title: Two processes support visual recognition memory in rhesus monkeys.
abstract: A large body of evidence in humans suggests that recognition memory can be supported by both recollection and familiarity. Recollection-based recognition is characterized by the retrieval of contextual information about the episode in which an item was previously encountered, whereas familiarity-based recognition is characterized instead by knowledge only that the item had been encountered previously in the absence of any context. To date, it is unknown whether monkeys rely on similar mnemonic processes to perform recognition memory tasks. Here, we present evidence from the analysis of receiver operating characteristics, suggesting that visual recognition memory in rhesus monkeys also can be supported by two separate processes and that these processes have features considered to be characteristic of recollection and familiarity. Thus, the present study provides converging evidence across species for a dual process model of recognition memory and opens up the possibility of studying the neural mechanisms of recognition memory in nonhuman primates on tasks that are highly similar to the ones used in humans.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. guderians@mail.nih.gov
authors.forename: Sebastian
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Guderian
authors.forename: Danielle
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Brigham
authors.forename: Mortimer
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Mishkin
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D019540:Area Under Curve; D008253:Macaca mulatta / Q000502:physiology*; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012372:ROC Curve
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1997 Nov;25(6):747-63
references.pmid: 9421560
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Sep 9;431(7005):188-91
references.pmid: 15356631
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):188-202; discussion 203-9
references.pmid: 17227187
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35
references.pmid: 1502275
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2007 Sep;133(5):800-32
references.pmid: 17723031
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Sep 17;395(6699):272-4
references.pmid: 9751053
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Apr 24;98(9):5359-62
references.pmid: 11274360
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2003 Jun;117(3):526-39
references.pmid: 12802881
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):152-76
references.pmid: 17227185
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 May;139(2):341-64
references.pmid: 20438255
references.citation: Learn Mem. 2008 Aug 26;15(9):687-90
references.pmid: 18772256
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Jan;2(1):51-61
references.pmid: 11253359
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Nov;20(6):1341-54
references.pmid: 7983467
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2006 Mar;21(1):96-106
references.pmid: 16594795
references.citation: Learn Mem. 2011 Jul 20;18(8):519-22
references.pmid: 21775512
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2008 Jan;11(1):16-8
references.pmid: 18037884
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Apr;20(4):509-15
references.pmid: 19320859
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1977 Aug;29(3):505-14
references.pmid: 410065
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2011 May 10;21(9):774-8
references.pmid: 21530257
references.citation: Learn Mem. 2008 Aug 26;15(9):691-3
references.pmid: 18772257