Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31337315›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Chimpanzees flexibly update working memory contents and show susceptibility to distraction in the self-ordered search task.

Christoph J Völter, Roger Mundry, Josep Call, Amanda M Seed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Timescales of learning in prefrontal cortex.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Human and chimpanzee shared and divergent neurobiological systems for general and specific cognitive brain functions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The psychological foundations of reputation-based cooperation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christoph J VölterSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Roger MundryMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.
Josep CallSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Amanda M SeedSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) is a core executive function that allows individuals to hold, process and manipulate information. WM capacity has been repeatedly nominated as a key factor in human cognitive evolution; nevertheless, little is known about the WM abilities of our closest primate relatives. In this study, we examined signatures of WM ability in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Standard WM tasks for humans (Homo sapiens) often require participants to continuously update their WM. In Experiment 1, we implemented this updating requirement in a foraging situation: zoo-housed chimpanzees (n = 13) searched for food in an array of containers. To avoid redundant searches, they needed to continuously update which containers they had already visited (similar to WM paradigms for human children) with 15 s retention intervals in between each choice. We examined chimpanzees' WM capacity and to what extent they used spatial cues and object features to memorize their previous choices. In Experiment 2, we investigated how susceptible their WM was to attentional interference, an important signature, setting WM in humans apart from long-term memory. We found large individual differences with some individuals remembering at least their last four choices. Chimpanzees used a combination of spatial cues and object features to remember which boxes they had chosen already. Moreover, their performance decreased specifically when competing memory information was introduced. Finally, we found that individual differences in task performance were highly reliable over time. Together, these findings show remarkable similarities between human and chimpanzee WM abilities despite evolutionary and life-history differences.

Indexed as

AttentionCuesMemory, Short-TermAnimalsFemaleIndividualityMalePan troglodyteschimpanzeescognitive controlexecutive functionsprimate cognitionshort-term memoryworking memory

Identifiers

PMID31337315
PMCPMC6661351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.