↓ Skip to main content

High Reward Makes Items Easier to Remember, but Harder to Bind to a New Temporal Context

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High Reward Makes Items Easier to Remember, but Harder to Bind to a New Temporal Context
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2012.00061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher R. Madan, Esther Fujiwara, Bridgette C. Gerson, Jeremy B. Caplan

Abstract

Learning through reward is central to adaptive behavior. Indeed, items are remembered better if they are experienced while participants expect a reward, and people can deliberately prioritize memory for high- over low-valued items. Do memory advantages for high-valued items only emerge after deliberate prioritization in encoding? Or, do reward-based memory enhancements also apply to unrewarded memory tests and to implicit memory? First, we tested for a high-value memory advantage in unrewarded implicit- and explicit-tests (Experiment 1). Participants first learned high or low-reward values of 36 words, followed by unrewarded lexical decision and free-recall tests. High-value words were judged faster in lexical decision, and more often recalled in free recall. These two memory advantages for high-value words were negatively correlated suggesting at least two mechanisms by which reward value can influence later item-memorability. The ease with which the values were originally acquired explained the negative correlation: people who learned values earlier showed reward effects in implicit memory whereas people who learned values later showed reward effects in explicit memory. We then asked whether a high-value advantage would persist if trained items were linked to a new context (Experiments 2a and 2b). Following the same value training as in Experiment 1, participants learned lists composed of previously trained words mixed with new words, each followed by free recall. Thus, participants had to retrieve words only from the most recent list, irrespective of their values. High- and low-value words were recalled equally, but low-value words were recalled earlier than high-value words and high-value words were more often intruded (proactive interference). Thus, the high-value advantage holds for implicit- and explicit-memory, but comes with a side effect: High-value items are more difficult to relearn in a new context. Similar to emotional arousal, reward value can both enhance and impair memory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Ghana 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 75 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 29%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 49%
Neuroscience 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 11 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,134,992
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#422
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,200
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#41
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.