A Comparative Review of the Results of Neuropsychological Research on Man and Monkey

Drewe, E.A.; Ettlinger, G.; Milner, A. David; Passingham, Richard E.

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(70)80024-7

Cited by 45 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another potentially crucial difference in technique was their use of a two-dimensional display in which panels, rather than objects, constituted the stimuli.) These conclusions are consistent with a suggestion put forward by Drewe, Ettlinger, Milner, and Passingham (1970) that true matching tasks are, in the first place, tackled in a conditional fashion by simians. A transition in performance that might be called "insight" possibly occurred in Task 2 or 3 to cause the subsequent superiority of true over false matching groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Matching within and between sense modalities in the monkey (Macaca mulatta).

Ad¹

1973

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhesus monkeys were trained on a series of visual matching problems and tested for cross-dimensional transfer. Performance of a true matching group was at the same time compared with that of a "false matching" (i.e., conditional reaction) group. Training was then given on a series of cross-modal (visual-tactual) matching (CMM) problems, again with true vs. false matching comparisons. Finally, a test for CMM using a single-sample technique was given. Evidence was found for cross-dimensional transfer of visual matching, but none for differences between initial true and false visual, or cross-modal, matching tasks. Nor was evidence for a genuine CMM ability found in the results of the single-sample CMM tests.Ettlinger and Blakemore (1967) performed two experiments designed to test cross-modal matching (CMM) in the rhesus monkey. In neither experiment was evidence found for such matching. Although their animals were able to learn to select the matching choice object after responding to one or the other sample, they did so no more readily than animals trained to make their choice response conditional upon unrelated samples. (If sample = A, choose C; if sample = B, choose D. Such a "false matching" task can only be learned on a conditional reaction basis; if animals learned "true matching" tasks on such a basis they would be expected to do so at a similar rate.) More recently, however, Rogers (1970, 1971) have presented evidence for CMM in apes. After lengthy previous training, two chimpanzees and one orangutan were able to perform at a level significantly better than chance when presented with a series of 40 single-trial (thus excluding intraproblem learning) "junk object" CMM problems. In the second study 1 The author is grateful to G. Ettlinger and R. E. Passingham for their helpful suggestions at all stages of this work, and for their comments on the manuscript; he also thanks B. Frost for her assistance in the later stages of training. This report describes work done in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree (Milner, 1971). The research was supported by Medical Research Council, England, Grant G. 966/23/B.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to A.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Matching within and between sense modalities in the monkey (Macaca mulatta).

Ad¹

1973

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Denny-Brown & Chambers (1958) reported contralateral neglect in neurological examinations of monkeys that had received posterior parietal lesions. However, Ettlinger & Kalsbeck (1962), and Drewe, Ettlinger, Milner, & Passingham (1970) observed no evidence of visual neglect of single, unilateral stimuli. Heilman, Pandya, Karol, & Geschwind (1971) report trimodal neglect following lesions of the inferior parietal lobule and the banks of the superior temporal sulcus.…”

Section: Evidence From Experimental Posterior Parietal Lesions Inmentioning

confidence: 95%

The functional organization of posterior parietal association cortex

Lynch

1980

Behav Brain Sci

435

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Posterior parietal cortex has traditionally been considered to be a sensory association area in which higher-order processing and intermodal integration of incoming sensory information occurs. In this paper, evidence from clinical reports and from lesion and behavioral-electrophysiological experiments using monkeys is reviewed and discussed in relation to the overall functional organization of posterior parietal association cortex, and particularly with respect to a proposed posterior parietal mechanism concerned with the initiation and control of certain classes of eye and limb movements. Preliminary data from studies of the effects of posterior parietal lesions on oculomotor control in monkeys are reported.The behavioral effects of lesions of posterior parietal cortex in monkeys have been found to be similar to those which follow analogous damage of the minor hemisphere in humans, while behavioral-electrophysiological experiments have disclosed classes of neurons in this area which have functional properties closely related to the behavioral acts that are disrupted by lesions of the area. On the basis of current data from these areas of study, it is proposed that the sensory association model of posterior parietal function is inadequate to account for the complexities of the present evidence. Instead, it now appears that many diverse neural mechanisms are locatedin partin parietal cortex, that some of these mechanisms are involved in sensory processing and perceptual functions, but that others participate in motor control, and that still others are involved in attentional, motivational, or emotional processes. It is further proposed that the elementary units of these various neural mechanisms are distributed within posterior parietal cortex according to the columnar hypothesis of Mountcastle.

show abstract

“…He viewed the cross-modal problem as a discrete, emergent, "higher" level of function rather than as a phenomenon on a continuum with other kinds of information processing. Although persisting, this view was tempered in an article written in the light of later evidence (Drewe, Ettlinger, Milner, & Passingham, 1970). Most important were the discoveries of Davenport and Rogers (1970) and Davenport, Rogers, and Russell (1973), who found the means with apes to demonstrate cross-modal matching of form and transfer to new problems.…”

Section: Verbal Factors In Cross-modalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory, and deficit.

Freides¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

335

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between sensory modality and information processing was examined. Available hypotheses concerning modality influence were not supported, but an interaction between modality and information complexity could be discerned. With simpler information (reaction signals and unidimensional discriminations) modalities are equivalent; contextual and parametric factors determine intermodal relations. With complex information (spatial or temporal patterns) specific modalities are adept with certain kinds of information, and what is received in nonadept modalities is recoded in the most adept. Generalizations about modality-information interactions depend on control of response factors. Implications of data and generalizations for theories .of memory, for measuring deficit in pathology, and for resolving the nativismempiricism controversy are discussed.

show abstract

A Comparative Review of the Results of Neuropsychological Research on Man and Monkey

Cited by 45 publications

References 91 publications

Matching within and between sense modalities in the monkey (Macaca mulatta).

Matching within and between sense modalities in the monkey (Macaca mulatta).

The functional organization of posterior parietal association cortex

Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory, and deficit.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About