XOR style tasks for testing visual object processing in monkeys

Using visually complex stimuli, three monkeys learned visual exclusive-or (XOR) tasks that required detecting two way visual feature conjunctions. Monkeys with passive exposure to the test images, or prior experience, were quicker to acquire an XOR style task. Training on each pairwise comparison of the stimuli to be used in an XOR task provided nearly complete transfer when stimuli became intermingled in the full XOR task. Task mastery took longer, accuracy was lower, and response times were slower for conjunction stimuli. Rotating features of the XOR stimuli did not adversely effect recognition speed or accuracy.

[1]  Robert L. Goldstone.  Unitization during category learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Impact of learning on representation of parts and wholes in monkey inferotemporal cortex , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  Lawrence Weiskrantz,et al.  The effects of fornix transection and combined fornix transection, mammillary body lesions and hippocampal ablations on object-pair association memory in the rhesus monkey , 1989, Behavioural Brain Research.

[4]  H. Lachnit,et al.  Configural olfactory learning in honeybees: negative and positive patterning discrimination. , 2001, Learning & memory.

[5]  JOHN W. Moore.  A Neuroscientist's Guide to Classical Conditioning , 2002 .

[6]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Effects of shape-discrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  E. Kehoe,et al.  Fundamental Behavioral Methods and Findings in Classical Conditioning , 2002 .

[8]  E. James Kehoe,et al.  Summation and configuration: Stimulus compounding and negative patterning in the rabbit. , 1988 .

[9]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  J. Pearce,et al.  Stimulus Salience and Negative Patterning , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[12]  N. Sigala,et al.  Visual categorization and the inferior temporal cortex , 2004, Behavioural Brain Research.

[13]  Harald Lachnit,et al.  Configural learning in human Pavlovian conditioning: acquisition of a biconditional discrimination , 2002, Biological Psychology.

[14]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986 .

[15]  Michael N. Shadlen,et al.  Synchrony Unbound A Critical Evaluation of the Temporal Binding Hypothesis , 1999, Neuron.

[16]  Wolf Singer,et al.  Neuronal Synchrony: A Versatile Code for the Definition of Relations? , 1999, Neuron.

[17]  F. Pesarin.  Multivariate Permutation Tests : With Applications in Biostatistics , 2001 .

[18]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Analysis of the unique cue in configural discriminations. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[19]  Keating Cf,et al.  Monkeys and mug shots: cues used by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to recognize a human face , 1993 .

[20]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Category learning in rhesus monkeys: a study of the Shepard, Hovland, and Jenkins (1961) tasks. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[21]  M. A. Saavedra.  Pavlovian compound conditioning in the rabbit , 1975 .

[22]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect , 1995 .

[23]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Role of attention and perceptual grouping in visual statistical learning. , 2004, Psychological science.

[24]  C. Keating,et al.  Monkeys and mug shots: cues used by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to recognize a human face. , 1993, Journal of comparative psychology.