Auditory matching-to-sample in monkeys (Cebus apella)

D’Amato, M. R.; Colombo, Michael

doi:10.3758/bf03208013

Cited by 73 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This kind of difference has been demonstrated by D’Amato and Colombo (1985; Colombo and D’Amato 1986), who found that capuchin monkeys had difficulty remembering target sounds across delay intervals in a matching-to-sample task that the animals could readily perform with visual stimuli. Such performance differences are well-documented in rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ) in particular, with these monkeys being much slower to master auditory compared to visual short-term memory tasks, and showing dramatically shorter retention durations in the former than the latter (see Ng et al 2009 for a recent review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) use positive, but not negative, auditory cues to infer food location

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonhuman primates appear to capitalize more effectively on visual cues than corresponding auditory versions. For example, studies of inferential reasoning have shown that monkeys and apes readily respond to seeing that food is present (“positive” cuing) or absent (“negative” cuing). Performance is markedly less effective with auditory cues, with many subjects failing to use this input. Extending recent work, we tested eight captive tufted capuchins (Cebus apella) in locating food using positive and negative cues in visual and auditory domains. The monkeys chose between two opaque cups to receive food contained in one of them. Cup contents were either shown or shaken, providing location cues from both cups, positive cues only from the baited cup, or negative cues from the empty cup. As in previous work, subjects readily used both positive and negative visual cues to secure reward. However, auditory outcomes were both similar to and different from those of earlier studies. Specifically, all subjects came to exploit positive auditory cues, but none responded to negative versions. The animals were also clearly different in visual versus auditory performance. Results indicate that a significant proportion of capuchins may be able to use positive auditory cues, with experience and learning likely playing a critical role. These findings raise the possibility that experience may be significant in visually based performance in this task as well, and highlight that coming to grips with evident differences between visual versus auditory processing may be important for understanding primate cognition more generally.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) use positive, but not negative, auditory cues to infer food location

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because auditory perception and memory are crucial for key aspects of nonhuman primate ethology such as predator evasion and conspecific communication (e.g., Ghazanfar & Hauser, 2001), the relatively sparse auditory memory literature, including PI, constitutes a significant deficit in scientific understanding. One likely reason for the lack of experimental data in the auditory modality is that, unlike visual memory tasks, monkeys require extensive training to learn auditory memory tasks (Cohen, Russ, & Gifford, 2005; Colombo & D’Amato, 1986; D’Amato & Colombo, 1985; Fritz, Mishkin, & Saunders, 2005; Kojima, 1985; Scott, Mishkin, & Yin, 2012). For instance, Fritz et al (2005) reported that monkeys required ~15,000 trials to learn an auditory memory task, whereas Mishkin and Delacour (1975) reported that only ~500 trials were needed to learn a comparable visual memory task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory proactive interference in monkeys: The roles of stimulus set size and intertrial interval

Bigelow

Poremba

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted two experiments to examine the influence of stimulus set size (the number of stimuli that are used throughout the session) and intertrial interval (ITI, the elapsed time between trials) in auditory short-term memory in monkeys. We used an auditory delayed matching-to-sample task wherein the animals had to indicate whether two sounds separated by a 5-s retention interval were the same (match trials) or different (non-match trials). In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned a stimulus set size of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 192 (trial unique) for each session of 128 trials. Consistent with previous visual studies, overall accuracy was consistently lower when smaller stimulus set sizes were used. Further analyses revealed that these effects were primarily caused by an increase in incorrect “same” responses on non-match trials. In Experiment 2, we held the stimulus set size constant at four for each session and alternately set the ITI at 5, 10, or 20 s. Overall accuracy improved by increasing the ITI from 5 to 10 s, but the 10 and 20 s conditions were the same. As in Experiment 1, the overall decrease in accuracy during the 5-s condition was caused by a greater number of false “match” responses on non-match trials. Taken together, Experiments 1 and 2 show that auditory short-term memory in monkeys is highly susceptible to PI caused by stimulus repetition. Additional analyses from Experiment 1 suggest that monkeys may make same/different judgments based on a familiarity criterion that is adjusted by error-related feedback.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, auditory perception and memory in nonhuman primates are involved in vital ethological functions such as conspecific vocal communication Snowdon et al, 1982). The relatively sparse literature concerning auditory memory in monkeys may be attributable, in part, to the extensive training that monkeys require to learn auditory memory tasks (Bigelow and Poremba, 2014;Colombo and D'Amato, 1986;D'Amato and Colombo, 1985;Fritz et al, 2005;Kojima, 1985;Munoz-Lopez et al, 2010;Scott et al, 2012;Wright, 2007). For example, in a study by Fritz et al (2005), monkeys took approximately 30 times longer to learn an auditory STM task compared to a similar visual memory task (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%