Remembering in tool-use tasks in children and apes: The role of the information at encoding
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
Providing adults with relevant information (knowledge that they will be tested at some future time) increases motivation to remember. Research has shown that it is more effective to have this information prior to, rather than after, an encoding phase. We investigated this effect in apes and children in the context of tool-use tasks. In Experiment 1 we presented chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos with two tool-use tasks and three different two-tool sets. We had two conditions: prospective (PP) and retrospective (RP). In the PP subjects were shown the task that they would have to solve before they were shown the tools with which they could solve it. In the RP this order was reversed. Apes remembered the location of the useful tool better in the PP than in the RP. In Experiment 2 we presented 3- and 4-year-olds with the same conditions. Both age groups remembered the location of the correct tool in the PP, but only the 4-year-olds did so in the RP. Thus providing apes and preschool children with relevant information prior to, rather than after, the encoding phase enhances memory. These results have important implications for the understanding of the evolution of memory in general, and encoding mechanisms in particular.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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