chose between the two food items, she had to remember the non-chosen item, and do so in a way that would later allow
her to locate the correct lexigram token to match that item. This would indicate that she anticipated what she would need
to do later. Panzee was clearly motivated to some degree to receive that other food item, and she accurately remembered
the name of that item on the majority of those trials. Panzee then went outdoors and engaged in a different task (foraging
for the more preferred food) before she implemented retrieval of the token for the indoor food item. It was possible that
Panzee could have retrieved that token immediately upon entering the outdoor yard, and this would not have been very
strong evidence of prospective memory because the likelihood for continuous rehearsal would have been much greater.
However, she did not do this. Instead, she went outdoors and retrieved and ate the highly preferred food items she had
selected indoors, and then often spent time sitting outdoors surveying the area outside her cage, grooming, or doing other
activities before retrieving the token and bringing it back indoors. Also, Panzee’s performance was impressive in that, on the
majority of trials, she overturned the tokens only until she found the one that corresponded to the indoor type of food item,
suggesting that she was implementing the intention to retrieve a specific token that matched that food item seen earlier in
the trial. Thus, Panzee’s performance showed that she encoded the type of indoor item, then engaged in other activities for a
period of time, and then spontaneously implemented the token retrieval process and the return to the indoor area to finally
obtain the remaining food item.
chose between the two food items, she had to remember the non-chosen item, and do so in a way that would later allowher to locate the correct lexigram token to match that item. This would indicate that she anticipated what she would needto do later. Panzee was clearly motivated to some degree to receive that other food item, and she accurately rememberedthe name of that item on the majority of those trials. Panzee then went outdoors and engaged in a different task (foragingfor the more preferred food) before she implemented retrieval of the token for the indoor food item. It was possible thatPanzee could have retrieved that token immediately upon entering the outdoor yard, and this would not have been verystrong evidence of prospective memory because the likelihood for continuous rehearsal would have been much greater.However, she did not do this. Instead, she went outdoors and retrieved and ate the highly preferred food items she hadselected indoors, and then often spent time sitting outdoors surveying the area outside her cage, grooming, or doing otheractivities before retrieving the token and bringing it back indoors. Also, Panzee’s performance was impressive in that, on themajority of trials, she overturned the tokens only until she found the one that corresponded to the indoor type of food item,suggesting that she was implementing the intention to retrieve a specific token that matched that food item seen earlier inทดลอง ดังนั้น ประสิทธิภาพของ Panzee พบว่า เธอเข้ารหัสชนิดของสินค้าในร่ม แล้วในกิจกรรมอื่น ๆ สำหรับการรอบระยะเวลาของเวลา แล้ว ธรรมชาติดำเนินการเรียกโทเคนและกลับไปยังพื้นที่ในร่มเพื่อในที่สุดรับรายการอาหารที่เหลือ
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
