Abstract

Interspecies comparisons are key to deriving an understanding of the behavioral and neural correlates of human cognition from animal models. We perform a detailed comparison of the strategies of female macaque monkeys to male and female humans on a variant of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a widely studied and applied task that provides a multiattribute measure of cognitive function and depends on the frontal lobe. WCST performance requires the inference of a rule change given ambiguous feedback. We found that well-trained monkeys infer new rules three times more slowly than minimally instructed humans. Input-dependent hidden Markov model–generalized linear models were fit to their choices, revealing hidden states akin to feature-based attention in both species. Decision processes resembled a win–stay, lose–shift strategy with interspecies similarities as well as key differences. Monkeys and humans both test multiple rule hypotheses over a series of rule-search trials and perform inference-like computations to exclude candidate choice options. We quantitatively show that perseveration, random exploration, and poor sensitivity to negative feedback account for the slower task-switching performance in monkeys.