ArticlePLoS computational biology2023
Exploring strategy differences between humans and monkeys with recurrent neural networks.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. 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.
- The cost of efficiency in flexible neural representations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Inferring latent behavioral strategy from the representational geometry of prefrontal cortex activity.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Neural representational geometries reflect behavioral differences in monkeys and recurrent neural networks.Nature communications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animal models are used to understand principles of human biology. Within cognitive neuroscience, non-human primates are considered the premier model for studying decision-making behaviors in which direct manipulation experiments are still possible. Some prominent studies have brought to light major discrepancies between monkey and human cognition, highlighting problems with unverified extrapolation from monkey to human. Here, we use a parallel model system-artificial neural networks (ANNs)-to investigate a well-established discrepancy identified between monkeys and humans with a working memory task, in which monkeys appear to use a recency-based strategy while humans use a target-selective strategy. We find that ANNs trained on the same task exhibit a progression of behavior from random behavior (untrained) to recency-like behavior (partially trained) and finally to selective behavior (further trained), suggesting monkeys and humans may occupy different points in the same overall learning progression. Surprisingly, what appears to be recency-like behavior in the ANN, is in fact an emergent non-recency-based property of the organization of the neural network's state space during its development through training. We find that explicit encouragement of recency behavior during training has a dual effect, not only causing an accentuated recency-like behavior, but also speeding up the learning process altogether, resulting in an efficient shaping mechanism to achieve the optimal strategy. Our results suggest a new explanation for the discrepency observed between monkeys and humans and reveal that what can appear to be a recency-based strategy in some cases may not be recency at all.
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.