Sample duration and type of stimuli in delayed matching-to-sample in rhesus monkeys

Abstract

Two experiments were performed to determine the effect of sample duration (0.1, 2, and 4 sec), delay interval (.03, 4, 8, 16, and 32 sec), and type of stimulus (color and shape) on the matehing performance of rhesus monkeys. In Experiment I, the 15 possible delay-duration combinations were randomly presented in blocks of 15 trials. In Experiment 2, each duration was held constant and the five delays randomly presented. Then each delay interval was held constant with the three durations randomly varied. Matching performance increased as sample duration increased (ps< .01 and .005), while length of delay did not significantly affect performance. The type of stimuli paired in the matehing test significantly affected performance (ps< .05 and .10) with the shape/shape choices leading to the poorest performance. Stimulus discriminability and amount of training with brief sampie durations were implicated as significant determinants of matehing performance.In recent years, the delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) task has been used extensively in nonhuman primate memory research. The wide use of the DMTS task to study animal memory is partially due to the noted similarities in task requirements between it and the short-term memory (STM) paradigm used with humans (e.g., Peterson & Peterson, 1959). Also, the effects of amount of interpolated activity, repetition of the stimulus, and stimulus difficulty in the DMTS tasks are generally similar to the effects of these variables on human STM (Jarrard & Moise, 1971). However, neither the animal DMTS nor the human STM literature has been consistent in reports of the effects of stimulus duration. A major aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between stimulus presentation time and the degree of retention using a DMTS paradigm.The initial task of the subject in a STM experiment most likely involves the perceptual processes of identification or encoding of a stimulus item. Thus, temporal factors in the perceptual stage should strongly influence STM recall accuracy. That is, decreases in stimulus duration should restriet the time for perception and result in poorer recall. Although Aaronson (1967) concluded from her review of the human literature that the time interval between stimuli was more important in STM than stimulus duration per se, her conclusion has not

TEMPORAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PIGEON'S SUCCESSIVE MATCHING‐TO‐SAMPLE PERFORMANCE: SAMPLE DURATION, INTERTRIAL INTERVAL, AND RETENTION INTERVAL1

“…In general, previous work with classical short-term memory procedures has shown that retention is a positive function of the presentation time of the sample stimulus (Devine, Jones, Neville, and Sakai, 1977;Grant, 1976;Herman and Gordon, 1974;Leith and Maki, 1975;Maki and Leuin, 1972;Maki and Leith, 1973;Roberts, 1972;Roberts and Grant, 1974;Shimp, 1976b). …”

Effects of sample duration and spaced repetition upon delayed matching-to-sample in monkeys (Macaca arctoides andSaimiri sciureus)

“…Each presentation of the sample lasted 0.5 sec, with an FR 10 required on the white cenrer key for exposure of the sarnple on the first presentation and an FR 3 required for the second presentation, Both monkeys were tested using ring and " x " patterns as sam pie D'Amato and Worsham's (1972) finding that delayed matehing accuracy was independent of presentation time in experienced monkeys, suggests that experienced monkeys may overcome the effects of exposure duration. Arecent study by Devine, Jones, Neville, and Sakai (1977), however, suggests that level of delayed matehing experience per se is not a critical variable controlling exposure duration effects in the monkey. Employing sample durations of 0.1, 2.0, and 4.0 sec with rhesus monkeys, they also found that accuracy in delayed matehing was higher at the longer sample durations.…”

Delayed matching of visual materials by a bottlenosed dolphin aided by auditory symbols

“…Then the visual element was reduced in duration while the auditory element was held constant. Changes in sample duration have been found to influence matching performance in pigeons (Maki & Leith, 1973;Nelson & Wasserman, 1978;Roitblat, 1980), monkeys (Devine, Jones, Neville, & Sakai, 1977;Herzog, Grant, & Roberts, 1977), and dolphins (Herman & Gordon, 1974).…”