Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28965970›Full record

ArticleBehavioural processes2017

A test of the reward-contrast hypothesis.

Stefan J Dalecki, Danielle E Panoz-Brown, Jonathon D Crystal

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioural processes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan J DaleckiDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, IN 47405, United States.
Danielle E Panoz-BrownDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, IN 47405, United States.
Jonathon D CrystalDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, IN 47405, United States. Electronic address: jcrystal@indiana.edu.
Indiana University · US

Funding

Episodic memory protection in apolipoprotein E (APOE) knockout ratsR21AG051753 · NIA · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI CRYSTAL, JONATHON D · 2016 to 2017
$430k
NIA NIH HHS R21 AG051753
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Source memory, a facet of episodic memory, is the memory of the origin of information. Whereas source memory in rats is sustained for at least a week, spatial memory degraded after approximately a day. Different forgetting functions may suggest that two memory systems (source memory and spatial memory) are dissociated. However, in previous work, the two tasks used baiting conditions consisting of chocolate and chow flavors; notably, the source memory task used the relatively better flavor. Thus, according to the reward-contrast hypothesis, when chocolate and chow were presented within the same context (i.e., within a single radial maze trial), the chocolate location was more memorable than the chow location because of contrast. We tested the reward-contrast hypothesis using baiting configurations designed to produce reward-contrast. The reward-contrast hypothesis predicts that under these conditions, spatial memory will survive a 24-h retention interval. We documented elimination of spatial memory performance after a 24-h retention interval using a reward-contrast baiting pattern. These data suggest that reward contrast does not explain our earlier findings that source memory survives unusually long retention intervals.

Indexed as

Maze LearningRetention, PsychologyRewardSpatial MemoryTasteAnimalsAssociation LearningAttentionMaleMotivationRatsRats, Long-EvansEpisodic memoryRatReward-contrastSource memorySpatial memory

Identifiers

PMID28965970
PMCPMC5681873
OpenAlexW2758248133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.