FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2904408506> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2904408506 endingPage "R1400" @default.
• W2904408506 startingPage "R1399" @default.
• W2904408506 abstract "It was thought that, when monkeys use familiarity cues to aid recognition memory, they do not engage working memory. A new study shows that, when the value of those familiarity cues is attenuated, monkeys rehearse novel images like familiar ones, a striking parallel with human working memory. It was thought that, when monkeys use familiarity cues to aid recognition memory, they do not engage working memory. A new study shows that, when the value of those familiarity cues is attenuated, monkeys rehearse novel images like familiar ones, a striking parallel with human working memory. Imagine being asked to remember an automobile license plate and then choose it from a larger set of possibilities. The license plate is from Hawaii and the number is GV 64742. Close your eyes for 15 seconds and try to remember. Then, tell me which of these plates is the one you were trying to remember: Alaska GV 64724; Hawaii GV 64274; Hawaii GV 64742; Montana GV 64742. Hopefully you got this right, but the question of interest is how you did it. It is likely that you spent little effort rehearsing “Hawaii” and a lot of effort on the rest of the information. The reason is that you likely recognized that Hawaii was relatively unfamiliar and would be easy to recognize in a list. But the rest of the plate information (letters and numbers) are highly familiar stimuli to you, and so to remember, you needed to rehearse those numbers. This exercise highlights the central question in new work with rhesus monkeys: when relative familiarity can be used as a cue, working memory seems not to be engaged in monkeys, but when all choices are familiar and so is the information to be remembered, then rehearsal is needed and is evident in monkeys [1Basile B.M. Hampton R.R. Dissociation of active working memory and passive recognition in rhesus monkeys.Cognition. 2013; 126: 391-396Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 2Eacott M.J. Gaffan D. Murray E.A. Preserved recognition memory for small sets, and impaired stimulus identification for large sets, following rhinal cortex ablations in monkeys.Eur. J. Neurosci. 1994; 6: 1466-1478Crossref PubMed Scopus (253) Google Scholar, 3Jitsumori M. Wright A.A. Cook R.G. Long-term proactive interference and novelty enhancement effect in monkey list memory.J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 1988; 14: 146-154Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. The central question addressed in the new study by Brady and Hampton [4Brady R.J. Hampton R.R. Nonverbal working memory for novel images in rhesus monkeys.Curr. Biol. 2018; 28: 3903-3910PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar], reported in this issue of Current Biology, was whether there are ways to attenuate familiarity cues such that working memory rehearsal then is seen in the performance of monkeys during memory tests, even with more novel stimuli. They designed a way to do exactly that, and when they did, it was true that monkeys then rehearsed those novel stimuli when familiarity cues were no longer valid. Previous research had shown that both humans and monkeys engage in forms of rehearsal for highly familiar stimuli [5Yonelinas A.P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: a review of 30 years of research.J. Mem. Lang. 2002; 46: 441-517Crossref Scopus (2748) Google Scholar, 6Roberts W.A. Mazmanian D.S. Kraemer P.J. Directed forgetting in monkeys.Anim. Learn. Behav. 1984; 12: 29-40Crossref Scopus (22) Google Scholar, 7Brady R.J. Hampton R.R. Post-encoding control of working memory enhances processing of relevant information in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).Cognition. 2018; 175: 26-35Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar], and for good reason. When the things to be remembered, and the options to choose from, are all well-known and frequently experienced, you cannot employ a ‘shortcut’ whereby the sense of familiarity lets you find the correct item you are trying to remember. For example, when monkeys were given a visual image to remember, and they had to choose that image from a set of possible choices, they engaged in rehearsal only when a small number of images was used in all of the trials — all of the stimuli were highly familiar, and thus familiarity could not act as a cue to which option was correct. But, if the image to be remembered was unique, and so were all of the incorrect choices in the set to choose from, simply choosing the most familiar thing can be fairly effective, and there is much less need to rehearse that item during the retention delay. Humans, however, sometimes will still rehearse even in this situation [8Baddeley A. Working memory and language: An overview.J. Commun. Disord. 2003; 36: 189-208Crossref PubMed Scopus (1230) Google Scholar], and the advantage of doing so is that humans are therefore not constrained to having access only to the mnemonic system that relies on familiarity cues. Thus, the previous differences in what monkeys and humans do with unfamiliar information to be remembered could be interpreted as a possible fundamental difference in memory processing across species. Brady and Hampton [4Brady R.J. Hampton R.R. Nonverbal working memory for novel images in rhesus monkeys.Curr. Biol. 2018; 28: 3903-3910PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar] reconsidered whether monkeys might still engage in some type of rehearsal, even in tests where unfamiliar stimuli were used. They considered whether the ability to use a familiarity cue may simply have been dominant to any co-occurring rehearsal, rather than it being the case that monkeys did not engage in any rehearsal. As the authors suggested, working memory may be available even in those cases, but it may be behaviorally silent. They gave monkeys a memory test where a single image had to be remembered, and then chosen from a set of four options. In some tests, the same images were used on every trial, and so familiarity could not be a cue as to what to choose, because everything was equally familiar: monkeys had to rehearse the to-be-remembered image. In other tests, though, trials involved all unfamiliar images, and so monkeys could choose whichever image gave them the strongest sense of familiarity, which would necessarily be the image they had seen during the study phase of the trial. There was no need to rehearse, given the validity of this cue. But, in the new twist on this method, some tests involved first showing monkeys four novel images, and then highlighting which one needed to be remembered. Now, when the memory test presented those same four images as the choices, monkeys could not simply choose based on which image was familiar among unfamiliar distractors. The results showed that monkeys now struggled more to remember a sample from a large set of possible images than from a small set of constantly repeated images, compared to the conditions without the familiarization phase (seeing the four images). With familiarity now a less reliable cue, monkeys may have needed to engage in more rehearsal to perform well in the memory test. The next step was to see whether working memory was being engaged. To do this, researchers often introduce what is called concurrent cognitive load, which basically means something else one has to do while trying to rehearse and remember a primary stimulus. Imagine being told a phone number, and then, while looking for your phone, having someone ask you what time your departmental meeting was going to be, and where it was located. In that case, you have conflict between the rehearsed information (the new phone number) and the need to recall and report the meeting information. This makes it much harder to engage in the rehearsal of the phone number. Monkeys also can be given tasks with concurrent cognitive load, to see how that load affects other ongoing cognitive activity [1Basile B.M. Hampton R.R. Dissociation of active working memory and passive recognition in rhesus monkeys.Cognition. 2013; 126: 391-396Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 9Smith J.D. Coutinho M.V.C. Church B. Beran M.J. Executive-attentional uncertainty responses by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2013; 142: 458-475Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar]. In the Brady and Hampton study [4Brady R.J. Hampton R.R. Nonverbal working memory for novel images in rhesus monkeys.Curr. Biol. 2018; 28: 3903-3910PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar], while remembering the sample image, the monkeys also had to classify another photo as being a fish, flower, bird, or human. This was something they had already learned how to do [1Basile B.M. Hampton R.R. Dissociation of active working memory and passive recognition in rhesus monkeys.Cognition. 2013; 126: 391-396Crossref PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 10Basile B.M. Hampton R.R. Dissociation of item and source memory in rhesus monkeys.Cognition. 2017; 166: 398-406Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar, 11Tu H.W. Pani A.A. Hampton R.R. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) adaptively adjust information seeking in response to information accumulated.J. Comp. Psychol. 2015; 129: 347-355Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar], but that still required them to engage in cognitive processing of the intervening stimuli and know the classification rule. Normally, when the to-be-remembered item and the distractors were highly unfamiliar images from a large set of possible items, the concurrent load should not have mattered, because familiarity cues would allow the monkeys to do well on the memory test. But, with the new methodological twist in place, where all stimuli were made familiar right before the memory test began, the monkeys now showed that cognitive load hurt their ability to remember the images — a hallmark sign that working memory was being engaged but was subject to the effects of the cognitive load. These results show that, as is true for humans, in monkeys working memory is engaged for novel stimuli as well as for highly familiar stimuli. This is a similarity between humans’ and at least some other species’ memory processes, and one that may reflect an important aspect of the evolution of cognitive control processes that allow for efficient responding to changing contexts and to changing experiences that need to be remembered. Monkeys may sometimes rely heavily on cues such as familiarity to help them determine what choices to make, but they also have available the contents of working memory that are maintained through ongoing rehearsal. Humans, of course, rely at least some of the time on language as part of their rehearsal process [8Baddeley A. Working memory and language: An overview.J. Commun. Disord. 2003; 36: 189-208Crossref PubMed Scopus (1230) Google Scholar]. Monkeys do not have language. This leaves us with the next big question in this area of comparative cognitive research — what is the content of monkey working memory? Do monkeys somehow abstractly re-code stimuli, and if they do, what are the limits of that recoding that humans overcome through linguistic representations and language-based rehearsal? Answers to these questions will shed new light on how our species has come to manifest so many intelligent behaviors and also perhaps shed light on other memory mechanisms that are available to monkeys, as we continue to discover new ways of querying them about what they remember. Nonverbal Working Memory for Novel Images in Rhesus MonkeysBrady et al.Current BiologyNovember 29, 2018In BriefOne might remember an unfamiliar stork by mentally rehearsing the words “large black and white bird.” Such linguistic recoding greatly increases the flexibility of working memory. Brady and Hampton report that monkeys also actively maintain information about novel images in working memory, indicating evolution of this capacity without language. Full-Text PDF Open Archive" @default.
• W2904408506 created "2018-12-22" @default.
• W2904408506 creator A5028600952 @default.
• W2904408506 date "2018-12-01" @default.
• W2904408506 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2904408506 title "Monkey Memory: Rehearsal Emerges for Novel Images When Familiarity Cues Fade" @default.
• W2904408506 cites W1965453174 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W1987709708 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2027479998 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2036153220 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2037871531 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2072034312 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2144741543 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2395928253 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2626430568 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2790385590 @default.
• W2904408506 cites W2903045566 @default.
• W2904408506 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.061" @default.
• W2904408506 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30562534" @default.
• W2904408506 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2904408506 type Work @default.
• W2904408506 sameAs 2904408506 @default.
• W2904408506 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2904408506 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2904408506 hasAuthorship W2904408506A5028600952 @default.
• W2904408506 hasBestOaLocation W29044085061 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C2778518048 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C111919701 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C15744967 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C169760540 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C180747234 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C2778518048 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C41008148 @default.
• W2904408506 hasConceptScore W2904408506C86803240 @default.
• W2904408506 hasIssue "24" @default.
• W2904408506 hasLocation W29044085061 @default.
• W2904408506 hasLocation W29044085062 @default.
• W2904408506 hasOpenAccess W2904408506 @default.
• W2904408506 hasPrimaryLocation W29044085061 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W1641042124 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W1978362346 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W1993764875 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W2046158694 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W2109496212 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W2130076355 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W3011797538 @default.
• W2904408506 hasRelatedWork W3160630276 @default.
• W2904408506 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2904408506 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2904408506 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2904408506 magId "2904408506" @default.
• W2904408506 workType "article" @default.