Delayed-matching-to-sample by marsh tits and great tits

The ability of two species of tits to remember the location and/or features of an object was tested in a delayed-matching-to-sample procedure. Three values of retention interval between presentation of the sample stimulus and the choice--30 sec, 5 min, and 15 min--were used. Both species performed at above-chance level at all retention intervals, and there was no significant decline in accuracy with increasing interval. A pool of 100 stimulus objects was used, but the results of control trials indicated that the birds responded primarily to location rather than stimulus features of the object itseif. Although the food-storing marsh tit tended to perform at a higher level than the non-storing great tit, the only significant difference between the species was in the first 50 trials of the first treatment, when the birds were acquiring the task. The results are discussed in relation to the hypothesized special memory capacity of food-storing birds.     

On the relation between feeling of knowing and lexical decision: persistent subthreshold activation or topic familiarity?

Experiment 1 replicated Yaniv and Meyer's (1987) finding that lexical decision and episodic recognition performance was better for words previously yielding high-accessibility levels (a combination of feeling-of-knowing and tip-of-the-tongue ratings) in comparison with those yielding low-accessibility levels in a rare word definition task. Experiment 2 yielded the same pattern even though lexical decisions preceded accessibility estimates by a full week. Experiment 3 dismissed the possibility that the Experiment 2 results may have been due to a long-term influence from the lexical decision task to the rare word judgment task. These results support a model in which Ss (a) retrieve topic familiarity information in making accessibility estimates in the rare word definition task and (b) use this information to modulate lexical decision performance.     

The recovery of structure from motion: no evidence for a special link with the convergent disparity mechanism

Convergent and divergent stereo mechanisms were compared in their ability to recover structure from motion. Contrary to a recent result reported by Richards and Lieberman, no difference in their performance was found; both mechanisms appeared equally capable of supporting the perception of good structure from motion. Possible reasons for the disparate results are discussed.