Some pitfalls in measuring memory in animals.

Because the presence or absence of memories in the brain cannot be directly observed, scientists must rely on indirect measures and use inferential reasoning to make statements about the status of memories. In humans, memories are often accessed through spoken or written language. In animals, memory is accessed through overt behaviours such as running down an arm in a maze, pressing a lever, or visiting a food cache site. Because memory is measured by these indirect methods, errors in the veracity of statements about memory can occur. In this brief paper, we identify three areas that may serve as pitfalls in reasoning about memory in animals: (1) the presence of 'silent associations', (2) intrusions of species-typical behaviours on memory tasks, and (3) improper mapping between human and animals memory tasks. There are undoubtedly other areas in which scientists should act cautiously when reasoning about the status of memory.