ArticleLearning & behavior2023
Effects of proactive interference on olfactory memory in dogs.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proactive interference (PI) occurs when memories of past events or stimuli intrude in the present moment, causing working memory (WM) errors. These errors are often measured through WM tests such as matching-to-sample (MTS). When the repetition of individual stimuli increases, there is a greater chance of these intrusions, and thus there can be a decrease in accuracy in such tasks. In two experiments, we explored the nature of PI on dog working memory. First, we manipulated the size of the set of odors (2, 6, trial-unique) used to construct each session to maximize (2-odor set) and minimize (trial-unique) within-session proactive interference during an olfactory MTS task. Matching-to-sample accuracy decreased with greater PI. Second, we adapted procedures originally designed for pigeons and rhesus macaques to determine the locus of PI in dogs. To test for proactive interference, probe trials were inserted into MTS sessions where sample odors from earlier trials reappeared as incorrect comparisons. Incorrect responses on these probe trials indicated proactive interference. These probe tests were conducted with a 0-s or 20-s retention interval in separate sessions. We found that dogs performed worse on the matching task when the source of interference (odor stimulus) was from the immediately preceding trial compared with when they were from trials further back in the session but only for the 0-s retention interval. These results are compared with previous work examining the effects of proactive interference on working memory in other species.
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.