Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Devkar, Deepna T.; Wright, Anthony A.

doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1005-x

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent work assessing event-based memory in rhesus monkeys lends further credence to interference being the mechanism of forgetting (Devkar & Wright, 2016). Memory accuracy was found to decrease as a function of proactive interference, such that, previously presented stimuli (as far back as 16 trials) interfered with same/different recognition responses.…”

Section: Interference Vs Decaymentioning

confidence: 95%

The dynamics of fidelity over the time course of long-term memory

Persaud

Hemmer

2016

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bayesian models of cognition assume that prior knowledge about the world influences judgments. Recent approaches have suggested that the loss of fidelity from working to long-term (LT) memory is simply due to an increased rate of guessing (e.g. Brady, Konkle, Gill, Oliva, & Alvarez, 2013). That is, recall is the result of either remembering (with some noise) or guessing. This stands in contrast to Bayesian models of cognition while assume that prior knowledge about the world influences judgments, and that recall is a combination of expectations learned from the environment and noisy memory representations. Here, we evaluate the time course of fidelity in LT episodic memory, and the relative contribution of prior category knowledge and guessing, using a continuous recall paradigm. At an aggregate level, performance reflects a high rate of guessing. However, when aggregate data is partitioned by lag (i.e., the number of presentations from study to test), or is un-aggregated, performance appears to be more complex than just remembering with some noise and guessing. We implemented three models: the standard remember-guess model, a three-component remember-guess model, and a Bayesian mixture model and evaluated these models against the data. The results emphasize the importance of taking into account the influence of prior category knowledge on memory.

show abstract

Section: Interference Vs Decaymentioning

confidence: 95%

The dynamics of fidelity over the time course of long-term memory

Persaud

Hemmer

2016

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Episodic memory has been investigated in a number of nonhuman primates, including monkeys (Basile & Hampton, 2017;Devkar & Wright, 2016;Hampton, Hampstead, & Murray, 2005;Hampton & Schwartz, 2004;Hoffman, Beran, & Washburn, 2009) and apes (Kano & Hirata, 2015;Martin-Ordas, Berntsen, & Call, 2013;Menzel, 1999;Schwartz, Colon, Sanchez, Rodriguez, & Evans, 2002;Schwartz & Evans, 2001;Schwartz, Hoffman, & Evans, 2005). In addition, episodic memory has been investigated in invertebrates, including cuttlefish and honeybees (Jozet-Alves, Bertin, & Clayton, 2013;Pahl, Zhu, Pix, Tautz, & Zhang, 2007;Zhang, Schwarz, Pahl, Zhu, & Tautz, 2006).…”

Section: Comparative Studies Of Episodic Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critically, an animal that uses judgments of relative familiarity need not retrieve an episodic memory of the earlier event (see details that follow). Other approaches have sought to document that animals can discriminate: combinations of item-place-context (Eacott & Norman, 2004;Kart-Teke, De Souza Silva, Huston, & Dere, 2006), the sequential order in which events (e.g., odors, objects) are presented (Dere, Huston, & De Souza Silva, 2005a, 2005bEacott, Easton, & Zinkivskay, 2005;Ergorul & Eichenbaum, 2004;Fortin, Wright, & Eichenbaum, 2004;Hunsaker, Lee, & Kesner, 2008;Kart-Teke et al, 2006;Kesner & Hunsaker, 2010;Kesner, Hunsaker, & Warthen, 2008), trial-by-trial records of information (Devkar & Wright, 2016;Kheifets, Freestone, & Gallistel, 2017;Wright, 2007), and the elements of configural learning (Iordanova, Burnett, Aggleton, Good, & Honey, 2009;Iordanova, Burnett, Good, & Honey, 2011;Iordanova, Good, & Honey, 2008). For related reviews, see Dere, Dere, De Souza Silva, Huston, and Zlomuzica (2017) and Eacott and Easton (2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal models of episodic memory

Crystal¹

2018

CCBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People retrieve episodic memories about specific earlier events that happened to them. Accordingly, researchers have sought to evaluate the hypothesis that nonhumans retrieve episodic memories. The central hypothesis of an animal model of episodic memory is that, at the moment of a memory assessment, the animal retrieves a memory of the specific earlier event. Testing this hypothesis requires the elimination of nonepisodic memory hypotheses. A number of case studies focus on the development of animal models of episodic memory, including what-where-when memory, source memory, item-in-context memory, and unexpected questions. Compelling evidence for episodic memory comes from studies in which judgments of familiarity cannot produce accurate choices in memory assessments. These approaches may be used to explore the evolution of cognition. Keywords: episodic memory, what-where-when memory, source memory, binding, item-in-context memory IntroductionFundamental aspects of human cognition raise a natural question, namely, How widely distributed are elements of cognition among nonhuman animals? Exploring the distribution of cognitive processes in animals may provide insight into the evolution of cognition (Emery & Clayton, 2004;Gallistel, 1990). This review focuses on episodic memory (see Table 1). Students of human memory focus on episodic memory because it stores personal past experiences of an individual. In this respect, episodic memory is self-referencing. By contrast, other memory systems store facts without retaining other features that accompany memory storage. Moreover, students of human memory have been concerned with subjective experiences that are thought to accompany episodic memory retrieval in people (Tulving, 1985(Tulving, , 1987. However, documenting behavioral expression of a putative subjective experience is problematic in animals. This review advocates that it is profitable to focus on the content of episodic memories, rather than the subjective experiences that may accompany episodic memory. The central hypothesis of an animal model of episodic memory is that, at the moment of a memory assessment, the animal remembers back in time and retrieves a memory of the earlier event or episode (Crystal, 2013b(Crystal, , 2016a(Crystal, , 2016b). An important alternative explanation exists whenever the animal can solve the memory test without remembering back to the specific earlier event. In this review, I focus on judgments of familiarity as a primary nonepisodic memory alternative. According to this view, the presentation of a stimulus gives rise to a memory trace that passively decays as a function of time. Because the age of memories can be detected from a comparison of memory trace strengths, an animal may solve a new-old memory test by following a relatively simple rule such as, Choose the item that currently generates the lowest level of familiarity. Critically, an animal that uses judgments of relative familiarity need not retrieve an episodic memory of the earlier event (see details that follow). Oth...

show abstract

“…Chance performance was 50% correct. Error bars are ± one standard error of the mean (Devkar & Wright, ).…”

Section: Proactive Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chance performance was 50% correct. Error bars are AE one standard error of the mean (Devkar & Wright, 2016). between the upper and lower items selected from the same large set of items (1024 set) that was used to train the same/different abstract concept. Short delays of 0, 1, and 2 s were first tested and longer delays of 10, 20, and 30 s were gradually added as memory performance improved.…”

Section: Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing complex animal cognition: Concept learning, proactive interference, and list memory

Wright

2018

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes an approach for assessing and comparing complex cognition in rhesus monkeys and pigeons by training them in a sequence of synergistic tasks, each yielding a whole function for enhanced comparisons. These species were trained in similar same/different tasks with expanding training sets (8, 16, 32, 64, 128 … 1024 pictures) followed by novel-stimulus transfer eventually resulting in full abstract-concept learning. Concept-learning functions revealed better rhesus transfer throughout and full concept learning at the 128 set, versus pigeons at the 256 set. They were then tested in delayed same/different tasks for proactive interference by inserting occasional tests within trial-unique sessions where the test stimulus matched a previous sample stimulus (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 trials prior). Proactiveinterference functions revealed time-based interference for pigeons (1, 10 s delays), but event-based interference for rhesus (no effect of 1, 10, 20 s delays). They were then tested in list-memory tasks by expanding the sample to four samples in trial-unique sessions (minimizing proactive interference). The four-item, list-memory functions revealed strong recency memory at short delays, gradually changing to strong primacy memory at long delays over 30 s for rhesus, and 10 s for pigeons. Other species comparisons and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Event-based proactive interference in rhesus monkeys

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

The dynamics of fidelity over the time course of long-term memory

The dynamics of fidelity over the time course of long-term memory

Animal models of episodic memory

Testing complex animal cognition: Concept learning, proactive interference, and list memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About