ArticlePeerJ2019
Familiarity with visual stimuli boosts recency bias in macaques.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monkeys integrate facial expressions and direct gaze to modulate gaze-following behavior.Current research in neurobiology · 2026Article
- CalliCog is an open-source cognitive neuroscience toolkit for freely behaving nonhuman primates.Cell reports methods · 2025Article
- A social learning primacy trend in mate-copying: an experiment inRoyal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To probe how non-human primates (NHPs) decode temporal dynamic stimuli, we used a two-alternative forced choice task (2AFC), where the cue was dynamic: a movie snippet drawn from an animation that transforms one image into another. When the cue was drawn from either the beginning or end of the animation, thus heavily weighted towards one (the target) of both images (the choice pair), then primates performed at high levels of accuracy. For a subset of trials, however, the cue was ambiguous, drawn from the middle of the animation, containing information that could be associated to either image. Those trials, rewarded randomly and independent of choice, offered an opportunity to study the strategy the animals used trying to decode the cue. Despite being ambiguous, the primates exhibited a clear strategy, suggesting they were not aware that reward was given non-differentially. More specifically, they relied more on information provided at the end than at the beginning of those cues, consistent with the recency effect reported by numerous serial position studies. Interestingly and counterintuitively, this effect became stronger for sessions where the primates were already familiar with the stimuli. In other words, despite having rehearsed with the same stimuli in a previous session, the animals relied even more on a decision strategy that did not yield any benefits during a previous session. In the discussion section we speculate on what might cause this behavioral shift towards stronger bias, as well as why this behavior shows similarities with a repetition bias in humans known as the illusory truth effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.