In for a penny, in for a pound: Examining motivated memory through the lens of retrieved context models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 both during 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 one minute and in Experiment 2, also after 24 hours. Memory at 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-hour retention interval compared to items studied in other conditions, but reward did not modulate the forgetting rate, a null effect which should be replicated in a larger sample. These results confirm eCMR’s predictions, although further research is required to compare that model against alternatives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".