Cebus monkeys were trained on a five-item serial learning task, symbolized as ABCDE; the initial stages of training were on the shorter subseries AB, ABC, and ABCD. To assess the monkeys' knowledge of the sequential position of each item, pair-wise tests were given to 2 subjects after acquisition of the ABCD series and to 4 subjects after reaching criterion on the ABCDE series. In both tests, the monkeys performed at high levels on the interior pairs, which were BC for the ABCD series, and BC, BD, and CD for the ABCDE series. These results, as well as the orderly relations observed in the pair-wise tests between first-item response latency and first-item position and between second-item response latency and number of missing items, indicated that the monkeys had developed a well-organized internal representation of the four- and five-item series. Although pigeons are also capable of learning four-item and five-item series, they apparently do not develop a comparable representational structure. The disparity between the monkeys' and pigeons' representational competence for serial order is predictable from the difference in their capacities for associative transitivity.
Are we born amoral or do we come into this world with a rudimentary moral compass? Hamlin and colleagues argue that at least one component of our moral system, the ability to evaluate other individuals as good or bad, is present from an early age. In their study, 6- and 10-month-old infants watched two social interactions - in one, infants observed the helper assist the climber achieve the goal of ascending a hill, while in the other, infants observed the hinderer prevent the climber from ascending the hill. When given a choice, the vast majority of infants picked the helper over the hinderer, suggesting that infants evaluated the helper as good and the hinderer as bad. Hamlin and colleagues concluded that the ability to evaluate individuals based on social interaction is innate. Here, we provide evidence that their findings reflect simple associations rather than social evaluations.
Although many animals are able to discriminate stimuli differing in numerosity, only primates are thought to share our ability to employ abstract numerical rules. Here, we show that this ability is present in pigeons and that their performance is indistinguishable from that displayed by monkeys.
Episodic memory endows us with the ability to reflect on our past and plan for our future. Most theorists argue that episodic memory emerges during the preschool period and that its emergence might herald the end of childhood amnesia. Here, we show that both 3- and 4-year-old children form episodic memories, but that 3-year-old children fail to retain those memories following a delay (Experiments 1 and 2). In contrast, 4-year-old children retained episodic memories over delays of 24 hr (Experiment 1) and 1 week (Experiment 3). This marked change in the retention of episodic memories between 3 and 4 years of age suggests that it is our ability to retain, rather than to form, an episodic memory that limits our ability to recall episodes from early childhood.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The reported activity was modulated by the temporal devaluation of the anticipated reward in addition to reward amount. Our findings contribute to the understanding of neuropathologies such as drug addiction, pathological gambling, frontal lobe syndrome, and attention-deficit disorders, which are characterized by inappropriate temporal discounting and increased impulsiveness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.