Rewards interact with repetition‐dependent learning to enhance long‐term retention of motor memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of behavioral experiences that enhance long-term retention remains largely unknown. Informed by neurophysiological lines of work, this study tested the hypothesis that performance-contingent monetary rewards potentiate repetition-dependent forms of learning, as induced by extensive practice at asymptote, to enhance long-term retention of motor memories. To this end, six groups of 14 participants (n = 84) acquired novel motor behaviors by adapting to a gradual visuomotor rotation while these factors were manipulated. Retention was assessed 24 h later. While all groups similarly acquired the novel motor behaviors, results from the retention session revealed an interaction indicating that rewards enhanced long-term retention, but only when practice was extended to asymptote. Specifically, the interaction indicated that this effect selectively occurred when rewards were intermittently available (i.e., 50%), but not when they were absent (i.e., 0%) or continuously available (i.e., 100%) during acquisition. This suggests that the influence of rewards on extensive practice and long-term retention is nonlinear, as continuous rewards did not further enhance retention as compared with intermittent rewards. One possibility is that rewards' intermittent availability allows to maintain their subjective value during acquisition, which may be key to potentiate long-term retention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".