Collective events and individual affect shape autobiographical memory.

How do collective events shape how we remember our lives? We leveraged advances in natural language processing as well as a rich, longitudinal assessment of 1,000 Americans throughout 2020 to examine how memory is influenced by two prominent factors: surprise and emotion. Autobiographical memory for 2020 displayed a unique signature: There was a substantial bump in March, aligning with pandemic onset and lockdowns, consistent across three memory collections 1 y apart. We further investigated how emotion, using both immediate and retrieved measures, predicted the amount and content of autobiographical memory: Negative affect increased recall across all measures, whereas its more clinical indices, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, selectively increased nonepisodic recall. Finally, in a separate cohort, we found pandemic news to be better remembered, surprising, and negative, while lockdowns compressed remembered time. Our work connects laboratory findings to the real world and delineates the effects of acute versus clinical signatures of negative emotion on memory.

Building and Breaking the Chain: A Model of Reward Prediction Error Integration and Segmentation of Memory.

Prediction errors drive reinforcement learning and organize episodic memory into distinct contexts, but do these effects interact? Here, we review the roles of midbrain dopamine, the locus coeruleus, and the hippocampus in event cognition to propose and simulate the theoretical influence of two prediction error signals in integrating versus segmenting events in memory. We suggest that signed reward prediction errors can build mental models of reward environments, increasing the contextual similarity (integration) of experiences with stronger, more stable reward expectations. On the other hand, unsigned reward prediction errors can signal a new model of the environment, generating a contextual shift (segmentation) between experiences that crossed them. We moreover predicted that these differences in contextual similarity give rise to distinct patterns of temporal-order memory. We combined these ideas in a computational model to account for a seemingly paradoxical pattern of temporal-order memory where greater representational distance helps order memory within context but impairs it across contexts. We found that simulating signed reward prediction error integration and unsigned reward prediction error segmentation differentially enabled the model to perform associative chaining, which involved reactivating items between two tested probes to assist with sequential retrieval. In summary, our simulations provide a unifying explanation for the varied ways that neuromodulatory systems alter event cognition and memory.

Impaired generalization of reward but not loss in obsessive-compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Generalizing from past experiences can be adaptive by allowing those experiences to guide behavior in new situations. Generalizing too much, however, can be maladaptive. For example, individuals with pathological anxiety are believed to overgeneralize emotional responses from past threats, broadening their scope of fears. Whether individuals with pathological anxiety overgeneralize in other situations remains unclear. METHODS: The present study (N = 57) used a monetary sensory preconditioning paradigm with rewards and losses to address this question in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and social anxiety disorder (SAD), comparing them to healthy comparison subjects (HC). In all groups, we tested direct learning of associations between cues and reward vs. loss outcomes, as well as generalization of learning to novel choice options. RESULTS: We found no differences between the three groups in the direct learning of stimuli with their outcomes: all subjects demonstrated intact stimulus-response learning by choosing rewarding options and avoiding negative ones. However, OCD subjects were less likely to generalize from rewards than either the SAD or HC groups, and this impairment was not found for losses. Additionally, greater deficits in reward generalization were correlated with severity of threat estimation, as measured by a subscale of the Obsessive Beliefs Questionnaire, both within OCD and across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a compromised ability to generalize from rewarding events may impede adaptive behavior in OCD and in those susceptible to high estimation of threat.

Multiple routes to enhanced memory for emotionally relevant events.

Events associated with aversive or rewarding outcomes are prioritized in memory. This memory boost is commonly attributed to the elicited affective response, closely linked to noradrenergic and dopaminergic modulation of hippocampal plasticity. Herein we review and compare this 'affect' mechanism to an additional, recently discovered, 'prediction' mechanism whereby memories are strengthened by the extent to which outcomes deviate from expectations, that is, by prediction errors (PEs). The mnemonic impact of PEs is separate from the affective outcome itself and has a distinct neural signature. While both routes enhance memory, these mechanisms are linked to different - and sometimes opposing - predictions for memory integration. We discuss new findings that highlight mechanisms by which emotional events strengthen, integrate, and segment memory.

Value restructures the organization of free recall.

A large body of research illustrates the prioritization of goal-relevant information in memory; however, it is unclear how reward-related memories are organized. Using a rewarded free recall paradigm, we investigated how reward motivation structures the organization of memory around temporal and higher-order contexts. To better understand these processes, we simulated our findings using a reward-modulated variant of the Context Maintenance and Retrieval Model (CMR; Polyn et al., 2009). In the first study, we found that reward did not influence temporal clustering, but instead shifted the organization of memory based on reward category. Further, we showed that a reward-modulated learning rate and source features of CMR most accurately depict reward's enhancement on memory and clustering by value. In a second study, we showed that reward-memory effects can exist in both extended periods of sustained motivation and frequent changes in motivation, by showing equivalent reward effects using mixed- and pure-list motivation manipulations. However, we showed that a reward-modulated learning rate in isolation can support reward's enhancement of memory in pure-list contexts. Overall, we conclude that reward-related memories are adaptively organized by higher-order value information, and contextual binding to value contexts may only be necessary when rewards are intermittent versus sustained.

Signed and unsigned reward prediction errors dynamically enhance learning and memory.

Memory helps guide behavior, but which experiences from the past are prioritized? Classic models of learning posit that events associated with unpredictable outcomes as well as, paradoxically, predictable outcomes, deploy more attention and learning for those events. Here, we test reinforcement learning and subsequent memory for those events, and treat signed and unsigned reward prediction errors (RPEs), experienced at the reward-predictive cue or reward outcome, as drivers of these two seemingly contradictory signals. By fitting reinforcement learning models to behavior, we find that both RPEs contribute to learning by modulating a dynamically changing learning rate. We further characterize the effects of these RPE signals on memory and show that both signed and unsigned RPEs enhance memory, in line with midbrain dopamine and locus-coeruleus modulation of hippocampal plasticity, thereby reconciling separate findings in the literature.

Reward prediction errors create event boundaries in memory.

We remember when things change. Particularly salient are experiences where there is a change in rewards, eliciting reward prediction errors (RPEs). How do RPEs influence our memory of those experiences? One idea is that this signal directly enhances the encoding of memory. Another, not mutually exclusive, idea is that the RPE signals a deeper change in the environment, leading to the mnemonic separation of subsequent experiences from what came before, thereby creating a new latent context and a more separate memory trace. We tested this in four experiments where participants learned to predict rewards associated with a series of trial-unique images. High-magnitude RPEs indicated a change in the underlying distribution of rewards. To test whether these large RPEs created a new latent context, we first assessed recognition priming for sequential pairs that included a high-RPE event or not (Exp. 1: n = 27 & Exp. 2: n = 83). We found evidence of recognition priming for the high-RPE event, indicating that the high-RPE event is bound to its predecessor in memory. Given that high-RPE events are themselves preferentially remembered (Rouhani, Norman, & Niv, 2018), we next tested whether there was an event boundary across a high-RPE event (i.e., excluding the high-RPE event itself; Exp. 3: n = 85). Here, sequential pairs across a high RPE no longer showed recognition priming whereas pairs within the same latent reward state did, providing initial evidence for an RPE-modulated event boundary. We then investigated whether RPE event boundaries disrupt temporal memory by asking participants to order and estimate the distance between two events that had either included a high-RPE event between them or not (Exp. 4). We found (n = 49) and replicated (n = 77) worse sequence memory for events across a high RPE. In line with our recognition priming results, we did not find sequence memory to be impaired between the high-RPE event and its predecessor, but instead found worse sequence memory for pairs across a high-RPE event. Moreover, greater distance between events at encoding led to better sequence memory for events across a low-RPE event, but not a high-RPE event, suggesting separate mechanisms for the temporal ordering of events within versus across a latent reward context. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that high-RPE events are both more strongly encoded, show intact links with their predecessor, and act as event boundaries that interrupt the sequential integration of events. We captured these effects in a variant of the Context Maintenance and Retrieval model (CMR; Polyn, Norman, & Kahana, 2009), modified to incorporate RPEs into the encoding process.

Depressive symptoms bias the prediction-error enhancement of memory towards negative events in reinforcement learning.

RATIONALE: Depression is a disorder characterized by sustained negative affect and blunted positive affect, suggesting potential abnormalities in reward learning and its interaction with episodic memory. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated how reward prediction errors experienced during learning modulate memory for rewarding events in individuals with depressive and non-depressive symptoms. METHODS: Across three experiments, participants learned the average values of two scene categories in two learning contexts. Each learning context had either high or low outcome variance, allowing us to test the effects of small and large prediction errors on learning and memory. Participants were later tested for their memory of trial-unique scenes that appeared alongside outcomes. We compared learning and memory performance of individuals with self-reported depressive symptoms (N = 101) to those without (N = 184). RESULTS: Although there were no overall differences in reward learning between the depressive and non-depressive group, depression severity within the depressive group predicted greater error in estimating the values of the scene categories. Similarly, there were no overall differences in memory performance. However, in depressive participants, negative prediction errors enhanced episodic memory more so than did positive prediction errors, and vice versa for non-depressive participants who showed a larger effect of positive prediction errors on memory. These results reflected differences in memory both within group and across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with self-reported depressive symptoms showed relatively intact reinforcement learning, but demonstrated a bias for encoding events that accompanied surprising negative outcomes versus surprising positive ones. We discuss a potential neural mechanism supporting these effects, which may underlie or contribute to the excessive negative affect observed in depression.

Dissociable effects of surprising rewards on learning and memory.

Reward-prediction errors track the extent to which rewards deviate from expectations, and aid in learning. How do such errors in prediction interact with memory for the rewarding episode? Existing findings point to both cooperative and competitive interactions between learning and memory mechanisms. Here, we investigated whether learning about rewards in a high-risk context, with frequent, large prediction errors, would give rise to higher fidelity memory traces for rewarding events than learning in a low-risk context. Experiment 1 showed that recognition was better for items associated with larger absolute prediction errors during reward learning. Larger prediction errors also led to higher rates of learning about rewards. Interestingly we did not find a relationship between learning rate for reward and recognition-memory accuracy for items, suggesting that these two effects of prediction errors were caused by separate underlying mechanisms. In Experiment 2, we replicated these results with a longer task that posed stronger memory demands and allowed for more learning. We also showed improved source and sequence memory for items within the high-risk context. In Experiment 3, we controlled for the difficulty of reward learning in the risk environments, again replicating the previous results. Moreover, this control revealed that the high-risk context enhanced item-recognition memory beyond the effect of prediction errors. In summary, our results show that prediction errors boost both episodic item memory and incremental reward learning, but the two effects are likely mediated by distinct underlying systems. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does mental context drift or shift?

Theories of episodic memory have generally proposed that individual memory traces are linked together by a representation of context that drifts slowly over time. Recent data challenge the notion that contextual drift is always slow and passive. In particular, changes in one's external environment or internal model induce discontinuities in memory that are reflected in sudden changes in neural activity, suggesting that context can shift abruptly. Furthermore, context change effects are sensitive to top-down goals, suggesting that contextual drift may be an active process. These findings call for revising models of the role of context in memory, in order to account for abrupt contextual shifts and the controllable nature of context change.