Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782403›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2021

In for a penny, in for a pound: examining motivated memory through the lens of retrieved context models.

Deborah Talmi, Deimante Kavaliauskaite, Nathaniel D Daw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reward does not modulate forgetting in free recall tests.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2022
    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.

Deborah TalmiDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7720-2706
Deimante KavaliauskaiteDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.
Nathaniel D DawPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.

Funding

CRCNS: Computational and neural mechanisms of memory-guided decisionsR01DA038891 · NIDA · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI DAW, NATHANIEL DOUGLASS, SHOHAMY, DAPHNA · 2014 to 2018
$1.7M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA038891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When people encounter items that they believe will help them gain reward, they later remember them better than others. A recent model of emotional memory, the emotional context maintenance and retrieval model (eCMR), predicts that these effects would be stronger when stimuli that predict high and low reward can compete with each other during both encoding and retrieval. We tested this prediction in two experiments. Participants were promised £1 for remembering some pictures, but only a few pence for remembering others. Their recall of the content of the pictures they saw was tested after 1 min and, in experiment 2, also after 24 h. Memory at the immediate test showed effects of list composition. Recall of stimuli that predicted high reward was greater than of stimuli that predicted lower reward, but only when high- and low-reward items were studied and recalled together, not when they were studied and recalled separately. More high-reward items in mixed lists were forgotten over a 24-h retention interval compared with items studied in other conditions, but reward did not modulate the forgetting rate, a null effect that should be replicated in a larger sample. These results confirm eCMR's predictions, although further research is required to compare that model against alternatives.

Indexed as

Mental RecallRewardEmotionsHumans

Identifiers

PMID34782403
PMCPMC8600977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.