Mecklinger, A. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2023

Curiosity as an amplifier of reward-related feedback processing

Successful learning depends on various factors such as depth of processing, motivation, or curiosity about information. A strong drive to learn something or the expectation of receiving a reward can be crucial to enhance learning. However, the influence of curiosity on the processing of new information and its similarity with reward processing is not well understood. This study examined whether states of curiosity influence specific event-related-potentials (ERPs) associated with reward processing and whether these ERPs are related with later memory benefits. In an initial screening phase, participants indicated their curiosity and confidence in prior knowledge about answers to various trivia questions. In a subsequent study phase, we targeted different time windows related to reward processing during the presentation of trivia answers containing the Reward-Positivity (RewP; 250 - 350 ms), the P3 (250 - 500 ms), and the Late-Positive-Potential (LPP; 600 - 1000 ms). In a following surprise memory test, we found that participants recalled more high- than low-curiosity answers. The RewP, P3 and LPP showed greater positive mean amplitudes for high compared to low curiosity, reflecting increased reward processing. In addition, we found that the RewP and the P3 showed more positive mean amplitudes for later recalled compared to later forgotten answers, but curiosity did not modulate this encoding-related results. These findings support the view that the satisfaction of curiosity resembles reward processing, indicated by event-related-potentials.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2019

Usefulness of a familiarity signal during recognition depends on test format: Neurocognitive evidence for a core assumption of the CLS framework

Familiarity-based discrimination between studied target items and similar foils in yes/no recognition memory tests is relatively poor. According to the complementary learning systems (CLS) framework this is due do a relatively small difference in familiarity strength between these two item classes. The model, however, also predicts that when targets and corresponding similar foils are presented next to each other in a forced-choice corresponding (FCC) test format, familiarity values for targets and foils can be directly compared because in each trial, targets are reliably more familiar than their corresponding foils. In contrast, when forced-choice displays contain non-corresponding foils (FCNC) which are similar to other studied items (but not the target), familiarity should not be diagnostic because familiarity values are not directly comparable (as in yes/no-tasks). We compared ERP old/new effects (ERPs of targets vs. foils) when participants were tested with FCC vs. FCNC displays after having intentionally encoded pictures of objects. As predicted, the mid-frontal old/new effect which is associated with familiarity was significantly larger in FCC compared to FCNC displays. Moreover, the target-foil amplitude difference predicted the accuracy of the recognition judgment in a given trial. This is one of the very few studies which support the assumption of the CLS framework that the test format can influence the diagnosticity of familiarity. Moreover, it implies that the mid-frontal old/new effect does not reflect the mean difference in the familiarity signal itself between studied and non-studied items but reflects the task-adequate assessment of the familiarity signal.

neuroscience↗