Rhesus monkeys are widely used as an animal model for human memory, including visual working memory (VWM). It is, however, unknown whether the same principles govern VWM in humans and rhesus monkeys. Here, we tested both species in nearly identical change-localization paradigms and formally compared the same set of models of VWM limitations. These models include the classic item-limit model and recent noise-based (resource) models, as well as hybrid models that combine a noise-based representation with an item limit. By varying the magnitude of the change in addition to the typical set size manipulation, we were able to show large differences in goodness of fit among the five models tested. In spite of quantitative performance differences between the species, we find that the variable-precision model--a noise-based model--best describes the behavior of both species. Adding an item limit to this model does not help to account for the data. Our results suggest evolutionary continuity of VWM across primates and help establish the rhesus monkey as a model system for studying the neural substrates of multiple-item VWM.

Since sensory measurements are noisy, an observer is rarely certain about the identity of a stimulus. In visual perception tasks, observers generally take their uncertainty about a stimulus into account when doing so helps task performance. Whether the same holds in visual working memory tasks is largely unknown. Ten human and two monkey subjects localized a single change in orientation between a sample display containing three ellipses and a test display containing two ellipses. To manipulate uncertainty, we varied the reliability of orientation information by making each ellipse more or less elongated (two levels); reliability was independent across the stimuli. In both species, a variable-precision encoding model equipped with an “uncertainty–indifferent” decision rule, which uses only the noisy memories, fitted the data poorly. In both species, a much better fit was provided by a model in which the observer also takes the levels of reliability-driven uncertainty associated with the memories into account. In particular, a measured change in a low-reliability stimulus was given lower weight than the same change in a high-reliability stimulus. We did not find strong evidence that observers took reliability-independent variations in uncertainty into account. Our results illustrate the importance of studying the decision stage in comparison tasks and provide further evidence for evolutionary continuity of working memory systems between monkeys and humans.

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....

No abstract