Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 23–29 | Cite as

Specific characteristics of cholinergic mechanisms of short-term memory in monkeys for different types of visual information: The effects of amizil

  • K. N. Dudkin
  • I. V. Chueva


Experiments on rhesus macaques were used to study the relationship between the characteristics of delayed visual differentiation and stimulus properties in conditions of pharmacological treatment with the m-cholinoreceptor blocker amizil, with the aim of identifying how modification of cholinergic structures affects different types of information. Disturbances to short-term memory for all stimuli consisted of reductions in the duration of retention and increases in motor reaction times, but occurred at different doses of the blocker: amizil at a dose of 0.3 mg/kg significantly decreased the retention duration for information relating to spatial relationships. Delayed discrimination of shape, contrast, and size worsened after treatment with amizil at a dose of 0.45–0.50 mg/kg, while decreases in the duration of short-term storage of information relating to color started after amizil doses of 0.6–0.8 mg/kg. It is suggested that the short-term memory system includes a set of neurophysiological mechanisms in which the cholinergic structures are organized differently and whose specific properties result in differences in the characteristics of short-term storage of different types of visual information.

Key Words

Rhesus macaque visual differentiation short-term memory cholinergic structures m-cholinoreceptor blocker 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. M. Bongard, The Question of Consciousness [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1967).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. S. Borodkin and P. D. Shabanov, Neurochemical Mechanisms in the Fading of Memory Traces [in Russian], Nauka, Leningrad (1986).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. N. Dudkin, Visual Perception and Memory [in Russian], Nauka, Leningrad (1985).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. N. Dudkin, V. K. Kruchinin, Yu. V. Skryminskii, and I. V. Chueva, Methods for the Automation of Studies of the Neuronal Mechanisms of Behavior [in Russian], Nauka, Leningrad (1989).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. N. Dudkin, V. K. Kruchinin, and I. V. Chueva, “Involvement of cholinergic structures of the prefrontal and lower temporal cortex in visual recognition processes in monkeys,” Fiziol. Zh. im. I. M. Sechenova,79, No. 2, 31–42 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. N. Dudkin, V. K. Kruchinin, and I. V. Chueva, “Synchronization process in the mechanisms of short-term memory in monkeys: involvement of cholinergic and glutaminergic cortical structures,” Fiziol. Zh. im. I. M. Sechenova,81, No. 8, 128–134 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. N. Dudkin and I. V. Chueva, “The relationship between learning characteristics in rhesus macaques and the properties of visual objects,” Fiziol. Zh. im. I. M. Sechenova,81, No. 1, 25–34 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. N. Dudkin, I. V. Chueva, and I. V. Orlov, “The relationship between the characteristics of visual short-term memory in monkeys and image properties: features due to differences in spatial relationships,” Fiziol. Zh. im. I. M. Sechenova, in press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. I. Kruglikov, “The neurochemical mechanisms of memory,” in: Mechanisms of Memory [in Russian], Nauka, Leningrad (1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. A. Firsov, I. P. Lapin, and L. A. Moiseeva, “The effects of phenamine and amizil on the interaction between delayed reactions and conditioned-reflex differentiation in rhesus macaques and capuchin monkeys,” Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,32, No. 4, 744–746 (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. B. Shapovalova, “Afferent and efferent mechanisms of increases in the cholinergic activity of the neostriatum,” Fiziol. Zh. im. I. M. Sechenova,80, No. 1, 47–59 (1994).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. L. Colby, J. R. Duhamel, and M. E. Goldberg, “The analysis of visual space by the lateral intraparietal area of the monkey: the role of extraretinal signals,” Progr. Brain Res.,95, 307–316 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. W. Decker and J. L. McGaugh, “The role of interactions between the cholinergic system and other neuromodulatory systems in learning and memory,” Synapse,7, 151–168 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. E. Goldberg, C. L. Colby, and J. R. Duhamel, “Representation of visuomotor space in the parietal lobe of the monkey,” Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol.,55, 729–739 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Hyvarinen, The Parietal Cortex of Monkey and Man, Springer, Berlin (1982).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Lynch, J. Larson, U. Staubli, and R. Grander, “Variants of synaptic potentiation and different types of memory operations in hippocampus and related structures,” in: Memory: Organization and Locus of Change, L. R. Squire et al., Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. S. Olton, “Demental Animal models of the cognitive impairments following damage to the basal forebrain cholinergic systems,” Brain Res. Bull.,25, 499–502 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. M. Ridley and H. F. Baker, “A critical evaluation of monkey models of amnesia and dementia,” Brain Res Rev.,16, 15–37 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. N. Dudkin
    • 1
  • I. V. Chueva
    • 1
  1. 1.Conscious Processes Modeling Group, I. P. Pavlov Institute of PhysiologyRussian Academy of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations