Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39948096›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Proactive and reactive construction of memory-based preferences.

Jonathan Nicholas, Nathaniel D Daw, Daphna Shohamy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Planning in the Brain: It's Not What You Think It Is.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan NicholasDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2314-0765
Nathaniel D DawDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5029-1430
Daphna ShohamyDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. ds2619@columbia.edu.

Funding

Differentiating reward seeking and loss avoidance with reference-dependent learning modelsR01MH121093 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI DAW, NATHANIEL DOUGLASS, SHOHAMY, DAPHNA · 2019 to 2022
$2.1M
National Science Foundation (NSF) 1644869NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH121093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are often faced with decisions we have never encountered before, requiring us to infer possible outcomes before making a choice. Computational theories suggest that one way to make these types of decisions is by accessing and linking related experiences stored in memory. Past work has shown that such memory-based preference construction can occur at a number of different timepoints relative to the moment a decision is made. Some studies have found that memories are integrated at the time a decision is faced (reactively) while others found that memory integration happens earlier, when memories were initially encoded (proactively). Here we offer a resolution to this inconsistency, demonstrating that these two strategies tradeoff rationally as a function of the associative structure of memory. We use fMRI to decode patterns of brain responses unique to categories of images in memory and find that proactive memory access is more common and allows more efficient inference. However, we also find that participants use reactive access when choice options are linked to a larger number of memory associations. Together, these results indicate that the brain judiciously conducts proactive inference by accessing memories ahead of time when conditions make this strategy more favorable.

Indexed as

BrainChoice BehaviorDecision MakingMemoryAdultFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39948096
PMCPMC11825774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.