ArticleAnimal cognition2025
Common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) excel in a one-trial spatial memory test, yet perform poorly in a classical memory task.
Article in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When quantifying animal cognition, memory represents one of the most tested domains and is key to understanding cognitive evolution. Memory tests thus play an important role in comparative cognitive research, yet slight variations in the experimental settings can substantially change the outcome, questioning whether different memory tests tap into different memory systems or whether they test memory at all. Here, we first assessed memory performance of 16 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) in two distinct paradigms varying in their format and delay. First, we examined marmoset memory in a 24-h delay memory test (24 h-DMT) in which they could freely explore an environment with three novel objects of which one contained food. We examined their retention the day after, and the procedure was iterated cumulatively with previous objects remaining in the enclosure until the marmosets had to choose the correct out of 30 objects. Second, we administered a classical delayed response test (DRT) in the same animals with three objects and a maximum delay of 30 s. In the DRT, marmoset performance was poor and not better than chance after 15 s already. However, individuals excelled in the 24 h-DMT, performing above chance level after 24 h even with tenfold the number of objects to choose from compared to the DRT. Moreover, individual performances in the two tests were not correlated, and typical age effects on memory could not be detected in both experiments. Together, these results suggest that the two tests explore different domains, and that the 24 h-DMT examines long-term memory. The outcome of the DRT is more difficult to assign to memory since individuals performed only moderately even in the 0-s delay condition. This puts into question whether this task design indeed tests memory or other cognitive processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.