Pigtail Macaque (Macaca nemestrina) Performance Differs Across Multiple Cognitive Domains in Comparison to Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta)

IF 2 3区 生物学 Q1 ZOOLOGY
Isabella M. Baumann, Bess Carlson, Jasmine Hadeed, Suzanne E. Queen, Kenneth W. Witwer, Joseph Mankowski, Rebecca Veenhuis, Lydia M. Hopper
{"title":"Pigtail Macaque (Macaca nemestrina) Performance Differs Across Multiple Cognitive Domains in Comparison to Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta)","authors":"Isabella M. Baumann,&nbsp;Bess Carlson,&nbsp;Jasmine Hadeed,&nbsp;Suzanne E. Queen,&nbsp;Kenneth W. Witwer,&nbsp;Joseph Mankowski,&nbsp;Rebecca Veenhuis,&nbsp;Lydia M. Hopper","doi":"10.1002/ajp.70033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Rhesus and pigtail macaques are closely related and have similar social structures, yet differences in their behavior, socio-ecology, and personality have been observed, although not systematically documented. Given these differences, it is important to assess pigtail macaque cognition independently, rather than relying on rhesus macaque findings as a proxy. To gain a better understanding of pigtail macaque cognition, we used a battery of three cognitive tasks. Rhesus macaques were tested on the same tasks to validate our methods and to allow for comparison. Across just three tasks, we found significant differences between the two closely related species. In the three cups task, which tests short-term memory, both pigtail and rhesus macaques performed significantly better when they had to recall the location of a hidden food reward after a 0 s delay compared to a 15 s delay. However, in the 15 s delay condition, only rhesus macaques performed above chance levels, whereas pigtail macaques did not. In the reversal learning task, which tested rule learning and cognitive flexibility, we found species differences in learning performance. For the quantity discrimination task, which tests numerosity, we found that both rhesus and pigtail macaques were more accurate at discriminating \"easy\" ratios of foods (e.g., 1 vs. 5 or 2 vs. 6) than the \"hard\" ratios (e.g., 2 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 5). However, pigtail macaques were more accurate than rhesus macaques in the hard ratio trials. These contribute to a novel understanding of cognition in pigtail macaques while also increasing research rigor in translational research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7662,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Primatology","volume":"87 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Primatology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajp.70033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rhesus and pigtail macaques are closely related and have similar social structures, yet differences in their behavior, socio-ecology, and personality have been observed, although not systematically documented. Given these differences, it is important to assess pigtail macaque cognition independently, rather than relying on rhesus macaque findings as a proxy. To gain a better understanding of pigtail macaque cognition, we used a battery of three cognitive tasks. Rhesus macaques were tested on the same tasks to validate our methods and to allow for comparison. Across just three tasks, we found significant differences between the two closely related species. In the three cups task, which tests short-term memory, both pigtail and rhesus macaques performed significantly better when they had to recall the location of a hidden food reward after a 0 s delay compared to a 15 s delay. However, in the 15 s delay condition, only rhesus macaques performed above chance levels, whereas pigtail macaques did not. In the reversal learning task, which tested rule learning and cognitive flexibility, we found species differences in learning performance. For the quantity discrimination task, which tests numerosity, we found that both rhesus and pigtail macaques were more accurate at discriminating "easy" ratios of foods (e.g., 1 vs. 5 or 2 vs. 6) than the "hard" ratios (e.g., 2 vs. 3 or 4 vs. 5). However, pigtail macaques were more accurate than rhesus macaques in the hard ratio trials. These contribute to a novel understanding of cognition in pigtail macaques while also increasing research rigor in translational research.

与恒河猴相比,长尾猕猴在多个认知领域的表现不同
恒河猴和尾尾猕猴是近亲,有着相似的社会结构,但它们在行为、社会生态学和个性上的差异已经被观察到,尽管没有系统的记录。考虑到这些差异,独立评估长尾猕猴的认知能力是很重要的,而不是依赖恒河猕猴的研究结果作为代理。为了更好地理解尾尾猕猴的认知,我们使用了三个认知任务。在同样的任务中对恒河猴进行了测试,以验证我们的方法并进行比较。仅仅在三个任务中,我们就发现了两个密切相关的物种之间的显著差异。在测试短期记忆的“三杯”任务中,短尾猴和恒河猴在0秒后回忆隐藏食物奖励的位置时的表现明显优于15秒后。然而,在15秒的延迟条件下,只有恒河猴的表现高于机会水平,而长尾猴则没有。在测试规则学习和认知灵活性的逆向学习任务中,我们发现了物种在学习表现上的差异。在数量辨别任务中,我们发现恒河猴和长尾猴在辨别食物的“简单”比例(如1 vs. 5或2 vs. 6)方面比“困难”比例(如2 vs. 3或4 vs. 5)更准确。然而,长尾猴在“困难”比例试验中比恒河猴更准确。这些有助于对尾尾猕猴认知的新理解,同时也增加了转化研究的研究严谨性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
103
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The objective of the American Journal of Primatology is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and findings among primatologists and to convey our increasing understanding of this order of animals to specialists and interested readers alike. Primatology is an unusual science in that its practitioners work in a wide variety of departments and institutions, live in countries throughout the world, and carry out a vast range of research procedures. Whether we are anthropologists, psychologists, biologists, or medical researchers, whether we live in Japan, Kenya, Brazil, or the United States, whether we conduct naturalistic observations in the field or experiments in the lab, we are united in our goal of better understanding primates. Our studies of nonhuman primates are of interest to scientists in many other disciplines ranging from entomology to sociology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信