Proactive interference, recency, and associative strength: Comparisons of black-capped chickadees and dark-eyed juncos

Hampton, Robert R.; Shettleworth, Sara J.; Westwood, Richard P.

doi:10.3758/bf03199241

Cited by 35 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such intrusions from long-term memory have been identified across many visual, auditory, and verbal memory tasks (Crowder, 1976;Hartshorne, 2008;Jacoby et al, 1989;Kane & Engle, 2000;Keppel & Underwood, 1962;Makovski & Jiang, 2008;Postle, Berger, Goldstein, Curtis, & D'Esposito, 2001;Visscher, Kahana, & Sekuler, 2009). Similar intrusions have been reported for nonhuman animals (monkeys, chimpanzees, rats, pigeons, and chickadees) in visual and auditory tasks (Bigelow & Poremba, 2013;Dunnett & Martel, 1990; , 1981Hampton, Shettleworth, & Westwood, 1998;Hayes & Thompson, 1953;Hogan, Edwards, & Zentall, 1981;Overman & Doty, 1980;Wright, 2007;Wright et al, 1986Wright et al, , 2012. Effects of past intrusions on working memory performance have for the most part focused on proactive interference (PI), but have been mostly limited to PI from the immediately preceding trial (Edhouse & White, 1988;Grant, 1975;Hogan et al, 1981;Makovski & Jiang, 2008;Reynolds & Medin, 1981;Worsham, 1975).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Devkar

Wright

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were tested in a same/different memory task for proactive interference (PI) from prior trials. PI occurs when a previous sample stimulus appears as a test stimulus on a later trial, does not match the current sample stimulus, and the wrong response Bsameî s made. Trial-unique pictures (scenes, objects, animals, etc.) were used on most trials, except on trials where the test stimulus matched potentially interfering sample stimulus from a prior trial (1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 trials prior). Greater interference occurred when fewer trials separated interference and test. PI functions showed a continuum of interference. Delays between sample and test stimuli and intertrial intervals were manipulated to test how PI might vary as a function of elapsed time. Contrary to a similar study with pigeons, these time manipulations had no discernable effect on the monkey's PI, as shown by compete overlap of PI functions with no statistical differences or interactions. These results suggested that interference was strictly based upon the number of intervening events (trials with other pictures) without regard to elapsed time. The monkeys' apparent event-based interference was further supported by retesting with a novel set of 1,024 pictures. PI from novel pictures 1 or 2 trials prior was greater than from familiar pictures, a familiar set of 1,024 pictures. Moreover, when potentially interfering novel stimuli were 16 trials prior, performance accuracy was actually greater than accuracy on baseline trials (no interference), suggesting that remembering stimuli from 16 trials prior was a cue that this stimulus was not the sample stimulus on the current trial-a somewhat surprising conclusion particularly given monkeys.Keywords Proactive interference . Visual working memory . Same/different . Long-term memory . Monkeys Picture memory or memory for photographic stimuli of animals, objects, and scenes can last for days, or seemingly be forgotten in a few seconds. For example, humans have been shown to remember over 2,000 images (90 % retention) even after 3 days of delay between learning and testing of 2,560 picture stimuli (Standing, Conezio, & Haber, 1970). In contrast, rhesus monkeys have been shown to forget a single picture after a mere 30-s delay (Overman & Doty, 1980). Surely, monkeys can remember things like multicolored pictures for more than 30 seconds! In that particular experiment, there were a small number of picture stimuli that were repeated many times within a session. In a second experiment, these researchers tested the same monkeys with a larger picture set of 100 familiar pictures, presented trial-unique within sessions. The monkeys performed substantially better, and even better (65 %) after a 24-hr delay than they had with a 30-s delay with the smaller repeated set of stimuli. Moreover, in a third experiment these researchers obtained even better performance (80 % after a 24-hr delay) when the picture stimuli were novel and presented trial-unique across the testing sessions....

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Devkar

Wright

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, it may be more beneficial for a nonmigrant to have only a short-term memory because this would reduce interference between old and newly memorized information (36). Our results suggest that the migratory lifestyle has shaped the evolution of particular cognitive abilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Long-term memory for a life on the move

Mettke-Hofmann

Gwinner

2003

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

111

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence is accumulating that cognitive abilities are shaped by the specific ecological conditions to which animals are exposed. Longdistance migratory birds may provide a striking example of this. Field observations have shown that, at least in some species, a substantial proportion of individuals return to the same breeding, wintering, and stopover sites in successive years. This observation suggests that migrants have evolved special cognitive abilities that enable them to accomplish these feats. Here we show that memory of a particular feeding site persisted for at least 12 months in a long-distance migrant, whereas a closely related nonmigrant could remember such a site for only 2 weeks. Thus, it seems that the migratory lifestyle has influenced the learning and memorizing capacities of migratory birds. These results build a bridge between field observations suggesting special memorization feats of migratory birds and previous neuroanatomical results from the same two species indicating an increase in relative hippocampal size from the first to the second year of life in the migrant but not in the nonmigrant.

show abstract

“…Similarly, the influence of PI has been widely reported in studies of memory processing in animals, including pigeons (Grant, 1975; Hogan, Edwards, & Zentall, 1981; Wright, Katz, & Ma, 2012), rats (De Rosa & Hasselmo, 2000; Dunnett & Martel, 1990; Gleitman & Jung, 1963; Grant, 1981), monkeys (Mishkin & Delacour, 1975; Overman & Doty, 1980; Wright, 2006, 2007), chimpanzees (Hayes & Thompson, 1953), chickadees (Hampton, Shettleworth, & Westwood, 1998), and dolphins (Herman, 1975; Thompson & Herman, 1981). With the exception of studies in dolphins, nearly all studies of PI in animals have focused on visual short-term memory (see further discussion below).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Auditory proactive interference in monkeys: The roles of stimulus set size and intertrial interval

Bigelow

Poremba

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted two experiments to examine the influence of stimulus set size (the number of stimuli that are used throughout the session) and intertrial interval (ITI, the elapsed time between trials) in auditory short-term memory in monkeys. We used an auditory delayed matching-to-sample task wherein the animals had to indicate whether two sounds separated by a 5-s retention interval were the same (match trials) or different (non-match trials). In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned a stimulus set size of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 192 (trial unique) for each session of 128 trials. Consistent with previous visual studies, overall accuracy was consistently lower when smaller stimulus set sizes were used. Further analyses revealed that these effects were primarily caused by an increase in incorrect “same” responses on non-match trials. In Experiment 2, we held the stimulus set size constant at four for each session and alternately set the ITI at 5, 10, or 20 s. Overall accuracy improved by increasing the ITI from 5 to 10 s, but the 10 and 20 s conditions were the same. As in Experiment 1, the overall decrease in accuracy during the 5-s condition was caused by a greater number of false “match” responses on non-match trials. Taken together, Experiments 1 and 2 show that auditory short-term memory in monkeys is highly susceptible to PI caused by stimulus repetition. Additional analyses from Experiment 1 suggest that monkeys may make same/different judgments based on a familiarity criterion that is adjusted by error-related feedback.

show abstract

Proactive interference, recency, and associative strength: Comparisons of black-capped chickadees and dark-eyed juncos

Cited by 35 publications

References 28 publications

Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Long-term memory for a life on the move

Auditory proactive interference in monkeys: The roles of stimulus set size and intertrial interval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About