Our data show that the correlations between the hippocampus and the other structures of the memory system are higher in the place-learning group compared to the cue-learning group, whereas they are enhanced with the amygdala in the latter group compared to the former.
The BOLD response was prolonged when the double cue was presented as compared to the single cue (degrees of freedom: 12, P < 0.01, uncorrected).
In agreement with the relatively small effect the punishment cue had on behavior as compared to the reward cue, spatial-punishment selectivity was generally weaker than spatial-reward selectivity.
Performance along the cues-concordant diagonal is, however, improved compared to
A potential problem with our results thus far, showing higher capacity representations upon the retro-cue compared to the post-cue, is that our measure to counter chunking (rotating all irrelevant items between memory and probe arrays) could have introduced a difference in capacity by itself.
This interpretation resembles earlier theoretical claims of Coltheart [26] that iconic memory might consist of both 1) a visible persistent component (alike our finding that iconic memory resembles a positive after-image) and, 2) an informational persistent component (akin to our finding of additional information in the retro-cue condition compared to the post-cue condition).
Note that this point in time occurred about 3 s earlier for the single-cues as compared to the double-cues.
We found superior performance for the retro-cue condition (Fig. 6d) compared to the post-cue condition (Fig. 6e) for both alphanumeric [t 9) = 7.09, p<.001] and horoscope characters [t 9) = 5.38, p<.001] (Fig. 6f).
In a species where the optimum is strictly affecting the physiology of the organism, such as for temperature-dependent life-history traits in many insects [19], the presence of other individuals does not matter much compared to the environmental cues.
In the combined condition, the average threshold was reduced to 1.44° ± 0.06°, a 29% improvement compared to the best single cue, and was very close to the prediction (1.43° ± 0.06°) from optimal cue integration theory.
