Examining the influence of brain stimulation to the medial prefrontal cortex on the self‐reference effect in memory

Burden, Camill; Leach, Ryan C.; Sklenar, Allison M.; Levy, Pauline Urban; Frankenstein, Andrea N.; Leshikar, Eric D.

doi:10.1002/brb3.2368

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it may be that our finding of a prosocial advantage in memory where participant remember specific details (impressions; behaviors) associated with targets, may be adaptive and help guide future goal-directed behaviors in social contexts. Examining conditions under which memory might be improved is an important pursuit (Bjork & Benjamin, 2011;Burden et al, 2021;Frankenstein et al, 2022;Ilenikhena et al, 2021;Leach et al, 2019;, 2014Leshikar et al, , 2017Matzen et al, 2015), and the results of the current investigation contribute to that empirical goal.…”

Section: In Addition To Finding Improved Impression Memory For Targetsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Prior work in the memory domain has shown that certain social information is especially well‐remembered such as information for social targets who cheat. Less work, however, has investigated the extent people remember information for social targets who engage in prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping) in social interactions. The current investigation examines whether there is a memory advantage for social targets who perform prosocial behaviors. Methods Across two experiments, participants formed impressions of social targets engaging in prosocial and non‐prosocial behaviors. Participants were then tested on their memory for the impression as well as the specific behavior each social target performed. Results Results of Experiment 1 showed that memory for impressions was better for social targets engaging in prosocial compared to non‐prosocial behaviors. Results of Experiment 2 showed marginally better behavior memory for targets performing prosocial compared to non‐prosocial behaviors. Conclusion Overall, results of both experiments provide converging evidence of a prosocial advantage in memory, which suggests that people are attuned to prosocial behaviors exhibited by others in the social domain.

show abstract

Section: In Addition To Finding Improved Impression Memory For Targetsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to improved item memory for lower versus higher constraint conditions, we also found that item memory was better for items processed in both testing conditions (lower, higher constraint) compared to controls (restudy, study‐only), which is consistent with a vast literature showing that testing (or retrieval practice) improves item memory (Adesope et al., 2017 ; Glover, 1989 ; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ; Rowland, 2014 ). Finding ways to improve memory is an important scientific endeavor (Bjork & Bjork, 2011 ; Burden et al., 2021 ; Frankenstein et al., 2020 , 2022 ; Ilenikhena et al., 2021 ; Kadwe et al., 2022 ; Leshikar, In Press ; Leshikar et al., 2019 , 2017 ; Leshikar, Park, et al., 2015 ; Matzen et al., 2015 ; Patel et al., 2022 ; Sklenar et al., 2022 , 2021 , 2023 ; Udeogu et al., 2022 ; Urban Levy et al., 2023 ; Villasenor et al., 2021 ), and the results of this investigation add to that cause.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower constraint testing enhances the testing effect for some contextual details but not others

Giannakopoulos,

McCurdy,

Sklenar

et al. 2024

Brain and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRetrieval practice has been shown to be an effective means of learning new information, a memory phenomenon known as the testing effect or the retrieval practice effect. Some work suggests that the magnitude of the testing effect can be enhanced when the test used for retrieval practice uses fewer cues to retrieve previously studied information. It is unclear, however, whether such testing benefits extend to peripheral contextual details associated with studied materials (e.g., location where stimuli appear, font color in which items are presented, etc.). In this experiment, we examine both item memory (i.e., memory for the studied items) and context memory under conditions where the intervening test offers fewer cues (i.e., lower constraint) compared to more cues (higher constraint) to better understand item and context memory testing effects.MethodsParticipants first studied word pairs presented in one of eight locations as well as in either red or green font color. Then, in the re‐exposure phase, participants processed materials in two types of intervening tests (lower constraint and a higher constraint test) as well as in a restudy condition, before a final memory test.ResultsFor item memory, results showed that memory was better in the lower constraint testing condition compared to both the higher constraint testing condition as well as the restudy (control) condition. For context memory, results indicated improved memory for location context under lower constraint testing compared to both higher constraint testing and restudy conditions. There was no difference in memory, however, for color context across all conditions.ConclusionOverall, these findings suggest that providing fewer cues to aid retrieval in the intervening test can induce better memory for both items as well as some contextual details.

show abstract

“…This is relevant because in the current investigation, participants were making predictions about targets that did not involve the self, which may have made the prediction task lower in self salience. Thus, future work might deploy procedures that enhance the self‐salience of the prediction task, such as those used in investigating memory for self‐relevant information (i.e., self‐reference effects; Brown et al., 1986 ; Burden et al., 2021 ; Gutchess et al., 2007 ; Ilenikhena et al., 2021 ; Jackson et al., 2018 ; Leshikar & Duarte, 2012 , 2014 ; Leshikar & Gutchess, 2015 ; Leshikar et al., 2015 ; Leshikar et al., 2016 , 2017 ; Rogers et al., 1977 ; Symons & Johnson, 1997 ; Wong et al., 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reciprocal relationship between episodic memory and future thinking: How the outcome of predictions is subsequently remembered

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence suggests that memory is involved in making simulations and predictions about the future (i.e., future thinking), but less work has examined how the outcome of those predictions (whether events play out as predicted or expected) subsequently affects episodic memory. In this investigation, we examine whether memory is better for outcomes that are consistent with predictions, or whether memory is enhanced for outcomes that are inconsistent with predictions, after the predicted event occurs. In this experiment, participants learned a core trait associated with social targets (e.g., high in extroversion), before making predictions about behaviors targets would perform. Participants then were shown behaviors the social targets actually performed (i.e., prediction outcome), which was either consistent or inconsistent with predictions.After that, participants completed a memory test (recognition; recall) for the prediction outcomes. For recognition, the results revealed better memory for outcomes that were consistent with traits associated with targets (i.e., trait-consistent outcomes), compared to outcomes that were inconsistent (i.e., trait-inconsistent outcomes). Finding a memory advantage for trait-consistent outcomes suggests that outcomes that are in line with the contents of memory (e.g., what one knows; schemas) are more readily remembered than those that are inconsistent with memory, which may reflect an adaptive memory process. For recall, memory did not differ between trait-consistent and trait-inconsistent outcomes. Altogether, the results of this experiment advance understanding of the reciprocal relationship between episodic memory and future thinking and show that outcome of predictions has an influence on subsequent episodic memory, at least as measured by recognition.

show abstract

Examining the influence of brain stimulation to the medial prefrontal cortex on the self‐reference effect in memory

Cited by 17 publications

References 108 publications

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

Evidence for a memory advantage for prosocial behaviors

Lower constraint testing enhances the testing effect for some contextual details but not others

The reciprocal relationship between episodic memory and future thinking: How the outcome of predictions is subsequently remembered

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About