4.3 Article

Learning by observation in rhesus monkeys

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MEMORY
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 243-248

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2007.04.015

关键词

stimulus-reward associations; habit memory; social learning; cognitive imitation; mirror neurons; basal ganglia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Habit memory provides us with a vast repertoire of learned rules, including stimulus-reward associations, that ensures fast and adapted decision making in daily life. Because we share this ability with monkeys, lesion and recording studies in rhesus macaques have played a key role in understanding the neural bases of individual trial-and-error habit learning. Humans, however, can learn new rules at a lower cost via observation of conspecifics. The neural properties underlying this more ecological form of habit learning remain unexplored, and it is unclear whether the rhesus macaque can be a useful model in this endeavor. We addressed this issue by testing four monkeys from the same social group in their usual semi-natural habitat using a well-established marker of habit memory, concurrent discrimination learning. Each monkey learned 24 lists of 10 object-reward associations each. For one list out of two, monkeys could observe the testing session of another member of the group prior to being tested with the same list themselves. Learning was faster for these lists than for those learned solely by trial-and-error. Errors to criterion (9/10 correct responses) were reduced by 39%, and faultless performance could be achieved for up to 5 of the 10 pairs. These data demonstrate that rhesus macaques spontaneously observe a conspecific learning new stimulus-reward associations, and substantially benefit from this observation. They ascertain that the neural underpinnings of socially-mediated forms of habit learning can be explored using the powerful tools of monkey research, including neurophysiological recordings. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据