Animal Metacognition: A Tale of Two Comparative Psychologies

Smith, Couchman, Beran · Journal of comparative psychology (Washington, D.C. : 1983) · 2014 · psychology · 10.1037/a0033105 · record Smith2014-animal-metacognition-a-tale-of-two-comparati
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. method is 'review' but understated: the authors also re-implemented and re-ran a criticised computational model ('We programmed Le Pelley’s model to answer this question.'), so there is a simulation component the single-valued facet cannot hold. Replication status is 'contested' rather than 'untested' because the paper itself frames the central interpretation as an open dispute ('The theoretical dispute is the UR’s psychological interpretation.') with associative modellers on the other side. Much of the empirical evidence is the authors' own prior work (Smith et al. 2006, 2008, in press; Beran et al. 2009), which the facets cannot flag. 2026-08-12 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 17 concept tags on this paper, 1 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

metacognition uncertainty response associative uncertainty monitoring Morgan trace strength Delayed-Matching-to-Sample reinforcement registers executive declarative self-awareness operational definition phylogenetic comparative psychology macaques chimpanzees When deferred feedback camouflages the task's reinforcement structure, the animal builds its own subjective decisional framework and responds uncertain to whatever is near its own subjective breakpoint, not the task's objective one Uncertainty responses draw on executive attention and working memory, which is why occupying those resources with a concurrent task selectively degrades them while leaving stimulus-driven perceptual classification intact In Hampton's task no memory-relevant stimulus is present at choice time, so the animal must itself initiate and restrict a search of memory for a strong trace — an operation with no associative cue to react to Casting every performance as a register of activation strengths updated by reinforcement artificially equates psychologically different performances, which is what empties the label 'associative' of content “Middle” response Average Absolute Deviation (AAD) fulcrum point of URs subjective difficulty concurrent working-memory load penalty timeout retention interval correlation goodness-of-fit measure model fitting We also fit these runs of the model signal detection theory model an associative model based in signal-detection theory error of prediction The error of prediction between predicted and observed response proportions review

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033105. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 7 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 6 · concepts 1 · content_tags 49 · controls 1 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 10 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 6

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 6 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	The associative models offered to explain animals' uncertainty responses, and what adopting them costs comparative psychology theoretically. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
claim_type	critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	animal metacognition (uncertainty monitoring) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: When deferred feedback camouflages the task's reinforcement structure, the animal builds its own subjective decisional framework and responds uncertain to whatever is near its own subjective breakpoint, not the task's objective one	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Uncertainty responses draw on executive attention and working memory, which is why occupying those resources with a concurrent task selectively degrades them while leaving stimulus-driven perceptual classification intact	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: In Hampton's task no memory-relevant stimulus is present at choice time, so the animal must itself initiate and restrict a search of memory for a strong trace — an operation with no associative cue to react to	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Casting every performance as a register of activation strengths updated by reinforcement artificially equates psychologically different performances, which is what empties the label 'associative' of content	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The uncertainty response is designed to carry no reward of its own, so choosing it cannot be explained by direct reinforcement of that response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	In the memory task the response icons carry no trace-strength information, so there is nothing on the screen for an association to attach to - the animal must initiate its own search Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The search must also be restricted to the right memory locations, and nothing in the display can tell the animal how to do that Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The associative models work by mapping every performance onto one abstract register of activations updated by reinforcement, which is precisely what makes them unable to tell performances apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The reductio: the same formalism works with a register of fully conscious metacognitive states updated by reinforcement, which shows the formalism settles nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[8]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The all-or-none framing is itself the error: uncertainty monitoring may exist in graded stages without the whole human package Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[9]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The authors concede that not all of the models they criticise have had a fair opportunity to address the newest phenomenon. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the critique of the newest models: THERE HAS NOT BEEN TIME TO ADDRESS IT YET	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	They hedge their own positive interpretation: information-seeking need not imply full conscious metacognition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the positive interpretation: ONE NEED NOT ATTRIBUTE FULL, CONSCIOUS, SELF-IMBUED METACOGNITION TO MACAQUES EVEN IF ONE ADOPTS THIS INFORMATION-SEEKING HYPOTHESIS	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	They acknowledge they cannot presently settle whether one criticised model succeeds in practice. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the verdict on that model: IT IS PRESENTLY DIFFICULT TO JUDGE THE MODEL'S PRAGMATIC SUCCESS	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The empirical results themselves are not in dispute - the whole disagreement is over interpretation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the nature of the whole dispute: THESE EMPIRICAL RESULTS ARE NOT DISPUTED - the disagreement is interpretive, so there is no discrepant measurement to find	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The animals report nothing, so the human evidence for conscious uncertainty has no counterpart in the animal case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any transfer of the human evidence for conscious uncertainty: MACAQUES HAVE ALSO SHOWN THIS PATTERN REPEATEDLY, THOUGH THEY REPORT NOTHING	`limitations[4]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The paper's own positive claim is hedged to possibly-metacognitive rather than metacognitive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the paper's own conclusion, read exactly: higher-level, cognitive, deliberate and decisional are asserted; POSSIBLY METACOGNITIVE AND CONSCIOUS is hedged	`limitations[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The critique is of a specific class of models, which the authors accept would be a legitimate goal if it could be made to work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the standing of the opposing programme: describing the performances in low-level associative terms is AN IMPORTANT GOAL IF ACHIEVABLE	`limitations[6]`		the tagger's words
controls	the Sparse-Uncertain-Dense task interleaved with a Sparse-Middle-Dense task for the capuchin monkeys Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the monkeys learning a fixed response to the uncertain condition - interleaving a task where the middle option is not uncertainty keeps the two from being solved as one · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognition	`concepts[0]`	0.85	the paper's words
senses	associative - the specific sense: responding cued by a present stimulus or trained by reinforcement contingencies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	associative - the stretched sense: anything expressible as a register of activations updated by reward, which covers everything and therefore distinguishes nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the task - with trace-relevant stimuli present (matching-to-sample): an associative account applies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the task - with memory-neutral response icons (Hampton): nothing is present to be associated with, so the same account does not carry over Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	metacognition - as all-or-none: the Yes/No framing the paper says the dichotomy itself may be wrong for the field's goal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	metacognition - as graded: a basic uncertainty-monitoring system without consciousness or self-awareness attached Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Le Pelley (2012), associative-learning model of animal metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Jozefowiez et al. (2009a) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the trigger is present or must be found: JOZEFOWIEZ ET AL. ARE INCORRECT WHEN THEY CLAIM THAT THE UNDERLYING PROCESSES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME WHETHER A TRIGGERING STIMULUS IS ON THE SCREEN OR THE ANIMAL MUST INITIATE ITS OWN TARGETED SEARCH FOR ACTIVE MEMORY TRACES	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Hampton (2001), macaque metamemory studies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → associative models of animal uncertainty responses (Jozefowiez et al., Le Pelley, Staddon et al.) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the same parameter as item 1 - a triggering stimulus ON THE SCREEN against the animal having to INITIATE ITS OWN TARGETED SEARCH FOR ACTIVE MEMORY TRACES	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → strict application of Morgan's canon in comparative psychology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: how strictly the canon is applied: THOSE MODELS REFLECT AN ULTIMATELY STRICT ADHERENCE TO MORGAN'S (1906) CANON, WHICH EVEN MORGAN DID NOT INTEND AND WHICH MANY COMPARATIVE-COGNITION RESEARCHERS DO NOT ACCEPT NOW	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → Hampton (2001) and the memory-monitoring evidence for macaque metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → Metcalfe's operational benchmark of stimulus absence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	uncertainty response —operationalised-as→ uncertainty monitoring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the uncertainty response is shown to be more than a middle category, with monitoring mediated by a distinct network; operationalised-as is loose. also in: uncertainty response · uncertainty monitoring	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	executive —causes→ uncertainty response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says UR processes are executive; causes is loose. also in: executive · uncertainty response	`concept_edges[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	metacognition —part-of→ declarative Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span links metacognition to the declarative system; part-of is loose. also in: metacognition · declarative	`concept_edges[7]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	self-awareness —distinct-from→ uncertainty monitoring Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: self-awareness · uncertainty monitoring	`concept_edges[8]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	reinforcement —causes→ registers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: reinforcement · registers	`concept_edges[9]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	phylogenetic —causes→ metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says phylogeny probably gave metacognition in stages; causes states a probability. also in: phylogenetic · metacognition	`concept_edges[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	goodness-of-fit measure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: goodness-of-fit measure	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	model fitting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: model fitting	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	signal detection theory model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: signal detection theory model	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	error of prediction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error of prediction	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Le Pelley's associative-learning model never produces anything like the uncertainty-response pattern the macaques showed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	At its best fit the associative model mispredicts each of 120 data points by .10 on average. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A non-associative uncertainty model fits the same data more than three times more closely, with an AAD of .03. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The better-fitting cognitive model is also the more parsimonious one, using 3 free parameters against the associative model's 5. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The associative model fits best only by giving up the crucial result: the macaque's asymmetric centering of uncertainty responses at Level 14. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Capuchin monkeys essentially did not use the uncertainty response, even though they received immediate feedback after every trial. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A concurrent memory load selectively suppressed macaques' uncertainty responses while leaving their Sparse, Middle and Dense perceptual responses largely intact. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Pigeons do not express any memory-monitoring capacity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Pigeons' uncertainty-response rate stays flat across retention intervals, though they remember less after longer delays. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	With the added serial-position parameters, Le Pelley's associative model would have nine free parameters. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors hold that Le Pelley's published simulations must be discounted because they misstate a crucial aspect of Hampton's method. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	With the delay interval controlled, macaques made far more uncertainty responses on blank trials. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[12]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Monkeys defended the same criterion of memory strength in two separate studies, a convergence across laboratories, animals and methods. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[13]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors argue that the associative models reflect a strict adherence to Morgan's Canon that even Morgan did not intend. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[14]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	animals show uncertainty responses where no cuing stimulus is present, on first trials, and without feedback Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[15]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chimpanzees checked the container before naming only on trials where they had not seen its contents Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[16]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the empirical pattern is agreed by both sides; only its interpretation is disputed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[17]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	a broad enough associative label can no longer separate performances that differ psychologically Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[18]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the claim implies any information processing can be lumped under 'associative', which makes the term theoretically useless Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[19]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	metacognition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: metacognition	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	“Middle” response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: “Middle” response	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Average Absolute Deviation (AAD) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Average Absolute Deviation (AAD)	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	fulcrum point of URs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fulcrum point of URs	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	subjective difficulty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subjective difficulty	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	uncertainty response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: uncertainty response	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Delayed-Matching-to-Sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Delayed-Matching-to-Sample	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	concurrent working-memory load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: concurrent working-memory load	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	penalty timeout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: penalty timeout	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	retention interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: retention interval	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	r = 0.838 — correlation between the proportion of trials the macaque declined and the distance of the trial level from his own subjective decisional breakpoint Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	.10 — best-case average absolute deviation of the associative-learning model per data point Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	.03 — average absolute deviation of the non-associative uncertainty model on the same data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	about .30 — per-data-point error of the associative model when constrained to the UR fulcrum of 14 that the real macaque showed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	5% — error of prediction of the earlier signal-detection associative model between predicted and observed response proportions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	7% — average per-stimulus-level misprediction of the uncertainty response by that associative model across levels 1-31 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	23% ... 97% — macaque Murph's uncertainty-response rate at Level 9 against his accuracy on those same trials, showing URs uncoupled from reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	19% ... 22% — the same macaque's uncertainty-response rate at Level 20 against his accuracy there, far below chance yet declined less often than the easy level Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	14 and 0.12 — the real macaque's position in the simulation space (UR fulcrum, mean UR rate), which the associative model's runs never reach Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	90 s from 20s — the penalty timeout increase used to raise associative pressure on capuchins to adopt the uncertainty response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	five of six — capuchin monkeys who still failed to use the uncertainty response adaptively even after the timeout was quadrupled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	10% — the constant error rate macaques maintained as memory lists lengthened, by declining more tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	one of five — capuchins who searched before reaching more often on unseen-hiding trials in the food-concealment paradigm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[12]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	41-step continuum — the density scale along which stimuli are classified sparse or dense Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[13]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Level 21 — the exact breakpoint, never presented, around which the uncertainty response should cluster Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[14]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.