CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Memory Processes and InfluencesPrimate Behavior and EcologyMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Single-trial learning of "what" and "who" information in a gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ): implications for episodic memory

Schwartz, Bennett, Colon, Melanie, Sanchez, Isabel, Rodriguez, Isabel, Evans, Siân·2002·Animal Cognition
DOI 10.1007/s10071-002-0132-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Single-trial learning and long-term memory of "what" and "who" information were examined in an adult gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We presented the gorilla with a to-be-remembered food item at the time of study. In Experiment 1, following a retention interval of either approximately 7 min or 24 h, the gorilla responded with one of five cards, each corresponding to a particular food. The gorilla was accurate on 70% of the short retention-interval trials and on 82% of the long retention-interval trials. In Experiment 2, the food stimulus was provided by one of two experimenters, each of whom was represented by a card. The gorilla identified the food (55% of the time) and the experimenter (82% of the time) on the short retention-interval trials. On the long retention-interval trials, the gorilla was accurate for the food (73%) and for the person (87%). The results are interpreted in light of theories of episodic memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10071-002-0132-0

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A gorilla was able to hand over the card representing the type of food given to him and the card with the name of the trainer who had given him the food after delays of 10 min or 24 h.

    “The gorilla was able to hand over the card that represented the type of food that was given to him and the card with the name of the trainer who had given him the food after the delay (Schwartz et al. 2002).”

    From Keeping track of time: evidence for episodic-like memory in great apes (2010) · cites this paper as Schwartz et al. 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schwartz, B., Colon, M., Sanchez, I., Rodriguez, I., & Evans, S.
Affiliations
Florida International University (US)
Corresponding author
Schwartz, Bennett
ORCID
Schwartz, Bennett
Venue
Animal Cognition
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
85-90
ISSN
  • 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-9456
DOI
10.1007/s10071-002-0132-0
OpenAlex
W2116891388
Cited by
72
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Animal Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Florida International University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
one-trial learning, episodic memory, long-term memory, retention interval, gorillas, primate cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Cognition, Gorilla gorilla, Learning, Male, Memory, Perception, Reinforcement Schedule

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review