Ordered Recall in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca Mulatta): Can Monkeys Recall the Correct Order of Sequentially Presented Images?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) are capable of identifying sequentially shown images in any order among distractors (i.e. images not part of the list sequence). We investigated ordered recall in rhesus monkeys in which subjects were expected to recognize the correct order of images during a “test” phase (simultaneous presentation of images) after they had seen the images presented sequentially in a “presentation” phase (sequential presentation of images). If subjects were successfully able to execute the ordered recall task, the first trial accuracy data would appear close to 100% accuracy and it would only take one day to learn the list since the lists used were short, 3-item lists. While this study did not conclusively demonstrate monkeys are capable of ordered recall of sequentially presented, trial unique images (i.e. a list sequence presented only once per session), the data suggests that when the stimuli are not trial unique the monkeys treat each sequence as a simultaneous chaining task. A simultaneous chaining paradigm entails simultaneous presentation of all items without any previous sequential presentation of the images. It is unclear whether results resembling simultaneous chaining are seen because these animals have previous experience with simultaneous chaining, if the training procedure needs to be modified for the monkeys to understand the task, or if the task is beyond their cognitive abilities. Further research with serial learning will clarify this finding and also seek to prove whether rhesus monkeys are in fact capable of such ordered recall tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it