Comparative assessment of psychomotor performance: Target prediction by humans and macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Abstract

Although nonhuman primates such as rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have been useful models of many aspects of cognition and performance, it has been argued that, unlike humans, they may lack the capacity to respond as predictor-operators. Data from the present series of experiments undermine this claim, suggesting instead a continuity of predictive competency between humans and nonhuman primates. A prediction coefficient was devised to examine the degree to which each subject's response path approximated the optimal predictive strategy. Whereas human subjects (N = 30) generally predicted more accurately, rhesus monkeys (N = 10) also significantly anticipated the movements of the target in all conditions. It appears that humans and rhesus monkeys both exhibit the capacity to respond to where a stimulus is going.

Acquisition of an externalized eye by Japanese monkeys

“…Other criticisms might be raised that evidence of the sensory tool use in nonhuman has already been appeared previously, by arguing mirror use in macaques (Anderson 1986) and monitor use in macaques (Washburn and Rumbaugh 1992) and chimpanzees (Menzel et al 1985) as representative examples or even spiders utilizing the vibration on trap web would be an example of the sensory tool. However, we have clear reason to argue that these examples are not the evidence of sensory tool use in nonhuman animals.…”

Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) Maintain Learning Set Despite Second-Order Stimulus-Response Spatial Discontiguity

“…The monkey Baker was 20 years old, and the monkey Willie was 16 years old at the time of this experiment. These monkeys have extensive testing histories using the Language Research Center Computerized Test System (Rumbaugh et aI., 1989;Rumbaugh & Washburn, 1993;Washburn, 1994;,1991Washburn & Rumbaugh, 1991a, 1991b, 1992.…”

Representing space and objects in monkeys and apes

“…In order to do so appropriately, subjects not only had to chase the target, but also on many occasions they had to predict its location in order to ambush it since the target speed was equal or superior to the cursor. Washburn (1992) and Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992) found that subjects again were more effective at intercepting targets when they followed predictable compared to unpredictable paths. Analyses of their responses indicated that in the predictable condition, subjects learned to anticipate the location of the target, whereas in the unpredictable condition, they merely chased after the target.…”

“…Analyses of their responses indicated that in the predictable condition, subjects learned to anticipate the location of the target, whereas in the unpredictable condition, they merely chased after the target. Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992) reasoned that since rhesus monkeys learned to predict the movements of the target over thousands of trials, it was conceivable that they were responding to mere stimulus-response associations between cursor and target and not operating at a more general level of knowledge about the target's travel. In a final experiment, Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992) presented the target moving from the left to the right of the screen.…”

“…Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992) reasoned that since rhesus monkeys learned to predict the movements of the target over thousands of trials, it was conceivable that they were responding to mere stimulus-response associations between cursor and target and not operating at a more general level of knowledge about the target's travel. In a final experiment, Washburn and Rumbaugh (1992) presented the target moving from the left to the right of the screen. Upon reaching the far right, the target reappeared on the left side.…”