<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Völter Christoph J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mundry Roger</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Call Josep</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Seed Amanda M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chimpanzees flexibly update working memory contents and show susceptibility to distraction in the self-ordered search task</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences</style></secondary-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences</style></short-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019/07/24</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0715</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">286</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20190715</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p style=&quot;font-stretch: normal; font-size: 9px; line-height: normal; font-family: Times; color: rgb(35, 31, 32);&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;Working memory (WM) is a core executive function that allows individuals to hold, process and manipulate information. WM capacity has been repeatedly nominated as a key factor in human cognitive evolution; nevertheless, little is known about the WM abilities of our closest primate relatives. In this study, we examined signatures of WM ability in chimpanzees (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i style=&quot;font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;Pan troglodytes&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;). Standard WM tasks for humans (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i style=&quot;font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;Homo sapiens&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;) often require participants to continuously update their WM. In Experiment 1, we implemented this updating requirement in a foraging situation: zoo-housed chimpanzees (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i style=&quot;font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 16px; caret-color: rgb(51, 49, 50); color: rgb(51, 49, 50); font-family: &amp;quot;Proxima Nova&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Open Sans&amp;quot;, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;= 13) searched for food in an array of containers. To avoid redundant searches, they needed to continuously update which containers they had already visited (similar to WM paradigms for human children) with 15 s retention intervals in between each choice. We examined chimpanzees&#039; WM capacity and to what extent they used spatial cues and object features to memorize their previous choices. In Experiment 2, we investigated how susceptible their WM was to attentional interference, an important signature, setting WM in humans apart from long-term memory. We found large individual differences with some individuals remembering at least their last four choices. Chimpanzees used a combination of spatial cues and object features to remember which boxes they had chosen already. Moreover, their performance decreased specifically when competing memory information was introduced. Finally, we found that individual differences in task performance were highly reliable over time. Together, these findings show remarkable similarities between human and chimpanzee WM abilities despite evolutionary and life-history differences.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1907</style></issue><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0715&lt;/p&gt;
</style></notes></record></records></xml>