Despite large individual differences in memory performance, people remember certain stimuli with overwhelming consistency. This phenomenon is referred to as the memorability of an individual item. However, it remains unknown whether memorability also affects our ability to retrieve associations between items. Here, using a paired-associates verbal memory task, we combine behavioural data, computational modelling and direct recordings from the human brain to examine how memorability influences associative memory retrieval. We find that certain words are correctly retrieved across participants irrespective of the cues used to initiate memory retrieval. These words, which share greater semantic similarity with other words, are more readily available during retrieval and lead to more intrusions when retrieval fails. Successful retrieval of these memorable items, relative to less memorable ones, results in faster reinstatement of neural activity in the anterior temporal lobe. Collectively, our data reveal how the brain prioritizes certain information to facilitate memory retrieval.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Processed data used in this study can be found at https://neuroscience.nih.gov/ninds/zaghloul/downloads.html.
Custom code that supports the findings of this study is available from W.X. upon request.
Unsworth, N. Individual differences in long-term memory. Psychol. Bull. 145, 79–139 (2019).
Salthouse, T. A. Item analyses of memory differences. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 39, 326–335 (2017).
Rubin, D. C. Memorability as a measure of processing: a unit analysis of prose and list learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 114, 213–238 (1985).
Bainbridge, W. A., Isola, P. & Oliva, A. The intrinsic memorability of face photographs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 1323–1334 (2013).
Bainbridge, W. A., Dilks, D. D. & Oliva, A. Memorability: a stimulus-driven perceptual neural signature distinctive from memory. Neuroimage 149, 141–152 (2017).
Bylinskii, Z., Isola, P., Bainbridge, C., Torralba, A. & Oliva, A. Intrinsic and extrinsic effects on image memorability. Vision Res. 116, 165–178 (2015).
Bainbridge, W. A. Memorability: How what we see influences what we remember. in Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (eds Federmeier, K. D. & Beck, D. M.) 70, 1–27 (Elsevier, 2019).
Bainbridge, W. A. & Rissman, J. Dissociating neural markers of stimulus memorability and subjective recognition during episodic retrieval. Sci. Rep. 8, 8679 (2018).
Mohsenzadeh, Y., Mullin, C., Oliva, A. & Pantazis, D. The perceptual neural trace of memorable unseen scenes. Sci. Rep. 9, 6033 (2019).
Smith, S. M. Theoretical principles of context-dependent memory. in Theoretical Aspects of Memory (eds Gruneberg, M. & Morris, P. E.) 167–194 (Routledge, 2006).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Mood-dependent retrieval in visual long-term memory: dissociable effects on retrieval probability and mnemonic precision. Cogn. Emot. 32, 674–690 (2018).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Negative emotion enhances mnemonic precision and subjective feelings of remembering in visual long-term memory. Cognition 166, 73–83 (2017).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Negative emotion boosts quality of visual working memory representation. Emotion 16, 760–774 (2016).
Bainbridge, W. A., Hall, E. H. & Baker, C. I. Drawings of real-world scenes during free recall reveal detailed object and spatial information in memory. Nat. Commun. 10, 5 (2019).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Dissociations of the number and precision of visual short-term memory representations in change detection. Mem. Cogn. 45, 1423–1437 (2017).
Raaijmakers, J. G. & Shiffrin, R. M. Search of associative memory. Psychol. Rev. 88, 93–134 (1981).
Dehaene, S. et al. Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature 395, 597–600 (1998).
Hills, T. T., Jones, M. N. & Todd, P. M. Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychol. Rev. 119, 431–440 (2012).
Clark, S. E. & Gronlund, S. D. Global matching models of recognition memory: how the models match the data. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 3, 37–60 (1996).
Anderson, J. R. Rules of the Mind (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993).
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M. & Firl, A. Google and the mind: predicting fluency with PageRank. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1069–1076 (2007).
Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K. & Rogers, T. T. The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 42–55 (2017).
Burke, J. F. et al. Synchronous and asynchronous theta and gamma activity during episodic memory formation. J. Neurosci. 33, 292–304 (2013).
Long, N. M., Burke, J. F. & Kahana, M. J. Subsequent memory effect in intracranial and scalp EEG. Neuroimage 84, 488–494 (2014).
Spearman, C. Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br. J. Psychol. 3, 271–295 (1910).
Brown, W. Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. Br. J. Psychol. 3, 296–322 (1910).
Kuder, G. F. & Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika 2, 151–160 (1937).
Lu, H., Chen, D. & Holyoak, K. J. Bayesian analogy with relational transformations. Psychol. Rev. 119, 617–648 (2012).
Pennington, J., Socher, R. & Manning, C. D. GloVe: global vectors for word representation. In Proc. 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 1532–1543 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014).
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B. & Kuperman, V. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav. Res. Methods 46, 904–911 (2014).
Davies, M. & Gardner, D. A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English: Word Sketches, Collocates and Thematic Lists (Routledge, 2013).
Yaffe, R. B. et al. Reinstatement of distributed cortical oscillations occurs with precise spatiotemporal dynamics during successful memory retrieval. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 18727–18732 (2014).
Jang, A. I., Wittig, J. H. Jr, Inati, S. K. & Zaghloul, K. A. Human cortical neurons in the anterior temporal lobe reinstate spiking activity during verbal memory retrieval. Curr. Biol. 27, 1700–1705.e5 (2017).
Xie, W. & Zhang, W. Familiarity speeds up visual short-term memory consolidation: electrophysiological evidence from contralateral delay activities. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 1–13 (2018).
Kiesel, A., Miller, J., Jolicoeur, P. & Brisson, B. Measurement of ERP latency differences: a comparison of single-participant and jackknife-based scoring methods. Psychophysiology 45, 250–274 (2008).
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L. & Rubin, D. B. Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research: A Correlational Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Steiger, J. H. Beyond the F test: effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychol. Methods 9, 164–182 (2004).
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1932).
Landrum, R. E. & Gurung, R. A. R. The memorability of introductory psychology revisited. Teach. Psychol. 40, 222–227 (2013).
Lowrey, T. M. The relation between script complexity and commercial memorability. J. Advert. 35, 7–15 (2006).
Bainbridge, W. A. et al. Memorability of photographs in subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment: implications for cognitive assessment. Alzheimers Dement. (Amst.) 11, 610–618 (2019).
Rubin, D. C. & Friendly, M. Predicting which words get recalled: measures of free recall, availability, goodness, emotionality, and pronunciability for 925 nouns. Mem. Cogn. 14, 79–94 (1986).
Brown, J., Lewis, V. J. & Monk, A. F. Memorability, word frequency and negative recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 29, 461–473 (1977).
Sonkusare, S., Breakspear, M. & Guo, C. Naturalistic stimuli in neuroscience: critically acclaimed. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 699–714 (2019).
Gillund, G. & Shiffrin, R. M. A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychol. Rev. 91, 1–67 (1984).
Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M. & Jones, M. N. Foraging in semantic fields: how we search through memory. Top. Cogn. Sci. 7, 513–534 (2015).
Stewart, N., Chater, N. & Brown, G. D. A. Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol. 53, 1–26 (2006).
Sternberg, S. High-speed scanning in human memory. Science 153, 652–654 (1966).
Yaffe, R. B., Shaikhouni, A., Arai, J., Inati, S. K. & Zaghloul, K. A. Cued memory retrieval exhibits reinstatement of high gamma power on a faster timescale in the left temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 37, 4472–4480 (2017).
Machery, E. The amodal brain and the offloading hypothesis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1090–1095 (2016).
Martin, A. The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 25–45 (2007).
Martin, A. & Chao, L. L. Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11, 194–201 (2001).
Rice, G. E., Caswell, H., Moore, P., Hoffman, P. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. The roles of left versus right anterior temporal lobes in semantic memory: a neuropsychological comparison of postsurgical temporal lobe epilepsy patients. Cereb. Cortex 28, 1487–1501 (2018).
Vaz, A. P., Inati, S. K., Brunel, N. & Zaghloul, K. A. Coupled ripple oscillations between the medial temporal lobe and neocortex retrieve human memory. Science 363, 975–978 (2019).
Trotta, M. S. et al. Surface based electrode localization and standardized regions of interest for intracranial EEG. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 709–721 (2017).
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).
Wittig, J. H., Jang, A. I., Cocjin, J. B., Inati, S. K. & Zaghloul, K. A. Attention improves memory by suppressing spiking-neuron activity in the human anterior temporal lobe. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 808–810 (2018).
Chapeton, J. I., Haque, R., Wittig, J. H., Inati, S. K. & Zaghloul, K. A. Large-scale communication in the human brain is rhythmically modulated through alpha coherence. Curr. Biol. 29, 2801–2811.e5 (2019).
Bigdely-Shamlo, N., Mullen, T., Kothe, C., Su, K. M. & Robbins, K. A. The PREP pipeline: standardized preprocessing for large-scale EEG analysis. Front. Neuroinform. 9, 16 (2015).
Joshua, M., Elias, S., Levine, O. & Bergman, H. Quantifying the isolation quality of extracellularly recorded action potentials. J. Neurosci. Methods 163, 267–282 (2007).
Cohen, M. X. Analyzing Neural Time Series Data: Theory and Practice (MIT Press, 2014).
Miller, J., Ulrich, R. & Schwarz, W. Why jackknifing yields good latency estimates. Psychophysiology 46, 300–312 (2009).
Rosenthal, R. & Rubin, D. B. r equivalent: A simple effect size indicator. Psychol. Methods 8, 492–496 (2003).
Xie, W., Cappiello, M., Meng, M., Rosenthal, R. & Zhang, W. ADRA2B deletion variant and enhanced cognitive processing of emotional information: a meta-analytical review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 92, 402–416 (2018).
We thank A. Martin, J. H. Wittig Jr, V. Sreekumar, J. I. Chapeton, C. Zawora and A. Vaz for insightful comments on the project. This work was supported by Intramural Research programmes of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (ZIA-NS003144) and the National Institute of Mental Health (ZIA-MH002909). W.X. was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Competitive Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. We are indebted to all of the participants who selflessly volunteered their time to participate in this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Memorable words are retrieved more quickly but lead to more intrusion errors across individuals.
a, Participants’ values for Spearman correlation (Fisher’s z transformed) of the relationship between target word memorability estimates and the response times of retrieved words and b, average memorability of intruded words across participants in the iEEG sample. Each dot indicates a value from a single participant, with the whiskers indicating the within-participant standard error across trials. The dot sizes are weighted by the overall within-participant standard error, with a larger size indicating smaller variability. The data are sorted by participant-specific estimates separately for (a) and (b). The random-effect mean estimates (in red) and their standard errors (in green) between participants are plotted at the bottom, which are identical to the bars shown in Fig. 3. Although there is a noisy estimate in (a) due to a low trial count (11 trials), inclusion or exclusion of this participant’s data does not substantially impact the mean estimate and significant testing across participants.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Correlation estimates (Fisher’s z transformed) for the association between trial-by-trial memorability of correctly retrieved items and neural reinstatement in the ATL and PTL.
a, Data across participants in the ALT during the early retrieval time window. b, Data across participants in the ALT during the late retrieval time window. c, Data across participants in the PLT during the early retrieval time window. d, Data across participants in the PLT during the late retrieval time window. Each dot indicates a value from a single participant, with the whiskers indicating the within-participant standard error across trials. The dot sizes are weighted by the overall within-participant standard error, with a larger size indicating smaller variability. All data are sorted by participant-specific correlation estimates based on (a). The random-effect mean estimates (in red) and their standard errors (in green) across participants are marked at the bottom of each plot, which are identical to the bars shown in Fig. 6c.
a, Resampling without replacement of the current dataset over 100 interactions with 2 trials per condition (that is, 2 for correct and 2 for incorrect retrieval) per subject, b, 4 trials per condition per subject, c, 10 trials per condition per subject (10 trials), d, and all available trials for included subjects. Intuitively, the more trials were included, the less noisy the data were. When the number of resampling trials reached to 10, the amount of variance in the estimate of mean neural reinstatement pattern for correct responses was similar to the data from all available trials from all included participants. This resampling analysis provides some analytical support for the trial count criterion we have imposed on the analysis.
About this article
Cite this article
Xie, W., Bainbridge, W.A., Inati, S.K. et al. Memorability of words in arbitrary verbal associations modulates memory retrieval in the anterior temporal lobe. Nat Hum Behav 4, 937–948 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0901-2
Recognition Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves: The Complex Influence of Input Statistics, Memory, and Decision-making
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2021)
Behavior Research Methods (2021)
Image memorability is predicted by discriminability and similarity in different stages of a convolutional neural network
Learning & Memory (2020)
Working memory capacity predicts individual differences in social-distancing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020)