Cited by 184Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesChild and Animal Learning Development

An early and a late developing system for learning and retention in infant monkeys

Bachevalier, Jocelyne, Mishkin, Mortimer·1984·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

On the evidence that memory formation and habit formation represent two qualitatively different learning processes based on separate neural mechanisms, the functional development of these two processes was followed ontogenetically. Separate groups of rhesus monkeys of different ages were tested in delayed nonmatching-to-sample and 24-hr concurrent discrimination learning, considered to be measures of recognition memory and discrimination habit formation, respectively. The youngest group of infant monkeys failed to learn the nonmatching task until they were approximately 4 months old. With further maturation, learning ability on this task gradually improved, yet it did not reach adult levels of proficiency even at 1 year of age. Postlearning evaluation with long delays and lists confirmed this slow ontogenetic development of recognition memory to adult levels of function. By contrast, infant monkeys 3-4 months old learned to discriminate long lists of object-pairs about as quickly as adult monkeys despite the use of 24-hr intertrial intervals. This striking dissociation in the ability of infants on the two tasks closely resembles the dissociation first found in adult monkeys rendered amnesic by limbic lesions. The results suggest that whereas the nonlimbic habit system matures early in infancy, the limbic-dependent memory system develops only slowly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7044.98.5.770

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Infantile amnesia is not restricted to human infants; it is a biologically determined developmental milestone demonstrated in rats and other altricial species.

    “A key development was the demonstration that infantile amnesia is not restricted to human infants; rather, it is a biologically determined developmental milestone demonstrated in rats (102) and other altricial species (103, 104).”

    From The Stress Acceleration Hypothesis of Nightmares (2017) · cites this paper as [103]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bachevalier, J., & Mishkin, M.
Affiliations
National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
1984
Volume
98
Issue
5
Pages
770-778
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W2051119772
Cited by
184
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
ontogeny, recognition memory, discrimination learning, habit formation, delayed nonmatching-to-sample, rhesus monkeys, infant monkeys, limbic system, amnesia, memory retention, neuronal maturation
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Amnesia, Animals, Discrimination Learning, Habits, Humans, Learning, Macaca mulatta, Memory, Retention, Psychology, Visual Perception

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