Delayed Matching-to-Sample in Monkeys as a Model for Learning and Memory Deficits: Role of Brain Nicotinic Receptors
The nervous system and behavioral repertoire of old world monkeys resembles the human neuro-behavioral system more than any other laboratory animal, except higher apes. In addition, spontaneous and conditioned behavior exhibited by the monkey is more similar to that of the human than any other laboratory animal1. Therefore, behavioral tasks which tap the higher cognitive abilities of these nonhuman primates may provide information more relevant to normal human aging and to the demential. The method most frequently employed to test the sophisticated cognitive repertoire of these monkeys has been one or another variation of the delayed response task. The delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) task allows the measurement of abilities which are relevant to human aging, such as attention, strategy formation, reaction time in complex situations and memory for recent events. Thus, comparisons to human behavioral situations should involve less speculation than when lower animal subjects are employed. Interestingly, a similar version of this task has been employed to demonstrate cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s Disease patients 2. The advent of the personal computer age has facilitated the automation of problem presentation and data collection associated with this task, and it is now practical to analyze DMTS performance at a more detailed level.
KeywordsNicotinic Receptor Delay Interval Color Preference Nicotine Administration Good Dose
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.D.C. Rice, Primate research: relevance to human learning and development, Devel. Pharmacol. Ther. 10: 314 (1987).Google Scholar
- 4.P.J. Whitehouse and K.S. Au, Cholinergic receptors in aging and alzheimer’s disease, Prog. Neuro Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiat. 10: 656 (1986).Google Scholar
- 5.P.J. Whitehouse and K.J. Kellar, Nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors in alzheimer’s disease and related disorders, J. Neural Transm. (suppl.), 24: 157 (1987).Google Scholar
- 7.L. Chiappeta and M.E. Jarvik, Comparison of learning impairment and activity depression produced by two classes of cholinergic blocking agents, Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. Therap. 179: 161 (1969).Google Scholar
- 9.S.L. Dilts and C.A. Berry, Effect of cholinergic drugs on passive avoidance in the mouse, J. Pharmacol. Exper. Ther. 158: 279 (1967).Google Scholar
- 10.M.E. Goldberg, K. Sledge, M. Hefner, and R.C. Robichaud, Learning impairment after three classes of agents which modify cholinergic function, Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn. 193: 226 (1971).Google Scholar
- 13.R.L.Dean and R.T. Bartus, Behavioral models of aging in nonhuman primates, in: Handbook of Psychopharmacology Vol. 10, L.L. Iverson, S.D. Iverson and S.H. Snyder, eds., Plenum Publishing Corp., New York (1988).Google Scholar
- 15.K.H. Pribram, W.W. Gardner, G.L. Pressman and M. Bagshaw, An automated discrimination apparatus for discrete trail analysis (DADTA), Psycholog. Rep. 11: 247 (1962).Google Scholar
- 17.C.L. Hull, Principles of Behavior, Appleton, New York (1943).Google Scholar
- 18.L.R. Squire, S. Zola-Morgan, and S.K. Chen, Human amnesia and animal models of amnesia: performance of amnesic patients on tests designed for the monkey, Behay. Neurosci. 102: 210 (1988).Google Scholar
- 19.W.J. Jackson and C.V. Pegram, Acquisition, transfer and retention of matching by rhesus monkeys, Psychol. Rep. 27: 839 (1970).Google Scholar
- 20.W.W. Cumming and R. Berryman, The complex discriminated operant: studies of matching-to-sample and related problems, in: Stimulus Generalization, D.I. Mostofsky, ed., Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (1965).Google Scholar