Individual differences in value-directed remembering

Elliott, Blake L.; McClure, Samuel M.; Brewer, Gene A.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104275

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that people show item memory advantages for higher-value compared with lower-value materials, it may be that there is a similar pattern for both objective and subjective context memory: When people prioritize learning some content over others, they encode a detail-rich episodic representation that includes numerous contextual details. Looking at findings from objective context memory first, results of several VDR experiments show better objective context memory (e.g., location in which a studied word appeared) for higher-value compared with lower-value items, suggesting that at least some contextual details (location) are enhanced for valuable information (Cohen et al, 2019;Elliott, McClure, & Brewer, 2020;Siegel & Castel, 2018a, Experiments 1 & 2;Shigemune, Tsukiura, Kambara, & Kawashima, 2014;Schwartz, Siegel, & Castel, 2020). Interestingly, though, not all investigations have shown item and objective context memory enhancements for highervalue relative to lower-value materials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to prioritize learning some information over others when that information is considered important or valuable is known as value-directed remembering. In these experiments, we investigate how value influences different aspects of memory, including item memory (memory for the to-be-learned materials) and context memory (memory for peripheral details that occurred when studying items) to get a better understanding of how people prioritize learning information. In this investigation, participants encoded words associated with a range of values (binned into higher, medium, and lower value in Experiment 1, and into higher and lower value in Experiment 2) for a subsequent memory test that measured item memory (Is this item old or new?) as well as both objective context memory (memory for an objectively verifiable contextual detail: In which voice was this item spoken?) and subjective context memory (How many visual, auditory, and extraneous thoughts/feelings can you remember associated with this item?). Results indicated that value influenced item memory but had no effect on objective context memory in both Experiments. In Experiment 2, results showed better subjective context memory for multiple episodic details for highervalue relative to lower-value materials. Overall, these findings suggest that value has a strong influence over some aspects of memory, but not others. This work gives a richer understanding of how people prioritize learning more important over less important information.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taken together, this is suggestive of a common encoding and retrieval mechanism for the two types of memory but only when source memory is encoded intentionally (Elliott et al, 2020a). These findings suggest a mechanism where awareness of source memory has future utility lead to deliberate encoding of advantageous associated source items (e.g., high rewarding items).…”

Section: Insights Into Reward-memory Study Designmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Converging findings have shown enhanced memory for high reward-associated stimuli under various conditions (e.g., Castel et al, 2002;Bowen et al, 2020a;Gruber et al, 2014;Stare et al, 2018), although with a few exceptions (e.g., Wittmann et al, 2005Wittmann et al, , 2011. Similarly, some studies combine these two ways of encoding by also testing source memory showing an interesting nuance of reward effects on memory (Elliott et al, 2020a;Murayama & Kitagami, 2014;Rouhani et al, 2018;Shigemune et al, 2010;Wimmer & Büchel, 2016), illustrating similar findings (i.e., better source memory for higher rewarding stimuli). Other apparent methodological differences found in the literature pertain to small, perhaps perceived as insignificant, differences in experimental designs across studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…However, a sub-set of the reviewed intentional studies also assess source memory for the target items. Crucially, these studies either have participants intentionally encode source memory concurrently with the to-be-remembered items (Elliott et al, 2020a. ;Shigemune et al, 2013) or have participants intentionally encode to-beremembered items but incidentally encode source memory (Hennessee et al, 2017, Exp.…”

Section: Insights Into Reward-memory Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Capturing source memorybe it encoded intentionally or incidentallyreveals crucial information about underlying memory processes and reward interactions when deliberately attending and encoding certain sets of stimuli. Unsurprisingly, source memory is enhanced when successful retrieval results in reward or lack of punishment (Shigemune et al, 2013) and for items associated with high compared to low rewards where Remember/Know memory correlates with source memory (Elliott et al, 2020a). Crucially, however, memory for low-value associated source memory is enhanced when source memory is encoded incidentally rather than intentionally (Hennessee et al, 2017).…”

Section: Insights Into Reward-memory Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fractionating the reward-memory literature: Instructed, item-related feedback, and item-unrelated feedback

Simonsen¹,

Madan²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last two decades, nearly one hundred studies have been published examining reward influences on memory. Implementations of reward-value procedures have varied markedly, as have other study characteristics, including images vs. words, intentional vs. incidental memory encoding, and recall vs. recognition tests. As such, the resulting state of the field has become unwieldy and somewhat difficult to identify consistent reward-memory effects from those that are inconsistent due to critical differences in the study methods. Here we provide an overview of these studies and fractionate their methods into three distinct procedures: instructed, item-related feedback, and item-unrelated feedback. Instructed studies tell participants of item-value associations during encoding with rewards earned during memory retrieval. In contrast, feedback studies ask participants to make responses during encoding, with rewards provided as feedback; memory retrieval itself is unrewarded. Some feedback studies require participants to make responses related to the to-be-remembered items, while others require participants to respond to an initial prompt before presenting an unrelated stimulus. While both procedures involve feedback, the first set of studies involves item-related feedback, and the second set has item-unrelated feedback. By fractionating the reward-memory literature into distinct procedures, an otherwise heterogenous mixture of study design characteristics becomes much more interpretable and the underlying cognitive mechanisms more clear. This additional clarity should improve predictions for future studies, as this framework helps identify which prior findings are more relevant, while also providing a summary of the current state of the field.

show abstract

In vivo structural connectivity of the reward system along the hippocampal long axis

Elliott,

Mohyee,

Ballard

et al. 2024

Hippocampus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has identified a critical role for the hippocampus in reward‐sensitive behaviors, including motivated memory, reinforcement learning, and decision‐making. Animal histology and human functional neuroimaging have shown that brain regions involved in reward processing and motivation are more interconnected with the ventral/anterior hippocampus. However, direct evidence examining gradients of structural connectivity between reward regions and the hippocampus in humans is lacking. The present study used diffusion MRI (dMRI) and probabilistic tractography to quantify the structural connectivity of the hippocampus with key reward processing regions in vivo. Using a large sample of subjects (N = 628) from the human connectome dMRI data release, we found that connectivity profiles with the hippocampus varied widely between different regions of the reward circuit. While the dopaminergic midbrain (ventral tegmental area) showed stronger connectivity with the anterior versus posterior hippocampus, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex showed stronger connectivity with the posterior hippocampus. The limbic (ventral) striatum demonstrated a more homogeneous connectivity profile along the hippocampal long axis. This is the first study to generate a probabilistic atlas of the hippocampal structural connectivity with reward‐related networks, which is essential to investigating how these circuits contribute to normative adaptive behavior and maladaptive behaviors in psychiatric illness. These findings describe nuanced structural connectivity that sets the foundation to better understand how the hippocampus influences reward‐guided behavior in humans.

show abstract

Individual differences in value-directed remembering

Cited by 27 publications

References 70 publications

Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory

Value-directed memory effects on item and context memory

Fractionating the reward-memory literature: Instructed, item-related feedback, and item-unrelated feedback

In vivo structural connectivity of the reward system along the hippocampal long axis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About