Some pitfalls in measuring memory in animals

• Published in: Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews Vol. 28; no. 7; pp. 711 - 718
• Main Authors: Thorpe, Christina M., Jacova, Claudia, Wilkie, Donald M.
• Format: Journal Article Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 2004; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animal; Animal ethology; Animals; Association Learning - physiology; Behavior, Animal; Biological and medical sciences; Errors; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Humans; Learning. Memory; Maze Learning - physiology; Memory; Memory - physiology; Prospective memory; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Species-typical behaviours; Weights and Measures; Errors; Prospective memory; Species-typical behaviours; Memory; Methodology; Animal; Interspecific comparison; Information processing; Cognition; Species specificity; Review; Measurement method
• ISSN: 0149-7634; 1873-7528
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.013

Because the presence or absence of memories in the brain cannot be directly observed, scientists must rely on indirect measures and use inferential reasoning to make statements about the status of memories. In humans, memories are often accessed through spoken or written language. In animals, memory is accessed through overt behaviours such as running down an arm in a maze, pressing a lever, or visiting a food cache site. Because memory is measured by these indirect methods, errors in the veracity of statements about memory can occur. In this brief paper, we identify three areas that may serve as pitfalls in reasoning about memory in animals: (1) the presence of ‘silent associations’, (2) intrusions of species-typical behaviours on memory tasks, and (3) improper mapping between human and animals memory tasks. There are undoubtedly other areas in which scientists should act cautiously when reasoning about the status of memory.