedial caudate lesion, no such impairment was observed from dorsolateral and posterolateral caudate lesions (Experiments 1C and 2C). In the third and fourth experiments, LiCl devaluation procedure was employed to lower the reward value of the bait in the maze. This manipulation significantly impaired the performance of egocentric task but not that of the cue learning task. These results indicate that the memory representations in the two tasks used in the present study are different. The memory representation in the egocentric task contains the reinforcer, whereas that in the cue learning task is not necessarily relevant to the reinforcer. In conclusion, the guidance and orientation hypotheses can be differentiated as behavioral mechanisms existing in the taxon system of spatial memory. Although the caudate nucleus is critically important for the operation of both hypotheses, the degrees of this brain site to get involved are different. The caudate nucleus participates in the acquisition and retention of orientation hypothesis, but only in the retention of guidance hypothesis. In addition, behavioral performance of the spatial memory using guidance hypothesis is based on forming the association of stimulus and response (S-R), while that using orientation hypothesis is based on forming the association of response and reinforcer (R-S*).