Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Episodic memory is the type of memory that allows the recollection of personal experiences containing information on what has happened and, also, where and when it happened. Because of its sensitivity to neurodegenerative diseases and the aging of the brain, it is considered a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD). The objective of the present study was to examine episodic memory in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and ADD. Patients with the diagnosis of early aMCI, late aMCI, and mild ADD were evaluated using the Doors and People tool which consists of four subtests examining different aspects of episodic memory. The statistical analysis with receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) showed the discriminant potential and the cutoffs of every subtest. Overall, the evaluation of episodic memory with the Doors and People tool can discriminate with great sensitivity between the different groups of people with AD and, especially, early aMCI, late aMCI, and mild ADD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]