1985
DOI: 10.1037/0097-7403.11.1.35
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extent and limits of the matching concept in monkeys (Cebus apella).

Abstract: This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

6
109
1

Year Published

1998
1998
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 149 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
6
109
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This performance is well above chance level and is consistent with the accuracy levels observed in other studies that have used comparable computerised matching-to-sample tasks with two comparison stimuli and no delay intervals (e.g., capuchins: 81.94% [43] and 78.2% [30]; gorillas and orangutans:…”
supporting
confidence: 89%
“…This performance is well above chance level and is consistent with the accuracy levels observed in other studies that have used comparable computerised matching-to-sample tasks with two comparison stimuli and no delay intervals (e.g., capuchins: 81.94% [43] and 78.2% [30]; gorillas and orangutans:…”
supporting
confidence: 89%
“…Second, it is known that exploration of novel stimuli in monkeys interferes with test performance (D'Amato, Salmon, & Colombo, 1985). In our study, test performance might be disturbed by an exploratory tendency, given the novel stimuli presented in the test trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…D'Amato, Salmon, & Colombo (1985) suggest that novelty of test stimulus interferes with discriminative responses by provoking exploring behavior toward the novel stimuli. If increasing familiarity of test stimuli contributed to a decrease of the interference effect on test performance, it would be expected that test performance with object F should improve with repetition of testing.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, early tests with pigeons uniformly failed to find MTS abstract-concept learning Cumming & Berryman, 1961;Cumming et al, 1965;D'Amato et al, 1985;Farthing & Opuda, 1974;Holmes, 1979). Indeed, these failures of MTS abstract-concept learning by pigeons provided a major stimulus for Premack's (1978) article.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%