Literature DB >> 25706544

Monkey visual short-term memory directly compared to humans.

L Caitlin Elmore1, Anthony A Wright1.   

Abstract

Two adult rhesus monkeys were trained to detect which item in an array of memory items had changed using the same stimuli, viewing times, and delays as used with humans. Although the monkeys were extensively trained, they were less accurate than humans with the same array sizes (2, 4, & 6 items), with both stimulus types (colored squares, clip art), and showed calculated memory capacities of about 1 item (or less). Nevertheless, the memory results from both monkeys and humans for both stimulus types were well characterized by the inverse power-law of display size. This characterization provides a simple and straightforward summary of a fundamental process of visual short-term memory (STM; how VSTM declines with memory load) that emphasizes species similarities based upon similar functional relationships. By more closely matching monkey testing parameters to those of humans, the similar functional relationships strengthen the evidence suggesting similar processes underlying monkey and human VSTM. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25706544      PMCID: PMC4339215          DOI: 10.1037/xan0000050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn        ISSN: 2329-8456            Impact factor:   2.478


  28 in total

1.  Change detection.

Authors:  Ronald A Rensink
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity.

Authors:  N Cowan
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 12.579

3.  The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects.

Authors:  G A Alvarez; P Cavanagh
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-02

4.  Variability in encoding precision accounts for visual short-term memory limitations.

Authors:  Ronald van den Berg; Hongsup Shin; Wen-Chuang Chou; Ryan George; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Change detection by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia).

Authors:  L Caitlin Elmore; John F Magnotti; Jeffrey S Katz; Anthony A Wright
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 2.231

6.  Discrete-slots models of visual working-memory response times.

Authors:  Christopher Donkin; Robert M Nosofsky; Jason M Gold; Richard M Shiffrin
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity.

Authors:  Edward K Vogel; Maro G Machizawa
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Factorial comparison of working memory models.

Authors:  Ronald van den Berg; Edward Awh; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  An ideal observer analysis of visual working memory.

Authors:  Chris R Sims; Robert A Jacobs; David C Knill
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  No evidence for an item limit in change detection.

Authors:  Shaiyan Keshvari; Ronald van den Berg; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 4.475

View more
  7 in total

1.  Dissociations of the number and precision of visual short-term memory representations in change detection.

Authors:  Weizhen Xie; Weiwei Zhang
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-11

2.  Recency memory effects in Macaques during sequential delayed match-to-sample task with visual noise.

Authors:  Ryosuke Kuboki; Narihisa Matsumoto; Yasuko Sugase-Miyamoto; Tsuyoshi Setogawa; Barry J Richmond; Munetaka Shidara
Journal:  Neurosci Res       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 3.304

3.  Chimpanzees flexibly update working memory contents and show susceptibility to distraction in the self-ordered search task.

Authors:  Christoph J Völter; Roger Mundry; Josep Call; Amanda M Seed
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Pigeons exhibit flexibility but not rule formation in dimensional learning, stimulus generalization, and task switching.

Authors:  Ellen M O'Donoghue; Matthew B Broschard; Edward A Wasserman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 2.478

5.  Greater dependence on working memory and restricted familiarity in orangutans compared with rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Ryan J Brady; Jennifer M Mickelberg; Robert R Hampton
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.699

Review 6.  Perceptual rivalry across animal species.

Authors:  Olivia Carter; Bruno van Swinderen; David A Leopold; Shaun P Collin; Alexander Maier
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 3.028

7.  Establishing an infrastructure for collaboration in primate cognition research.

Authors:  Drew M Altschul; Michael J Beran; Manuel Bohn; Josep Call; Sarah DeTroy; Shona J Duguid; Crystal L Egelkamp; Claudia Fichtel; Julia Fischer; Molly Flessert; Daniel Hanus; Daniel B M Haun; Lou M Haux; R Adriana Hernandez-Aguilar; Esther Herrmann; Lydia M Hopper; Marine Joly; Fumihiro Kano; Stefanie Keupp; Alicia P Melis; Alba Motes Rodrigo; Stephen R Ross; Alejandro Sánchez-Amaro; Yutaro Sato; Vanessa Schmitt; Manon K Schweinfurth; Amanda M Seed; Derry Taylor; Christoph J Völter; Elizabeth Warren; Julia Watzek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.