↓ Skip to main content

A test of the reward-value hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
A test of the reward-value hypothesis
Published in
Animal Cognition, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-1040-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra E. Smith, Stefan J. Dalecki, Jonathon D. Crystal

Abstract

Rats retain source memory (memory for the origin of information) over a retention interval of at least 1 week, whereas their spatial working memory (radial maze locations) decays within approximately 1 day. We have argued that different forgetting functions dissociate memory systems. However, the two tasks, in our previous work, used different reward values. The source memory task used multiple pellets of a preferred food flavor (chocolate), whereas the spatial working memory task provided access to a single pellet of standard chow-flavored food at each location. Thus, according to the reward-value hypothesis, enhanced performance in the source memory task stems from enhanced encoding/memory of a preferred reward. We tested the reward-value hypothesis by using a standard 8-arm radial maze task to compare spatial working memory accuracy of rats rewarded with either multiple chocolate or chow pellets at each location using a between-subjects design. The reward-value hypothesis predicts superior accuracy for high-valued rewards. We documented equivalent spatial memory accuracy for high- and low-value rewards. Importantly, a 24-h retention interval produced equivalent spatial working memory accuracy for both flavors. These data are inconsistent with the reward-value hypothesis and suggest that reward value does not explain our earlier findings that source memory survives unusually long retention intervals.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 6%
France 1 6%
Unknown 15 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Professor 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,385,802
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,227
of 1,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,388
of 319,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 319,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.