Visual recognition memory in squirrel monkeys

Overman, William H.; McLain, Carol; Ormsby, Gail E.; Brooks, Virginia

doi:10.3758/bf03199805

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the past two years we have tested 12-to 36-month-old children and adult controls (college students) on DMS, DNMS, and object discrimination tasks. Our training procedures and apparatus were designed to resemble as closely as possible those used with adult monkeys (Mishkin, 1978;Overman et aL, 1983) and infant monkeys (Bachevalier & Mishkin, 1984). Children were tested with their parents' consent at local day-care and preschool facilities.…”

Section: Section 11: Results Of Testing Young Children On Dms Dnms mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As tested in the WGTA the DMS task is the same as the DNMS task regarding rewards, physical response, stimuli, and so forth; however, on the DMS task, the subject must return to the sample stimulus (match) on the comparison part of each trial. At first glance, the DMS task may seem to be simpler than the DNMS task because the subject is only required to return to the previously rewarded stimulus (win-stay); however, studies have shown that rhesus macaques (Mishkin & Delacour, 1975) as well as squirrel monkeys (Overman et al, 1983) require at least twice as many trials to learn DMS as DNMS.…”

Section: Delayed Matching To Sample Is Much More Diflcult For Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance on Traditional Matching to Sample, Non‐Matching to Sample, and Object Discrimination Tasks by 12‐ to 32‐Month‐Old Children

Overman

1990

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children 12 to 36 months old were tested on DMS, DNMS, and object discrimination tasks in a WGTA with procedures that closely followed those used previously with monkeys. Mastery of DNMS showed a clear developmental progression. The youngest children (12-15 months old) required extensive training, and they failed to reach criterion until they were 15-18 months old. The differentially slower learning of the youngest children cannot be attributed to "performance" deficits (perceptual, motivational, or associational inabilities) or the inability to make 2-part responses, because a test of object discrimination showed that even 12-month-old children can perform with accuracy in the WGTA testing situation. Analysis of learning curves along with additional tests of memory provided evidence that the youngest children are (1) less proficient in learning the novelty-reward rule and (2) less proficient in memory for a particular stimulus item. Furthermore, we found that a task that we think requires learning two rules, a DMS task, was even more difficult for children to master. These results together with data collected on brain-damaged humans and monkeys indicate that the DNMS and DMS tasks, when applied to children, may provide insight into the functional maturation of brain areas responsible for memory, rule-learning, and behavioral inhibition.

show abstract

Section: Section 11: Results Of Testing Young Children On Dms Dnms mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Delayed Matching To Sample Is Much More Diflcult For Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance on Traditional Matching to Sample, Non‐Matching to Sample, and Object Discrimination Tasks by 12‐ to 32‐Month‐Old Children

Overman

1990

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overman (1990) argued that Delayed MTS is harder than Delayed NMTS because it requires inhibiting a prepotent novelty preference. Indeed, animals tested in this version of Delayed MTS and NMTS also find NMTS much easier (Mishkin & Delacour, 1975; Overman et al, 1983) – in fact, animals are often tested only in NMTS for that reason. But a simple novelty preference should be found in all of the animal MTS and NMTS studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infants’ representations of same and different in match- and non-match-to-sample

Hochmann

Mody

Carey

2016

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated the representations that underlie 14-month-old infants’ and adults’ success at match-to-sample (MTS) and non-match-to-sample (NMTS) tasks. In Experiment 1, 14-month-old infants were able to learn rules based on abstract representations of sameness and/or difference. When presented with one of eighteen sample stimuli (A) and a choice between a stimulus that was the same as the sample (A) and a different stimulus (B), infants learned to choose A in MTS and B in NMTS. In Experiments 2 and 3, we began to explore the nature of the representations at play in these paradigms. Experiment 2 confirmed that abstract representations are at play, as infants generalized the MTS and NMTS rules to stimuli unseen during familiarization. Experiment 2 also showed that infants tested in MTS learned to seek the stimulus that was the same as the sample, whereas infants tested in NMTS did not learn to seek the different stimulus, but instead learned to avoid the stimulus that was the same as the sample. Infants appeared to only use an abstract representation of the relation same in these experiments. Experiment 3 showed that adult participants, despite knowing the words “same” and “different”, also relied on representations of sameness in both MTS and NMTS in a paradigm modeled on that of Experiment 2. We conclude with a discussion of how young infants may possibly represent the abstract relation same.

show abstract

“…If the whole list is immediately tested in its original order, not only is primacy absent, but the last items in the list lose their normal superiority in recall (Moss, Rosene, & Peters, 1988;Overman, McLain, Ormsby, & Brooks, 1983). The same-order testing procedure necessarily imposes a delay between presentation and test for every item, so the disappearance of "recency" under that condition implies that the effect depends on an item's being tested within a short time from its presentation, not on its having occurred near the end of a list.…”

Section: Determinants Of Primacy and Recency In Spatial And Nonspatiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Primacy, recency, and the variability of data in studies of animals’ working memory

Gaffan

1992

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance measures in many experiments on animal memory are expected to have an underlying binomial distribution, with additional variance contributed, for example, by betweensubject differences. This paper examines whether the data from published studies of serial position effects (primacy and recency) in animals' working memory conform to that expectation. In most cases, the variance, when it can be estimated, is consistent with those statistical assumptions, but in certain studies, it is significantly smaller than expected. This is usually a sign of faulty procedure or analysis, and possible causes are discussed. The conclusion is that much of the evidence for primacy in animals. is unsatisfactory, on statistical or other methodological grounds. The analytic approach outlined here might usefully be applied to detect potential problems with other experiments of a similar type, especially when manually operated apparatus is employed, and to improve their statistical power.In this paper, I describe a simple statistical approach and apply it to studies of serial position effects in animals' working memory. I therefore review and reevaluate previous investigations of serial position effects, as well as discuss how the statistical principles could be more widely exploited.In many experiments, animals have been required to remember sequences (lists) of items, either spatial (e. g. , arms of a radial maze) or nonspatial (e.g., objects, pictures, patterns). I concentrate here on working memory paradigms, in which different lists are presented on different trials and the animals' memory for the most recent list is assessed. It has been claimed that animals' performance under these conditions often resembles that of people in analogous tests of recall or recognition of items from lists of words or pictures (Wright & Watkins, 1987). In particular, animals are said to show, under appropriate conditions, both recency (superior memory for items nearer the end of the list) and primacy (better memory for items early in the list, rather than in the middle). (See the references below.)As Hitch (1983Hitch ( , 1985 has commented, primacy and recency have rather different status. Recency effects in working memory are readily obtained from both animal and human subjects, with whatever type of material is to be remembered, and Hitch suggests that they reflect similar processes (simple temporal decay, retroactive interference) in all of the species that have been tested. Consistent with the principle of temporal decay is the finding that items from the end of a list lose their advantage I thank D. Gaffan, P. T. Smith, V. M. LoLordo, and anonymous reviewers for helpful contributions to this paper. Correspondence should be sent to

show abstract

Visual recognition memory in squirrel monkeys

Cited by 21 publications

References 15 publications

Performance on Traditional Matching to Sample, Non‐Matching to Sample, and Object Discrimination Tasks by 12‐ to 32‐Month‐Old Children

Performance on Traditional Matching to Sample, Non‐Matching to Sample, and Object Discrimination Tasks by 12‐ to 32‐Month‐Old Children

Infants’ representations of same and different in match- and non-match-to-sample

Primacy, recency, and the variability of data in studies of animals’ working memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About